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 Amendments
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed on 22 December 2025 is acknowledged and entered.
Applicant states (see “Arguments” pg. 7) “Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21, 23-26, 30-38, 40-41, 43, 45-51, 53, 56- 59 and 61-67 are withdrawn from consideration.” However, Examiner notes for the record and for clarity that these claims were canceled by Applicant per the Amendment filed 27 March 2025.
Examiner further notes that Applicant has listed Claim 22 as “currently amended”. However, the claim appears to be the same as the Claim 22 of the previous amended filing on 27 March 2025. Clarification is requested.
By this Amendment (filed 22 December 2025), the Applicant amended claims 1, 22(?), 28, 44, 55, 60 and 69, and canceled claims 27, 52 and 68. Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 15, 18, 20, 22, 28-29, 39, 42, 44, 54-55, 60 and 69 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Specification Objections:
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s arguments concerning the objection of the Specification with regards to Claim 1 (see Non-Final, pgs 2-3) has been considered, and is unpersuasive.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s assertion that the disputed claimed subject matter (e.g. support for the Claim 1 limitations of wherein a mobile hydrogen refueling station comprises a bank of source tanks with different pressures, wherein a receiving vehicle tank to be filled (and therefore currently having a relatively low pressure) is “matched” to whatever source tank in the bank that a) has the lowest pressure of the tanks within the bank, and b) still has enough pressure to transfer hydrogen into the receiving tank) is found at WO202314783 paragraphs 183, 184 and Table 1. However, this section does not support the disputed claim limitations.
As previously explained in the Non-Final, paragraphs 183, 184 and Table 1 only describes an example of selecting a source tank with a pressure greater than that of the receiving tank, and is repeated here below for clarity:
PNG
media_image1.png
724
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner asserts that Applicant’s Specification (either as shown above or elsewhere) does not definitively state that the controller must select a suitable source tank based on the criteria of Claim 1, that is a source tank in the bank that a) has the lowest pressure of the tanks within the bank, and b) still has enough pressure to transfer hydrogen into the receiving tank. Not only does the above example of Applicant fail to state these criteria, the referenced paragraphs offer no explanation as to how or why gas source 2a is selected; the Specification instead merely states that gas source 2a is selected.
More importantly, the Specification does not rule out the selection of any of source tanks 2a-2n as being “suitable” for initiating gas transfer. Examiner makes this distinction since it would be well-known to select any source tank to initiate fluid transfer; such an act would be very simple and obvious to anyone of skill in the art.
Since Claim 1 instead requires the exclusive selection of the tank in the bank of source tanks with the lowest pressure, Examiner concludes that this exclusive requirement is not found within Applicant’s Specification, and the objection stands.
Regarding the Specification and Claim 68, Applicant’s amendment (the cancellation of Claim 68) overcomes the objection, which is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections:
Applicant’s amendment (the cancellation of Claim 27) overcomes the objection, which is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections, 35 USC 112(b):
Regarding Claims 15, 18, these claim limitations continue to contain instances of the word “preferably”, and therefore the rejections under 112(b) stand. In light of the amendment to Claim 55 and the cancellation of Claim 68, the rejections of these claims are withdrawn.
Regarding Claims 44, 55, 60 and 69, in light of the amendments to the claims, the rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding Claims 28, 29, 39, 42, 52, and 54, upon further review, Examiner notes that these claims were inadvertently listed as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous Office Action. For the record, these claims are not indefinite, and the rejections for these claims are withdrawn. Accordingly, the present Office Action is released as NON-FINAL and supersedes the previous Office Action, thereby giving Applicant an opportunity to respond to the further determinations of patentability presented in the sections below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 22 December 2025, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered in light of the amendments made to the claims, and are partially persuasive.
Regarding Claims 28, 29, 39, 42, 44, 54, 55, 60, and 69, Applicant has amended independent method Claim 28 to include the subject matter of (now canceled) Claim 52, which Examiner previously reserved comment on with regards to patentability based on the resolution of the claim objections and rejections of the previous Office Action (see pg. 23 of the previous Office Action). However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are presented below in the section titled “Claims Rejections, 35 U.S.C. 103”.
Regarding Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 15, 18, 20, 22, Applicant’s arguments for independent Claim 1 is unpersuasive.
Per Applicant (see pg. 9):
PNG
media_image2.png
336
876
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As best understood by Examiner, Applicant appears to argue that the cited combination of Hodgson (US 2024/0240756), in view of Allideres (FR 3109980 A3) is not prior art since:
1) The combination of Hodgson and Allideres fail to teach a cooling system, and
2) The combination of Hodgson and Allideres does not employ “using small pressure differences”.
However, these features (cooling and “small pressure differences) are not claimed in the present claim set. Examiner further notes that Applicant’s disclosure appears to teach away from the need of a separate cooling mechanism. Examiner further notes that Applicant does not define the relative term “small” in either the claims nor disclosure.
Regardless, Hodgson teaches the claimed subject matter, to include the disputed claim language identified above, as presented in the previous Office Action. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive, and the rejections of Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 15, 18, 20, and 22 stand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 15 and 18, these claim limitations continue to contain instances of the word “preferably”, rendering the claims indefinite. Please see MPEP 2173.05(d)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 15, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgson (US 2024/0240756), in view of Allideres ‘980 (FR 3109980 A3).
Regarding Claim 1, Hodgson et al. discloses a hydrogen refueling station (see Figs 1-2 and at least para 88) comprising at least a first hydrogen gas source (first bank consisting of first and second vessels 1-2, at a first pressure), a second hydrogen gas source (second bank consisting of third and fourth vessels 3-4, at a second pressure) and a third hydrogen gas source (third bank consisting of fifth and sixth vessels 5-6, at a third pressure). Alternatively, the Hodgson reference additionally discloses a “plurality of vessels 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 are selectively fluidly connectable to a manifold 107” at para 118 and Fig 2 that are similar to the aforementioned first, second, and third banks),
- wherein said first hydrogen gas source (first) comprises a vessel which is configured for storing hydrogen gas at a first (lower) pressure, said second hydrogen gas source comprises a vessel which is configured for storing hydrogen gas at a second (higher) pressure and said third hydrogen gas source comprises a vessel which is configured for storing hydrogen gas at a third pressure (these designations are listed at least at para 88), wherein at least two of said first, second and third pressures being different (para 88),
- said hydrogen refueling station further comprises at least two filling hoses (first and second hoses 108a and 108b, see at least para 119), wherein each of said at least two filling hoses have:
- a first end that is fluidly connectable to said first, second and third hydrogen source a via conduit system (via manifold 107, see at least Fig 2 and paras 119-120) and
- a second end that is fluidly connectable to a receiving vessel (first and second receiving vessels 106a and 106b),
- said mobile hydrogen refueling station further comprises a controller (control means 20/120, see at least paras 80 and 124) configured for simultaneously controlling refueling (para 125: “The gas may be transferred to the first and second vessels 106a, 106b simultaneously”) of at least a first receiving vessel of a first vehicle (106a) and a second receiving vessel of a second vehicle (106b) by:
- controlling (via control means 120) flow of hydrogen gas from said first, second or third hydrogen gas source via a first of said at least two filling hoses to said first receiving vessel, and
- controlling (via control means 120) flow of hydrogen gas from said first, second or third hydrogen gas source via a second of said at least two filling hoses to said second receiving vessel (see at least paras 117-126),
- wherein said mobile hydrogen refueling station is characterized in that said controller is configured to match one hydrogen gas source of said first, second or third hydrogen gas sources with one receiving vessel of said first and second receiving vessels, wherein said match requires higher pressure in said one hydrogen gas source than in said one receiving vessel and a first pressure difference between pressure in said one hydrogen gas source and in said one receiving vessel, and wherein said match is established when said first pressure difference is below a second pressure difference existing between another one of said first, second or third hydrogen gas sources and said one receiving vessel (see at least para 2: “The plurality of storage vessels each have different pressures and the receiving vessel is connected to the storage vessels in order of increasing pressure”, and the procedure described at paras 80-92. The Hodgson reference notes (para 80) an arrangement that “results in the greatest pressure difference between the receiving vessel 6 and each bank thereby providing the highest flow rate of gas into the receiving vessel 6”. See also para 151: “he control means may be used to determine the pressure in each of the plurality of banks and order the plurality of banks by pressure”).
Examiner additionally notes para 117 of the Hodgson reference, wherein Fig 2 “is the same as that of FIG 1 except that apparatus 100 of FIG 2 is connectable to two receiving vessels 106a, 106b.” Therefore, the aforementioned citations of the first embodiment described in Fig 1 are also relevant to the aforementioned citations of the second embodiment described in Fig 2.
PNG
media_image3.png
598
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 1, the Hodgson reference teaches the claimed invention, to include the hydrogen refueling station of Figs 1-2, but does not explicitly describe said hydrogen refueling station as being “mobile”, as claimed by Applicant.
However, Applicant is advised that, per MPEP 2144.04, the “fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results”. In the present case, Applicant has not disclosed any new or unexpected results in making a hydrogen refueling station mobile.
Regardless, and in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner also relies on Allidieres ‘980, who teaches mobile source reservoirs 2-7 as being mobile (see at least paras 2-3, 13, 15). Allidieres ‘980 specifically teaches (para 3) that hydrogen filling supplied from “Multiple Element Gas Containers”) are known. Although the Allidieres ‘980 reference uses the acronym “CGEM” here, this is recognized by Examiner as “MEGC”, similar to that as claimed by Applicant.
The Hodgson and Allidieres ‘980 references each teach hydrogen refueling. The Allidieres ‘980 reference additionally (and explicitly) teaches the very obvious advantages of a mobile refueling platform. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the refueling components of the Hodgson reference were indeed “mobile” and transportable by MEGC trailers and systems, in order to gain the very obvious advantages of utilizing a mobile platform to deliver hydrogen refueling capabilities to any desired location.
PNG
media_image4.png
650
564
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, the Hodgson reference, as modified above, teaches the claimed invention, to include a mobile refueling station and hoses (see the rejection of Claim 1 above). Hodgson et al., however, does not explicitly mention “a hose buffer storage located downstream said hose valve” (interpreted by Examiner to mean “a buffer tank”, and not a storage facility for hoses) as claimed by Applicant.
Allidieres ‘980, however, teaches that it is known in the prior art to locate buffer tanks downstream of valves. Please see at least para 3: “The gas can be compressed in the station via a compressor, stored in high pressure buffer tanks. The filling of vehicles can be carried out from these high pressure buffer tanks by successive balances with the vehicle tank.”
Examiner acknowledges Allidieres ‘980 appears to teach away from the previously known use of buffer tanks in the improvements detailed in FR 3109980 A3 (Allidieres ‘980 teaches the elimination of buffer tanks as being unnecessary in the improved configuration). However, Examiner concludes that in the general teachings of Allidieres ‘980 with regard to the state of the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add buffer tank storage downstream of the hose valve as taught by the Hodgson reference. Doing so would provide the obvious advantage of providing a stable, pressurized source of hydrogen for use in the rapid filling a receiving vehicle tank.
Regarding Claim 11, the Hodgson reference, as modified above, teaches the claimed invention, to include a mobile refueling station comprising first and second hydrogen refueling sources (see the rejection of Claim 1 above). Although the Hodgson reference does mention the use of valves, the reference does not explicitly recite said first and second hydrogen source as being fluidly connectable via a gas section valve, as claimed by Applicant.
Allidieres ‘980, however, teaches first (Fig 1, items 2,3, 4) and second (items 5, 6, 7) hydrogen sources being fluidly connectable via a gas section valve (items 22, 23, as taught at paras 14 and 21).
The Hodgson and Allidieres ‘980 references each teach hydrogen refueling. The Allidieres ‘980 reference additionally teaches the use of (section) control valves, with the advantage of being able to easily control fluid flow from a bank of source tanks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the section control valves 22 and 23 as taught by Allidieres ‘980 to control fluid flow of the first, second, and third source banks of the Hodgson reference, in order to gain the advantages of fluid flow control over a bank of source tanks.
Regarding Claims 15 and 18, the Hodgson reference, as modified above, teaches the claimed invention, to include a mobile refueling station configured to provide hydrogen fuel to multiple vehicles (see the rejection of Claim 1 above). Neither Hodgson or Allidieres ‘980 references, however specify the number of vehicles to receive fuel, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 15, nor the “duty” type of vehicle(s) as claimed by Applicant at Claim 18.
However, it would merely require the routing duplication of parts (such as the number of tanks, conduits, hoses, etc.) and/or the proper sizing of components (such as tanks and conduits) described in the Hodgson and Allidieres ‘980 references in order to arrive at Applicant’s (preferable) requirements of “at least 3, preferably at least 5, most preferably up to 10 individual receiving vessels simultaneously connectible” and/or the capability to “refuel at least 10 heavy-duty vehicles, preferably at least 20 heavy-duty vehicles, most preferably 30 heavy-duty vehicles” as claimed at Claims 15 and 18.
With regards to these claims, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (Applicant has not shown this in the present disclosure). Additionally, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, the previously cited combination of the Hodgson and Allidieres ‘980 references in the rejection of Claim 1 additionally read upon Claims 15 and 18. Please see MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 20, the Hodgson reference, as modified above, teaches a mobile refueling station wherein said mobile hydrogen refueling station is a multiple elements gas container trailer (see Allidieres ‘980, para 3, and Examiner’s comments in the rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 22 the Hodgson reference, as modified above, teaches a mobile refueling station wherein said controller is configured for pausing refueling (via Hodgson, first and second output control valves 182a and 182b) of said first receiving vessel before initiating refueling of said second receiving vessel (see Fig 1 and para 122).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgson et al. as modified by Allidieres ‘980 above, and in further view of Killeen (US 2013/0248000).
Regarding Claim 9, the Hodgson reference as modified above teaches the claimed invention to include first and second hydrogen sources at different pressures (see the rejection of Claim 1 above), but does not explicitly comment on the size or volumes of said sources. Therefore, Hodgson et al. is silent on “the volumes of said first and second hydrogen sources being different”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 9.
However, Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would know to use different sized volumes of hydrogen sources if desired, and notes that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04.
Regardless, and in the interests of compact prosecution, Killeen et al. teaches “the volumes of said first and second hydrogen sources being different” (see at least para 99, wherein “tanks 1060, 1060', and 1060'' in FIG. 5, can vary from about 25 to about 200 liters”).
The Hodgson, Allidieres ‘980, and Killeen references each teach hydrogen refueling. The Killeen reference additionally teaches that it is known to combine source tanks of varying sizes in order to achieve the total volume necessary for the refueling of one of more receiving vehicle tanks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tanks of different volumes (if desired, and as taught by Killen) as part of the modified gas sources of the Hodgson reference, in order to implement the well-known practice of combining source tanks of varying sizes in order to achieve the total volume necessary for the refueling of one of more receiving vehicle tanks.
Claims 28, 29, 39, 55, 60, and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgson in view of Allideres ‘980, and in further view of Allideres ‘577 (US 2009/0107577).
Regarding Claims 28, 29, 39, 55, 60, and 69, in the previous Office Action (see pgs 16-20), Examiner provided examples of the prior art (Hodgson IVO Allideres ‘980) for Claims 28, 29, 39, and 69. Examiner reserved comment (see pg. 23) on the patentability of Claims 42, 44, 52, 54, 55, and 60, pending resolution of the claim objections and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) identified in that Office Action.
However, and as stated above, Claims 52 and 54 were inadvertently listed as being rejected under 35 USC 112(b); those rejections are withdrawn in the present Office Action.
Additionally, and upon further review and consideration, prior art has been found that reads upon the subject matter of Claims 52, 55, and 60 of the previous Office Action. Examiner notes that Applicant has amended independent Claim 28 to include the subject matter of the previous Claim 52.
Therefore, in the present Office Action, Examiner has changed the basis of rejection of Claims 28, 29, 39, 55, 60, and 69, as shown below. Accordingly, the present Office Action is released as NON-FINAL, and replaces the previous Office Action, allowing Applicant the opportunity to respond to the newly provided examples of the prior art.
Regarding Claim 28, Hodgson et al. discloses a method of controlling a hydrogen refueling station (see the rejection of Claim 1 above, Figs 1-2, and at least para 88) to perform simultaneous refueling of a first receiving vessel fluidly connected to a first hose and of a second receiving vessel fluidly connected to a second hose (para 125: “The gas may be transferred to the first and second vessels 106a, 106b simultaneously”), said mobile refueling station comprises:
- at least three hydrogen gas sources each of which are fluidly connectable to said first and to said second hose via a hydrogen conduit system (para 88),
- a controller (20/120) controlling a plurality of conduit valves of said hydrogen conduit system and thereby controlling the flow of hydrogen gas from each of said at least three hydrogen gas sources to said first and second receiving vessels respectively (see at least paras 117-126),
wherein said controller, during control of refueling of said first receiving vessel from a first refueling source of said at least three hydrogen gas sources, initiates the following steps:
- establishing an initial pressure of hydrogen gas in said second receiving vessel connected to said second hose, selecting a second refueling source among said at least three hydrogen gas sources having a hydrogen gas pressure above said initial pressure, and thereby a first pressure difference between pressure in said second refueling source and said second receiving vessel, wherein said second refueling source is selected if said first pressure difference is below a second pressure difference existing between one of said at least three hydrogen gas source and said second receiving vessel, and opening at least one of said conduit valves thereby allowing hydrogen gas to flow from said second refueling source to said second receiving vessel (see the rejection of Claim 1 above, and at least para 2: “The plurality of storage vessels each have different pressures and the receiving vessel is connected to the storage vessels in order of increasing pressure”, and the procedure described at paras 80-92. The Hodgson reference notes (para 80) an arrangement that “results in the greatest pressure difference between the receiving vessel 6 and each bank thereby providing the highest flow rate of gas into the receiving vessel 6”).
Further regarding Claim 28, the Hodgson reference teaches the claimed invention, to include the hydrogen refueling station of Figs 1-2, but does not explicitly describe said hydrogen refueling station as being “mobile”, as claimed by Applicant.
However, Applicant is advised that, per MPEP 2144.04, the “fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results”. In the present case, Applicant has not disclosed any new or unexpected results in making a hydrogen refueling station mobile.
Regardless, and in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner also relies on Allidieres, who teaches mobile source reservoirs 2-7 as being mobile (see at least paras 2-3, 13, 15). Allidieres ‘980 specifically teaches (para 3) that hydrogen filling supplied from “Multiple Element Gas Containers”) are known. Although the Allidieres ‘980 reference uses the acronym “CGEM” here, this is recognized by Examiner as “MEGC”, similar to that as claimed by Applicant.
The Hodgson and Allidieres ‘980 references each teach hydrogen refueling. The Allidieres reference additionally (and explicitly) teaches the very obvious advantages of a mobile refueling platform. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the refueling components of the Hodgson reference were indeed “mobile” and transportable by MEGC trailers and systems, in order to gain the very obvious advantages of utilizing a mobile platform to deliver hydrogen refueling capabilities to any desired location.
Further regarding Claim 28, Hodgson, as modified above, teaches the claimed invention to include the refueling of said first receiving vessel, but does not explicitly recite a method wherein refueling of said first receiving vessel is controlled to be conducted in a plurality of successive steps of start and stop of the flow of hydrogen gas to said first receiving vessel, as claimed by Applicant in (the currently amended) Claim 28.
However, Allideres ‘577 teaches a method wherein refueling of said first receiving vessel is controlled to be conducted in a plurality of successive steps of start and stop of the flow of hydrogen gas to said first receiving vessel. Please see Figs. 2-3 and paras 46-53. Here, Allideres ‘577 teaches first valve 4 successively opened (step O) and then closed (step F) based on reaching discrete target pressures during the overall filling process.
PNG
media_image5.png
776
562
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hodgson and both Allideres references all teach hydrogen refueling. Allideres ‘577 additionally teaches the filling of a tank in small increments in order to maintain desirable temperature stability of the refueling system, thereby mitigating the risk of explosion during refueling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the (mobile) system of Hodgson et al., further modified by the refueling technique of the Allideres ‘577 reference, in order to maintain desirable temperatures and mitigate risks of explosion.
Regarding Claim 29, Hodgson et al., as modified above, teaches a method of controlling a mobile hydrogen refueling station wherein a refueling of a receiving vessel includes the following steps:
- connecting a receiving vessel (Hodgson et al., 106a) to a hose (108a),
- establishing an initial pressure of hydrogen gas in said receiving vessel (taught at Hodgson, para 132),
- selecting a hydrogen refueling source among said at least three hydrogen gas sources having a hydrogen gas pressure above said initial pressure (Hodgson et al., paras 80-92 and the rejection of Claims 1 and 28 above),
- opening at least one conduit valve to allow flow of hydrogen gas from said selected hydrogen refueling source to said receiving vessel (Hodgson et al., any of valves 121-125 or 131-135), and
- closing said at least one conduit valve (any of valves 121-125 or 131-135).
Regarding Claim 39, the Hodgson reference, as modified above, teaches the claimed invention, to include a mobile refueling station comprising first and second hydrogen refueling sources (see the rejection of Claim 1 above). Although the Hodgson reference does mention the use of valves, the reference does not explicitly recite said first and second hydrogen source as being fluidly connectable via a gas section valve, as claimed by Applicant.
Allidieres ‘980, however, teaches first (Fig 1, items 2,3, 4) and second (items 5, 6, 7) hydrogen sources being fluidly connectable via a gas section valve (items 22, 23, as taught at paras 14 and 21).
The Hodgson and Allidieres ‘980 references each teach hydrogen refueling. The Allidieres ‘980 reference additionally teaches the use of (section) control valves, with the advantage of being able to easily control fluid flow from a bank of source tanks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the section control valves 22 and 23 as taught by Allidieres ‘980 to control fluid flow of the first, second, and third source banks of the Hodgson reference, in order to gain the advantages of fluid flow control over a bank of source tanks.
Regarding Claim 55, Hodgson, as modified above, teaches a method of controlling a mobile hydrogen refueling station wherein said plurality of successive steps of start and stop (as taught by Allideres ‘577, paras 46-53, see the rejection of Claim 28 above) includes at least 5 stops, preferably at least 7 stops, most preferably 10 stops. Although the Allideres ‘577 reference does not list a discrete number of stops, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to adjust the timing of the stops in relation to the size of the tank being filled and filling rate, and optimize the number of stops (and therefore starts) to whatever was appropriate. In the present case, doing so would amount to the routine optimization of a finite amount of filling solutions, which would be obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success in maintaining desired, safe temperatures within the refueling system.
Regarding Claim 60, Hodgson, as modified above, teaches a method of controlling a mobile hydrogen refueling station wherein said stops of said refueling (as taught by Allideres ‘577, paras 46-53, see the rejection of Claim 28 above) of said first receiving vessel are longer than said stops of said refueling of said second receiving vessel or vice versa. Examiner notes that Applicant’s limitation add-on “or vice-versa” effectively removes any limitation, since the inclusion of “vice-versa” is interpreted as simply meaning one tank is larger and/or takes longer to fill than another. Although the Allideres ‘577 reference does not explicitly provide concrete timing guidance on individual tanks, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to adjust the timing of the stops in relation to the size of the tank being filled and filling rate, and optimize the number of stops (and therefore starts) to whatever was appropriate. In the present case, doing so would amount to the routine optimization of a finite amount of filling solutions, which would be obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success in maintaining desired, safe temperatures within the refueling system.
Regarding Claim 69, Hodgson, as modified above, teaches a method of controlling a mobile hydrogen refueling station wherein a refueling of a receiving vessel (Hodgson, 106a or 106b) comprises at least 5 bank shifts where each bank shift is characterized in that the pressure difference between a new hydrogen gas source and said receiving vessel is below a pressure difference between said receiving vessel another hydrogen gas source of said mobile hydrogen refueling station (para 83).
Specifically, the Hodgson reference teaches the concept of cascade refueling (Examiner notes this concept is extremely well known in the art) wherein receiving vessels 6 /106a and 106b are “sequentially connected” to source banks for the purposes of filling. The Hodgson reference additionally teaches (para 83) control means 20 “configured to determine the pressure in each of the plurality of banks and determine the order of the plurality of banks by pressure to then sequentially fluidly connect the plurality of banks to the receiving vessel 6 in increasing pressure”. Examiner equates each “sequential connection” as taught by Hodgson et al. to be equivalent to the “bank shift” as claimed by Applicant in Claim 69. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that the pressure difference between any of the source tanks used would have to have greater pressure than the receiving tank(s) in order to initiate or continue filling.
Although the Hodgson reference does not explicitly teach “at least 5 bank shifts” as claimed by Applicant, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to appropriately size the banks of the Hodgson reference to enable this number (five) of shifts, or any number desired by the user. In the present case, enabling “at least 5 shifts” would not perform differently than the apparatus of Hodgson et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42, 44, and 54 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specifically, Examiner notes that the subject matter concept of
- Claim 42, wherein said controller allows flow from said one hydrogen gas storage to both of said first and second receiving vessels, if the difference in pressure between pressure of said first receiving vessels and pressure of said second receiving vessel is below a threshold pressure, and
- Claim 54, wherein the simultaneous refueling of said first and second receiving vessels include a time period with flow to only one of said first and second receiving vessels and a subsequent time period with flow to both of said first and second receiving vessels,
appears to be novel over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, presented in the previous Office Action, and not relied upon remains pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s overall disclosure appears to be drawn to a mobile hydrogen refueling trailer that utilizes cascade refueling to refuel multiple fuel cell vehicles. With the exception of the possibly novel concept of directing fluid flow based on pressure differentials between receiving tanks as mentioned above, Examiner asserts that cascade refueling is generally known, and taught at least by the following prior art references that also feature mobile and/or portable refueling stations: US 20190226638 A1, US 20140261864 A1, US 20180073679 A1, US 20160215796 A1, and US 2004163731 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753