DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 2-3, 6-7, 12-13 and 16-17.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the claim amendments, see pages 10-12 of the Remarks, filed 15 December 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 15 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 on pages 8-10:
Applicant argued that (i) receiving a current state measurement, (ii) determining based on the current state measurement value a first control command for a pressure ramp rate (PRR), (iii) determining a difference between the current state measurement value and a first prediction value predicted for a first time period based on a previous state measurement value of the CHSS acquired by the at least one sensor for the first time period, and (iv) determining, based on the difference between the current state measurement value and a first prediction value, whether a second control command for adjusting a target value of a precooling temperature of a hydrogen storing tank in a hydrogen fueling station or cooling the CHSS of the hydrogen fueled mobility is needed in addition to the first control command are improvements to the functioning of a computer and the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. However, each of the above listed method steps are abstract ideas as identified in the 101 rejection below.
Applicant is reminded that abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). Both Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B require an additional element, not an abstract idea, to provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). See Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC (Fed Cir 2016). Here, the limitations “(i) receiving a current state measurement, (ii) determining based on the current state measurement value a first control command for a pressure ramp rate (PRR), (iii) determining a difference between the current state measurement value and a first prediction value predicted for a first time period based on a previous state measurement value of the CHSS acquired by the at least one sensor for the first time period, and (iv) determining, based on the difference between the current state measurement value and a first prediction value, whether a second control command for adjusting a target value of a precooling temperature of a hydrogen storing tank in a hydrogen fueling station or cooling the CHSS of the hydrogen fueled mobility is needed in addition to the first control command” are abstract ideas and not additional elements. The additional elements of generating commands (claims 4-5, 8-10, 14-15 and 18-20), a processor (claim 11), a memory (claim 11), and at least one sensor arrangement in the hydrogen fueled mobility (claims 1 and 11) are merely generically recited computer elements used as tools for executing the abstract ideas or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(a), wherein “[i]t is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.”
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about “generating the second control command upon determining the second control command is needed,” this limitation is contingent and does not occur in every instance of the claim. If the requirement for the generation of the second control command is not met, then the second control command is not generated and the step is not required to be performed (See MPEP 2111.04). Moreover, the determination whether the second control command is needed is an evaluation or judgment, which is grouped as a mental process. The generation of the second control command is deemed to generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, each of the determining steps (ii, iii, and iv) are drawn to abstract ideas and a mathematical concept that a person can complete. The claims do not fully claim a hydrogen fueling station and its components, rather it is drawn to the steps completed on a computer to generate signals that have the intended use to control the fueling to a hydrogen fueled mobility. There is no step recited in the claims that causes the intended use of the first and second control commands to actually control part of the hydrogen fueling station.
Applicant argued at the bottom of page 9 of the Remarks that the additional element/combination of elements is “linked to a particular technological environment” which includes controlling the hydrogen fueling of a hydrogen fueling mobility by using the sensor to measure a current state, controlling a pressure ramp rate based on the current state, and controlling precooling of a fuel station or cooling of a mobility tank. Top of page 10 of the Remarks state that the invention is directed to bi-directional communication for transmitting real-time data between a dispenser and a mobility and between the dispenser and a hydrogen fueling station. Each of the example controlling steps and the bi-directional communication are not commensurate in scope with the current claims. As stated above, the claims do not fully claim the hydrogen fueling station or how the components are controlled within the station based on the first and second control commands. However, if claims 1 and 11 were amended to positively recite one or more of those controlling steps, those claims would likely be eligible.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection will be maintained for independent clams 1 and 11 and their respective dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, 14-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of the claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, 14-15 and 18-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Each of Claims 1, 4-5 and 8-10 is directed to a method or process. Each of claims 11, 14-15, and 18-20 is directed to an apparatus or a machine. As such, each of Claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, 14-15 and 18-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, 14-15 and 18-20 recites an apparatus or method for controlling hydrogen fueling for hydrogen fueled mobility, including judging whether or not a second control command is needed for at least one of a hydrogen fueling station or the hydrogen fueled mobility according to a determination result.
Specifically, independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) recites a method of integratively controlling hydrogen fueling for a hydrogen fueled mobility that comprises:
receiving a current state measurement value from the arranged in the hydrogen fueled mobility (additional element), of a compressed hydrogen storage system (CHSS) of the hydrogen fueled mobility (acquiring a current state measurement value is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, namely a rule or instruction followable by a human, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity; and/or an observation, which is grouped as a mental process);
determining, based on the current state measurement value, a first control command for a pressure ramp rate (PRR) for hydrogen fueling executed on a dispenser (making a judgement or evaluation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process) ;
determining a difference between the current state measurement value and a first prediction value predicted for a first time period based on a previous state measurement value of the CHSS acquired by the at least one sensor for the first time period (mathematical calculation, which is grouped as a mathematical concept);
determining, based on the difference between the current state measurement value and a first prediction value, whether a second control command for adjusting a target value of a precooling temperature of a hydrogen storing tank in a hydrogen fueling station or cooling the CHSS of the hydrogen fueled mobility is needed in addition to the first control command (making a judgement or evaluation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process); and
generating the second control command (additional element) upon determining that the second control command is needed (making a judgement or evaluation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process).
Additionally, independent Claim 11 (and its dependent claims) recites a hydrogen fueling control apparatus for integratively controlling hydrogen fueling for a hydrogen fueled mobility that comprises:
the hydrogen fueling control apparatus (additional element) comprising:
a processor (additional element); and
a memory configured to store at least one program instruction (additional element),
wherein the processor executes the at least one program instruction (additional element) is configured to:
receive, from the at least one sensor arranged in the hydrogen fueled mobility (additional element),a current state measurement value of a compressed hydrogen storage system (CHSS) of the hydrogen fueled mobility (acquiring a current state measurement value is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, namely a rule or instruction followable by a human, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity; and/or an observation, which is grouped as a mental process);
determine, based on the current state measurement value, a first control command for a pressure ramp rate (PRR) for hydrogen fueling executed on a dispenser (making a judgement or evaluation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process);
determine a difference between the current state measurement value and a first prediction value predicted for a first time period based on a previous state measurement value of the CHSS acquired by the at least one sensor for the first time period (mathematical calculation, which is grouped as a mathematical concept);
determine, based on the difference between the current state measurement value and a first prediction value, whether a second control command for adjusting a target value of a precooling temperature of a hydrogen storing tank in a hydrogen fueling station or cooling the CHSS of the hydrogen fueled mobility is needed in addition to the first control command (making a judgement or evaluation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process); and
generating the second control command (additional element) upon determining that the second control command is needed (making a judgement or evaluation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process).
As indicated above, each of independent claims 1 and 11 recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Further, dependent claims 4-5 and 8-10 as well as 14-15 and 18-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
As identified above, independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims 4-5 and 8-10 include the additional element of generating commands (claims 1, 4-5 and 8-10) and at least one sensor arranged in the hydrogen fueled mobility (claim 1). Independent claim 11 and its respective dependent claims 14-15 and 18-20 include generating commands (claims 11, 14-15 and 18-20) and a processor (claim 11), a memory (claim 11), and at least one sensor arranged in the hydrogen fueled mobility (claim 11). Per Applicant’s specification, the hydrogen fueling control apparatus is nothing more than a general purpose computer (e.g., paragraphs [00230], [00233-00235], and [00239] of Applicant’s specification).
The above-identified abstract ideas in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent Claims 4-5 and 8-10) and independent claim 11 (and its respective dependent claims 14-15 and 18-20) are not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). The above-identified abstract idea in independent claims 1 and 11 and their respective dependent claims 4-5 and 8-10 as well as 14-15 and 18-20 is not integrated into a practical application because these claims include no additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these claims recite any additional elements that serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, none of these claims recite any additional elements that add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the claimed apparatus or method amounts to simply implementing the above-identified abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1 and 11 and their respective dependent claims 4-5 and 8-10 as well as 14-15 and 18-20 are not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1 and 11 (and their respective dependent claims 4-5 and 8-9 as well as 14-15 and 18-20) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, each of Claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, 14-15, and 18-20 is directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d)
Step 2B
None of Claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, 14-15, and 18-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
As identified above, independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims 4-5 and 8-10 include the additional element of generating commands (claims 1, 4-5 and 8-10) and at least one sensor arranged in the hydrogen fueled mobility. Independent claim 11 and its respective dependent claims 14-15 and 18-20 include generating commands (claims 11, 14-15 and 18-20) and a processor, a memory, and at least one sensor arranged in the hydrogen fueled mobility.
Applicant’s specification in paragraph [0084] states that the high-pressure hydrogen storage tank is widely known. Applicant’s specification in paragraphs [0072], [0085], and [0090] state that mechanical configurations of devices for hydrogen fueling may be similar to conventional devices. The at least one sensor arranged in the hydrogen fueled mobility is considered to be part of the conventional devices.
The hydrogen fueling control apparatus is nothing more than a general purpose computer (e.g., paragraphs [00230], [00233-00235], and [00239] of Applicant’s specification, wherein the hydrogen fueling control apparatus may be implemented in a form of a computing system). In other words, the hydrogen fueling control apparatus (the claimed “the hydrogen fueling control apparatus” in independent claim 11 identified above and claim 1 for the generating step) are used to implement the above-identified abstract idea (e.g. mental process, mathematical concepts, and method of organizing human activity).
Additionally, as claimed, the control unit merely performs the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, storing and sending data, and (ii) automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per paragraphs [00230], [00233-00235], and [00239] of the Applicant’s specification, the hydrogen fueling control apparatus is described as a form of computing system that can be any data processing device which includes a memory and a processor electronically connected to the memory that stores program instructions to acquire a current state measurement, determine whether a second control command is needed, generate a second control command according to a determination result, and generate a first control command.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the term “the hydrogen fueling control apparatus” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device (i.e., a control unit as described in paragraphs [00230], [00233-00235], and [00239] and claimed as the processor and memory) which implements the claimed acquiring, determining, and generating commands identified above. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves (generic recitation of a control unit or no recitation of a control unit) and the specification (does not disclose specific structure of the control units), that the control units require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the above-identified steps of the claimed apparatus and process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the sensor, processor or memory to operate. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph since this hardware (i.e. sensor, processor and memory) performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computing arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware (i.e. sensor, processor and memory) is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computing industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the control unit because it describes the control unit in a manner that indicates that the control unit is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I))).
The above-identified limitations of claims 1-20 amount to implementing the above-identified abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the hydrogen fueling control apparatus as described in paragraphs [00230], [00233-00235], and [00239] of Applicant’s specification). Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and method of organizing human activity of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See, MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, 14-15 and 18-20 are directed to applying the above-identified abstract idea on a computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR) according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). In other words, none of claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, 14-15 and 18-20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, 14-15 and 18-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, 14-15 and 18-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “generating the first control command based on a simulation result and an on-site actual data for the current state measurement value” in lines 3-4 of the claim. The specification submitted 2 May 2024 states that the first control command is generated based on the current state measurement value and the operation of the first control command may be based on (Paragraphs [0025-0027]). Claim 1 has support from Figure 15 which is an integrated control method for the hydrogen fueling according to an exemplary embodiment (Paragraph [00220]). The limitation is unclear if the two methods can be combined as there is no explicit language within the specification that allows for the combination of embodiments. The generation of the first control command is based on the current state measurement (Paragraph [00226]) for claim 1 whereas claim 8 uses the artificial neural network to determine control scheme the control command (Paragraphs [00153-00155]). The Office recommends amending the claim to recite the method from one of the embodiments. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as the embodiments can be combined.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “predicting, based on at least one output of an artificial neural network receiving the current measurement value as an input, at least one second prediction value of at least one next state of the CHSS of the hydrogen fueled mobility for a second time period, and wherein generating the first control command comprises: generating the first control command by using a model predictive control technique based on the current state measurement value and the at least one second prediction value” in lines 2-7 of the claim. The specification submitted 2 May 2024 states that Figure 5, which is aligned with the method steps seen in claim 9, is a flow chart illustrating a hydrogen fueling control based on a model predictive control according to an exemplary embodiment of the disclosure (Paragraph [0134]). Claim 1 has support from Figure 15 which is an integrated control method for the hydrogen fueling according to an exemplary embodiment (Paragraph [00220]). The limitation is unclear if the two methods can be combined as there is no explicit language within the specification that allows for the combination of embodiments. The generation of the first control command is based on the current state measurement (Paragraph [00226]) for claim 1 whereas claim 9 uses the artificial neural network to determine a model predictive control to generate the control command (Paragraphs [00140-00142]). It is not clear how the generation of the first control command is completed when it appears that the two methods cannot be combined. The Office recommends amending the claim to recite the method from one of the embodiments. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as the embodiments can be combined.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “generate the first control command based on a simulation result and an on-site actual data for the current state measurement value” in lines 2-3 of the claim. The specification submitted 2 May 2024 states that the first control command is generated based on the current state measurement value and the operation of the first control command may be based on (Paragraphs [0025-0027]). Claim 11 has support from Figure 15 which is an integrated control method for the hydrogen fueling according to an exemplary embodiment (Paragraph [00220]). The limitation is unclear if the two methods can be combined as there is no explicit language within the specification that allows for the combination of embodiments. The generation of the first control command is based on the current state measurement (Paragraph [00226]) for claim 11 whereas claim 18 uses the artificial neural network to determine control scheme the control command (Paragraphs [00153-00155]). The Office recommends amending the claim to recite the method from one of the embodiments. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as the embodiments can be combined.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “predict, based on at least one output of an artificial neural network receiving the current measurement value as an input, at least one second prediction value of at least one next state of the CHSS of the hydrogen fueled mobility for a second time period, and wherein generating the first control command comprises: generate the first control command by using a model predictive control technique based on the current state measurement value and the at least one second prediction value” in lines 3-7 of the claim. The specification submitted 2 May 2024 states that Figure 5, which is aligned with the method steps seen in claim 19, is a flow chart illustrating a hydrogen fueling control based on a model predictive control according to an exemplary embodiment of the disclosure (Paragraph [0134]). Claim 11 has support from Figure 15 which is an integrated control method for the hydrogen fueling according to an exemplary embodiment (Paragraph [00220]). The limitation is unclear if the two methods can be combined as there is no explicit language within the specification that allows for the combination of embodiments. The generation of the first control command is based on the current state measurement (Paragraph [00226]) for claim 11 whereas claim 19 uses the artificial neural network to determine a model predictive control to generate the control command (Paragraphs [00140-00142]). It is not clear how the generation of the first control command is completed when it appears that the two methods cannot be combined. The Office recommends amending the claim to recite the method from one of the embodiments. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as the embodiments can be combined.
Prior Art
As of currently, none of the prior art of record teach in combination the limitations seen in independent clams 1 and 11. Each of the independent claims and respective dependent are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
A full determination of allowability cannot be made until the claims overcome the rejections as they are currently drawn to an abstract idea.
The closest pieces of prior art are Heo (KR 20210090059 A) in view of Chae (KR 20210122622 A) in further view of He (EP 3855062 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Heo discloses a hydrogen gas filling device with a method of integratively controlling hydrogen fueling for a hydrogen fueled mobility, comprising:
receiving, from at least one sensor (130, Figure 2) arranged in the hydrogen fueled mobility, a current state measurement value of a compressed hydrogen storage system (CHSS) (Paragraph [0053], the vehicle sends information regarding the measurement of the pressure and temperature to the dispenser) of the hydrogen fueled mobility (100, Figure 2);
determining, based on the current state measurement value, a first control command for a pressure ramp rate (PRR) for hydrogen fueling executed (Paragraphs [0075-0076], the control unit of the dispenser controls the rate of gas being charged into the vehicle and controls the signal sent for the flow of hydrogen) on a dispenser (200, Figure 2, the hydrogen gas charging device is the dispenser);
a second control command (Paragraph [0061], the second control command is the signal to cool the tank of the vehicle) for adjusting a target value of a precooling temperature of a hydrogen storing tank in a hydrogen fueling station or cooling the CHSS of the hydrogen fueled mobility is needed in addition to the first control command; and
generating the second control command upon determining that the second control command is needed (Paragraphs [0021] and [0083], the second command is given once the first threshold is exceeded in the determination step).
Chae teaches a system for providing hydrogen fueling protocol using real-time communication data, comprising:
receiving, from at least one sensor (Paragraph [0023], there are pressure and temperature sensors) arranged in the hydrogen fueled mobility (100, Figure 1), a current state measurement value of a compressed hydrogen storage system (CHSS) (Paragraph [0023], the vehicle sends information regarding the CHSS to the dispenser) of the hydrogen fueled mobility (100, Figure 1);
determining, based on the current state measurement value, a first control command for a pressure ramp rate (PRR) for hydrogen fueling (Paragraph [0044], using the current state measurements the PRR is calculated and the first control command is executed to dispense hydrogen) executed on a dispenser (300, Figure 1); and
determining based on the difference between the current state measurement value and the first prediction value (Paragraphs [0042-0044], the first control command is the first pressure ramp rate and the second command is the adjusted pressure ramp rate where the difference is between the safety threshold values and the determined mass flow rate, pressure, and temperature).
He teaches a hydrogen fueling control device, comprising:
determining, based on the current state measurement value, a first control command for a pressure ramp rate (PRR) for hydrogen fueling (Paragraph [0061], using the current state measurements calculations are made and a difference is found for the required filling rate which is used to fill a tank).
The prior art does not disclose or make obvious:
determining a difference between the current state measurement value and a first prediction value predicted for a first time period based on a previous state measurement value of the CHSS acquired by the at least one sensor for the first time period; and
determining, based on the difference between the current state measurement value and the first prediction value, whether a second control command for adjusting a target value of a precooling temperature of a hydrogen storing tank in a hydrogen fueling station or cooling the CHSS of the hydrogen fueled mobility is needed in addition to the first control command.
The closest pieces of prior art are Heo (KR 20210090059 A) in view of Chae (KR 20210122622 A) in further view of He (EP 3855062 A1) and Mathison (US 20190184847 A1).
Regarding Claim 11:
Heo discloses a hydrogen gas filling device with a method of integratively controlling hydrogen fueling for a hydrogen fueled mobility, comprising:
receive, from at least one sensor (130, Figure 2) arranged in the hydrogen fueled mobility, a current state measurement value of a compressed hydrogen storage system (CHSS) (Paragraph [0053], the vehicle sends information regarding the measurement of the pressure and temperature to the dispenser) of the hydrogen fueled mobility (100, Figure 2);
determine, based on the current state measurement value, a first control command for a pressure ramp rate (PRR) for hydrogen fueling executed (Paragraphs [0075-0076], the control unit of the dispenser controls the rate of gas being charged into the vehicle and controls the signal sent for the flow of hydrogen) on a dispenser (200, Figure 2, the hydrogen gas charging device is the dispenser);
a second control command (Paragraph [0061], the second control command is the signal to cool the tank of the vehicle) for adjusting a target value of a precooling temperature of a hydrogen storing tank in a hydrogen fueling station or cooling the CHSS of the hydrogen fueled mobility is needed in addition to the first control command; and
generating the second control command upon determining that the second control command is needed (Paragraphs [0021] and [0083], the second command is given once the first threshold is exceeded in the determination step).
Chae teaches a system for providing hydrogen fueling protocol using real-time communication data, comprising:
receive, from at least one sensor (Paragraph [0023], there are pressure and temperature sensors) arranged in the hydrogen fueled mobility (100, Figure 1), a current state measurement value of a compressed hydrogen storage system (CHSS) (Paragraph [0023], the vehicle sends information regarding the CHSS to the dispenser) of the hydrogen fueled mobility (100, Figure 1);
determine, based on the current state measurement value, a first control command for a pressure ramp rate (PRR) for hydrogen fueling (Paragraph [0044], using the current state measurements the PRR is calculated and the first control command is executed to dispense hydrogen) executed on a dispenser (300, Figure 1); and
determine based on the difference between the current state measurement value and the first prediction value (Paragraphs [0042-0044], the first control command is the first pressure ramp rate and the second command is the adjusted pressure ramp rate where the difference is between the safety threshold values and the determined mass flow rate, pressure, and temperature).
He teaches a hydrogen fueling control device, comprising:
determine, based on the current state measurement value, a first control command for a pressure ramp rate (PRR) for hydrogen fueling (Paragraph [0061], using the current state measurements calculations are made and a difference is found for the required filling rate which is used to fill a tank).
Mathison teaches a system for dispensing hydrogen, comprising:
a hydrogen fueling control apparatus (150, Figure 1);
a processor (152, Figure 1); and
a memory (154, Figure 1) configured to store at least one program instruction (Paragraph [0033]), and
wherein the processor (152, Figure 1) executes the at least one program instruction (Paragraph [0033]).
The prior art does not disclose or make obvious:
determine a difference between the current state measurement value and a first prediction value predicted for a first time period based on a previous state measurement value of the CHSS acquired by the at least one sensor for the first time period; and
determine, based on the difference between the current state measurement value and the first prediction value, whether a second control command for adjusting a target value of a precooling temperature of a hydrogen storing tank in a hydrogen fueling station or cooling the CHSS of the hydrogen fueled mobility is needed in addition to the first control command.
For both claims 1 and 11, the limitation “generating the second control command upon determining that the second control command is needed” is considered to be a contingent limitation where the step of the method is not performed until the decision is made that the second control command is needed (See MPEP 2111.04).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mori (US 8662115 B2) teaches a gas fuel station comprising a simulation result, hydrogen, a hydrogen fueled mobility, acquiring a current state value, and a control device.
Handa 3 (US 12297962 B2) teaches a gas filling method comprising a simulation result, hydrogen, a hydrogen fueled mobility, acquiring a current state value, and a control device.
Takano (US 20150153005 A1) teaches a gas filling apparatus comprising teaches a hydrogen fueled mobility, a hydrogen fueling control apparatus, acquiring a current state value, and calculates relative error using an estimated volume and an acquired volume.
Handa (US 20190086032 A1) teaches a gas filling method comprising a hydrogen fueled mobility, a hydrogen fueling control apparatus, acquiring a current state value, and adjusting the flow rate based on a comparison result.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES whose telephone number is (571)272-5373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753