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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on November 6, 2025. Claims 1-5 have been amended. Claims 6-7 have been added. Claims 1-7 are now pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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 7 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 7, Applicant claims:
7. (New) The method for analyzing hydrogen refueling action of a fuel cell vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the average hydrogen consumption is related to different vehicle models, a transport operation load, ambient temperatures, and respective technical differences.
This limitation is not supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, and is considered new matter. Corrective action is required.
In order to overcome the new matter rejections above, the Examiner requires applicant to cancel or remove the cited new matter, or to traverse this rejection with a detailed explanation of their position, including paragraph citations and/or drawing figures of how the cited limitations are fully supported by applicant‘s original disclosure.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for analyzing hydrogen refueling action of a fuel cell vehicle, comprising:
extracting a structural design parameter set of a hydrogen system of the fuel cell vehicle and a driving data set (A1) of the fuel cell vehicle in a preset time period; (the claimed extracting, as best understood, is equivalent to downloading, receiving or otherwise acquiring data from a generic computer memory, a well-known computer process.)
extracting a hydrogen refueling data set (A2) related to the hydrogen refueling action of the fuel cell vehicle based on the driving data set (A1); (the claimed extracting, as best understood, includes parsing or segregating data in a database, a well-known computer process.)
identifying, based on the hydrogen refueling data set (A2), an occurrence of the hydrogen refueling action of the fuel cell vehicle by using a preset logical judgement condition, and determining respective data rows before and after hydrogen refueling of the fuel cell vehicle; (the claimed identifying, as best understood, includes data processing steps that are considered an abstract mental process performable by any generic general purpose computer, or by one of ordinary skill, by hand.)
wherein the preset logical judgement condition is: P_m>P_m-a+B, wherein B is a preset pressure change threshold before and after the hydrogen refueling, P m is a pressure of a hydrogen storage cylinder of the fuel cell vehicle in an m-th row of data, and P m-a is a pressure of the hydrogen storage cylinder of the fuel cell vehicle in an (m-a)th row of data; the preset logical judgement condition is that the hydrogen refueling action of the fuel cell vehicle occurs when a pressure variation in a hydrogen storage tank of the fuel cell vehicle in neighboring data rows exceeds the preset pressure change threshold before and after the hydrogen refueling; (these limitations merely further limit the specifics for data that is extracted/identified/calculated, and does not provide any meaningful practical application or unreasonable skill to perform the abstract data analysis steps outlined above.)
obtaining attribute change values of the fuel cell vehicle after the occurrence of the hydrogen refueling action of the fuel cell vehicle by using the respective data rows, and calculating hydrogen refueling mass of the fuel cell vehicle; (the claimed obtaining, as best understood, includes data processing steps that are considered an abstract mental process performable by any generic general purpose computer, or by one of ordinary skill, by hand.)
calculating a first hydrogen refueling feature set of the fuel cell vehicle based on all hydrogen refueling action data in the hydrogen refueling data set (A2); (the claimed calculating, as best understood, includes data processing steps that are considered an abstract mental process performable by any generic general purpose computer, or by one of ordinary skill, by hand.)
obtaining a second hydrogen refueling feature set corresponding to all hydrogen refueling actions in the hydrogen refueling data set (A2) based on the hydrogen refueling mass and the first hydrogen refueling feature set of the fuel cell vehicle, (the claimed obtaining, as best understood, includes data processing steps that are considered an abstract mental process performable by any generic general purpose computer, or by one of ordinary skill, by hand.)
and obtaining hydrogen refueling action features corresponding to driving of the fuel cell vehicle in the preset time period by plotting; (the claimed plotting is not described in Applicant disclosure, and therefore includes the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, to include the process of creating graphs and/or charts to visually represent a dataset, revealing relationships between variables and facilitating understanding. Accordingly, this includes data processing steps that are considered an abstract mental process performable by any generic general purpose computer, or by one of ordinary skill, by hand.)
wherein the structural design parameter set of the hydrogen system of the fuel cell vehicle includes at least a count of hydrogen storage tanks (n_tank), a nominal water volume of the hydrogen storage tanks (V_tank), and a nominal operating pressure of the hydrogen storage tanks; the hydrogen refueling data set (A2) of the hydrogen refueling action of the fuel cell includes at least an information sending time, an accumulated mileage, a highest temperature in the hydrogen system, and a highest hydrogen pressure; the first hydrogen refueling feature set of the fuel cell vehicle includes at least a pressure of the hydrogen storage tank before the hydrogen refueling of the fuel cell vehicle, a pressure of the hydrogen storage tank after the hydrogen refueling of the fuel cell vehicle, a temperature of the hydrogen storage tank before the hydrogen refueling of the fuel cell vehicle, and a temperature of the hydrogen storage tank after the hydrogen refueling of the fuel cell vehicle; and the second hydrogen refueling feature set includes at least a hydrogen refueling interval distance, an hydrogen refueling interval time of the hydrogen refueling, a count of hydrogen refuelings, the hydrogen refueling mass, and an average hydrogen consumption; (these limitations merely further limit the specifics for data that is extracted/identified/calculated, and does not provide any meaningful practical application or unreasonable skill to perform the abstract data analysis steps outlined above.)
and generating a geographical location planning or a hydrogen refueling quota of a hydrogen refueling station based on the hydrogen refueling action features corresponding to driving of the fuel cell vehicle in the preset time period. (the claimed generating includes data processing steps that are considered an abstract mental process performable by any generic general purpose computer, or by one of ordinary skill, by hand.)
The Supreme Court has “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: [l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Inti, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In issues involving subject matter eligibility, our inquiry focuses on whether the claims satisfy the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 216—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). This framework considers, in the first step, whether the claim at issue is “directed to” one of those ineligible concepts. Id. If not, the claim satisfies § 101. Id. If the claim is “directed to” one of those ineligible concepts, we proceed to the second step, where we “consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79). The Supreme Court characterizes the second step as “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72—73) (alteration in original). “[Merely requiring] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 221.
On January 7, 2019, the PTO issued revised guidance on the application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (hereinafter “2019 Guidance”). The 2019 Guidance includes steps 2A and 2B. Under Step 2A, Prong One, of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). If a claim recites a judicial exception, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two, in which we determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)—(c), (e)-(h)). Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate that exception into a practical application, do we proceed to Step 2B of the guidance. At Step 2B, we determine if the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or simply appends well understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See 2019 Guidance.
Applying Step 1 of the Alice Analysis, the claims are understood to be directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, and therefore we proceed to step 2A.
Applying Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice analysis, claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea (mental processes). Claim 1 is directed to a method of extracting data for a plurality of data analysis steps to produce a result. Claim 1 does not claim any steps that cannot be performed mentally by one of ordinary skill in the art and/or is purely mathematically abstract in nature, but is merely performed on a generic computer, and therefore falls within the “mental processes” grouping. See 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Because we conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applying Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice analysis, we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not “directed to” the judicial exception.
Apart from the extracting, identifying, obtaining, calculating and plotting data analysis steps of the abstract idea above, there are no additional elements claimed. Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite any limitation that even generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the language itself of claim 1 does not reflect an improvement in any particular technical field or technology. There is also no evidence that the claimed system recites an improvement to the functioning of the “computer system” itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Claim 1 also does not appear to use a judicial exception in conjunction with any particular machine. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, and we proceed to Step 2B.
Applying Step 2B of the Alice analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extrasolution activity. Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Dependent claims 2-7 have been evaluated in a similar manner, and do not appear to overcome these deficiencies. Therefore dependent claims 2-7 are rejected in the same or a similar manner as claim 1, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are accepted, and persuasive. The rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) are withdrawn. However, amendments have introduced issues of new matter, outlined above. Please see the rejections retailed above for details.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to page 15 of Applicant arguments regarding integration of the elements into a practical application under step A, prong 2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that there is a technical problem about how to use a big data platform and a customized algorithm to accurately evaluate the hydrogen consumption performance and system stability of a large number of fuel cell vehicles under actual and complex road conditions. This is not persuasive because Applicant claims to not provide any meaningful application of the evaluated hydrogen consumption performance and system stability data back to the hydrogen consuming vehicle in any meaningful way. Accordingly, there is not practical application claimed beyond abstract data analysis.
In response to page 15 of Applicant arguments regarding real-time operating data and structural design parameters collected from the physical system of fuel cell vehicles (e.g., sensors, ECUs, etc.) are not abstract, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. These structures are not meaningfully changed or affected by the abstract data analysis, and are therefore merely considered generic data collection steps.
In response to page 15-16 of Applicant arguments that the steps improve the operation efficiency of the big data platform in dealing with the specific task of fuel cell vehicle data analysis, and realizes the improvement of the computer technology itself, this is not convincing because there is no evidence in claim 1 or Applicant disclosure that the computer efficiency is improved in any meaningful way. Any improvement in an (unclaimed) operational efficiency of hydrogen vehicles is moot because the steps of claims 1-7 do not meaningfully affect said hydrogen vehicles in any way.
In response to page 15-16 of Applicant arguments that amended claim 1 applies “abstract analysis results (e.g., hydrogen refueling action features) to specific, unconventional planning and layout problems. Based on the resources of the big data platform, the analysis of the hydrogen refueling characteristics of fuel cell vehicles can not only evaluate the economy and technical level of fuel cell vehicles in actual road operation, but also has important guiding significance for the planning and layout of the geographical location of the hydrogenation station and the hydrogen filling capacity in the urban agglomeration”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the fuel cell vehicle of which data is collected are not meaningfully changed in any way in the claims. Therefore there is no evidence of any practical application, as described in claims 1-7.
In response to page 19-20 of Applicant arguments that claim 1 provides a meaningful limitation in that it can employ the information provided by the judicial exception in view of Example 40 of USPTO 35USC101 guidance, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because example 40 provides meaningful application of the abstract idea by limiting collection of new data when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network, and thereby improves network performance. This represents a specific change in how the network/computer collects data, providing a meaningful result. These factors are not present in claims 1-7 because the abstract ideas of claims 1-7 do not meaningfully affect the data collection, the vehicle(s), the hydrogen system(s) and/or the refueling infrastructure. It merely produces information.
In response to page 20 of Applicant arguments that claim 1 provides a meaningful limitation in that it can employ the information provided by the judicial exception in view of Example 42 of USPTO 35USC101 guidance, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In contrast to claim 42, the additional elements of the present application are limited to collecting refueling-related data and plotting refueling features based on data analysis steps. These limitations amount to insignificant extrasolution activity.
It should be noted that Applicant claims are indeed closer to Example 42, claim 2, which was found ineligible. In claim 2 of Example 42, the method merely stores and updates medical records using generic network-based storage devices, considered to be abstract in nature.
In response to page 21-27 of Applicant argues that (in summary), claim 1 provides “Significantly More” than the abstract idea during the Alice Analysis, step 2B, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant provides recitation of computer components at a high level of generality, the fuel cell vehicle, hydrogen storage system and other systems of which data is collected at a high level of generality, and provides generic post-solution activity such as “extracting” data sets and plotting the calculated features at a high level of generality. These steps represent no more than the use of a generic computer environment as a tool to perform the abstract mathematical/mental processes outlined above, and presenting the resulting information, also at a high level of generality. Once the judicial exception is removed, the remaining elements amount to no more than generic computer components performing well-understood, routine and conventional functions of performing data gathering, storing, processing and display in a specified field of use (fuel cell vehicles). These do not add “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
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 Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
December 8, 2025
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669