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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 August 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyota (JP2020140918A; reference provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 31 Oct 2025 with references taken from the Examiner provided English Machine Translation) in view of Tanju et al (US7895001) in further view of Cano (US 6722399).
Regarding Claim 1, Toyota discloses a method for detecting any throttling losses in a hydrogen tank system (¶ 2; where the valve opening failure would throttle the hydrogen flow through the system thereby resulting is a throttling loss; ¶ 8), the method comprising:
- before access to the hydrogen tank system (¶ 25 discloses a stored lower limit threshold and an upper limit threshold), determining, at different measuring points in the hydrogen tank system, a course of pressure and temperature expected for the access without the throttling losses (¶ 25 with the expected course being within the threshold limits),
- recording the pressure and the temperature at the measuring points continuously during the access (¶ 22-23), and
- detecting the throttling losses on a case-by-case basis of the deviation of the pressure or the temperature from the expected course (¶ 25),
But fails to expressly disclose where the throttling losses are caused by a clogged filter or a deformed pipe, the hydrogen tank system including a plurality of groups of tanks, at least one group of the plurality of groups including a plurality of tanks, each measuring point corresponding to each of the plurality of groups and detecting the throttling losses corresponding to each of the plurality of groups.
Tanju et al teach a fluid system for determining a leak or clog where the clog is a clogged filter (Col 1, lines 58 – Col 2, line 13; Col 2, lines 45-47) by recording pressure data across valves (Col 1, lines 58 – Col 2, line 13) and therefore where the throttling losses are caused by a clogged filter (Col 4, lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Toyota with the function of determining a clogged filter as taught by Tanju et al for the advantage of allowing the opportunity for repair before full system failure, as taught by Tanju et al (Col 2, lines 47-50).
Cano teaches a hydrogen tank system (Figure 1) where the hydrogen tank system including a plurality of groups of tanks (each of the banks of tanks in Figure 1), at least one group of the plurality of groups including a plurality of tanks (each of the banks of tank of Figure 1 each have a plurality of tanks within each bank), each measuring point (disclosed in Toyota at ¶ 25 as discussed above) corresponding to each of the plurality of groups (each bank of Figure 1) and detecting the throttling losses (disclosed in Toyota at ¶ 25 as discussed above) corresponding to each of the plurality of groups (of banks of Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tanks of Toyota to include a plurality of groups of tanks, at least one group of the plurality of groups including a plurality of tanks since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to expand capacity of the system or introduce redundancy in the event that one group of tanks becomes inoperative.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank system of Toyota with the plurality of groups of tanks as taught by Cano for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the hydrogen tank structure of Cano within the system of Toyota) to yield predictable results (to store fluid within the tanks).
Regarding Claim 2, Toyota discloses where:
- the hydrogen tank system (Figure 1) comprises several tanks (TK1 to TK10; ¶ 11), which have the measuring points (at least temperature sensors Ts1 to Ts10), and
- the expected course (¶ 25 with the expected course being within the threshold limits) is determined for each of the tanks (¶ 25), and
- the throttling losses (as a result of the disclosed valve failure; ¶ 28) are limited to certain pipes within the hydrogen tank system (Figure 1) based on the measuring points affected by the deviation (¶ 28).
Regarding Claim 3, Toyota disclose where:
- an initial temperature and a fill level of the tanks (¶ 27) are determined before access (¶ 25) and
- the expected course (¶ 23, 25 and 27) is determined depending on the initial temperature and the fill level (¶ 27).
Regarding Claim 6, Toyota discloses where:
- the detected throttling losses are noted in a fault memory (¶ 28) or
- the detected throttling losses are displayed to an operator of the hydrogen tank system (¶ 28).
Regarding Claim 7, Toyota discloses where:
- the deviation is detected if the pressure or temperature falls below a predetermined threshold value after a certain duration of access (¶ 23), or
- the deviation is detected if the pressure or temperature rises or falls less than expected during access (¶ 23).
Regarding Claim 9, Toyota discloses a machine-readable, computer-readable medium containing instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to detect throttling losses in a hydrogen tank system (¶ 2; where the valve opening failure would throttle the hydrogen flow through the system thereby resulting is a throttling loss via 300; ¶ 8), by
before access to the hydrogen tank system (¶ 25 discloses a stored lower limit threshold and an upper limit threshold), determining, at different measuring points in the hydrogen tank system (Figure 1 at sensors Ts1 thru Ts10 and pressure sensors 115 and 215_), an expected course of pressure and temperature expected for the access without the throttling losses (¶ 25),
recording the pressure and the temperature at the measuring points continuously during the access (¶ 22-23), and
detecting the throttling losses (¶ 25) based on deviation of the pressure or the temperature from the expected course (¶ 25),
But fails to expressly disclose where the throttling losses are caused by a clogged filter or a deformed pipe, the hydrogen tank system including a plurality of groups of tanks, at least one group of the plurality of groups including a plurality of tanks, each measuring point corresponding to each of the plurality of groups and detecting the throttling losses corresponding to each of the plurality of groups.
Tanju et al teach a fluid system for determining a leak or clog where the clog is a clogged filter (Col 1, lines 58 – Col 2, line 13; Col 2, lines 45-47) by recording pressure data across valves (Col 1, lines 58 – Col 2, line 13) and therefore where the throttling losses are caused by a clogged filter (Col 4, lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Toyota with the function of determining a clogged filter as taught by Tanju et al for the advantage of allowing the opportunity for repair before full system failure, as taught by Tanju et al (Col 2, lines 47-50).
Cano teaches a hydrogen tank system (Figure 1) where the hydrogen tank system including a plurality of groups of tanks (each of the banks of tanks in Figure 1), at least one group of the plurality of groups including a plurality of tanks (each of the banks of tank of Figure 1 each have a plurality of tanks within each bank), each measuring point (disclosed in Toyota at ¶ 25 as discussed above) corresponding to each of the plurality of groups (each bank of Figure 1) and detecting the throttling losses (disclosed in Toyota at ¶ 25 as discussed above) corresponding to each of the plurality of groups (of banks of Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tanks of Toyota to include a plurality of groups of tanks, at least one group of the plurality of groups including a plurality of tanks since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to expand capacity of the system or introduce redundancy in the event that one group of tanks becomes inoperative.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank system of Toyota with the plurality of groups of tanks as taught by Cano for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the hydrogen tank structure of Cano within the system of Toyota) to yield predictable results (to store fluid within the tanks).
Regarding Claim 10, Toyota, as modified by Tanju et al and Cano teach a device (Figure 1 generally) configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyota (JP2020140918A; reference provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 31 Oct 2025 with references taken from the Examiner provided English Machine Translation) in view of Tanju et al (US 7895001) in further view of Cano (US 6722399) in further view of Choi (US 20230187666).
Regarding Claim 4, Toyota, as modified by Tanju et al and Cano teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where access is an emptying of the hydrogen tank system and determining the expected course is based on a mass flow during emptying and an ambient temperature of the hydrogen tank system.
Choi teaches a hydrogen tank monitoring system, where, access is an emptying of the hydrogen tank system (¶ 68 with the valve opened and the system started) and the determination of the expected course is based on a mass flow during emptying (¶ 53) and an ambient temperature (¶ 49) of the hydrogen tank system (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Toyota with the access and expected course as taught by Choi for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (measuring a fault in a hydrogen system during emptying using mass flow and ambient temperature) to yield predictable results (to measure a state of the hydrogen fuel system).
Regarding Claim 5, Toyota as modified by Tanju et al and Cano teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where after containment, the tanks affected by the throttling losses are at least temporarily taken out of operation.
Choi teaches a hydrogen tank monitoring system, where, when a fault is detected, the tanks affected by the throttling losses are at least temporarily taken out of operation (¶ 26 by preventing the system from starting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Toyota with the method as taught by Choi for the advantage of protecting the system and environment during periods of component failure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights