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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: execution unit, evaluation unit, determination unit, etc… in claims 10 -15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the evaluation criterion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6, 7, 9 – 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al (JP 2021139390 cited prior art; also published as JP 7040546).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the Kimura et al. reference discloses a method and system (100) for evaluating safety of a hydrogen station, comprising:
an execution unit (14) that executes a charging operation of the hydrogen station that supplies hydrogen to a hydrogen vehicle using the hydrogen as fuel;
an evaluation unit (15) that evaluates charging safety (i.e., leak detection based a pressure threshold within the system of the hydrogen station based on the charging operation; and
when the charging operation does not match a preset evaluation criterion (i.e., a threshold value; see para. 0027) for charging safety of the hydrogen station, a vent unit (6; decompression valve) that releases the hydrogen charged in the hydrogen station.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the Kimura et al. reference further discloses a determination unit (i.e., control device 10 and control panel 8) that determines a preset safety evaluation criterion (via sensors 7A – 7C) of the hydrogen station and an operating condition of the hydrogen station during the charging operation. See paragraphs [0016 - 0024].
Regarding claims 3 and 12, wherein the determination unit (10) determines one of the following: an operation command determination for charging the hydrogen to the hydrogen station (see paras. 0015 – 0016) and a driving performance determination of a hydrogen storage module compared to a pre-stored performance of the hydrogen storage module of a hydrogen charger. Hydrogen charging is performed as long as pressure threshold conditions are met.
Regarding claim 4 and 13, wherein the evaluation unit (15) evaluates the charging safety of at least one of the following conditions: a preset temperature, pressure, and hydrogen flow rate of a hydrogen storage module of the hydrogen station, hydrogen leakage from the hydrogen storage module, ambient temperature within the hydrogen storage module, and a hydrogen storage capacity of the hydrogen storage module. Evaluation unit (15) is signaled by hydrogen leakage gas sensors (7A – 7C).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the releasing of the hydrogen charged in the hydrogen station includes determining whether a charging operation condition deviates from a hydrogen storage condition preset in a hydrogen storage module of the hydrogen station. This is based on the threshold value (see para. [0027]).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, wherein the determining of whether the charging operation condition deviates from the hydrogen storage condition includes: determining an upper limit of the hydrogen storage conditions; determining whether the determined upper limit is close to the hydrogen storage condition; and when the determined upper limit is close to the hydrogen storage condition, the hydrogen charged in the hydrogen station is released. This is based on the threshold value (see para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 9, when the charging operation does not match the evaluation criterion, stopping the charging operation. When leakage is detected, it is preferable to stop the output (see para. [0012]).
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (JP 2021139390) in view of Lerner (11572982).
Regarding clam 16, the Kimura et al. reference discloses a system for evaluating safety of a hydrogen station (see rejection of claim 10), including a control device (10) and control panel (8) with display (16; see para. [0018]). These types of controls in a system typically indicate a processor with memory (i.e., inherent to the system), but Kimura et al. don’t explicitly disclose a processor; and a memory that is electrically connected to the processor and stores at least one code performed by the processor. The Lerner reference discloses another hydrogen dispensing station having a processor and memory (RAM, ROM, etc…) to store coded information and operate the system based on the data acquired through operation (see col. 25, line 50 – col. 26, line 54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Kimura et al. device to have processor and memory (if not already) as, for example, taught by the Lerner reference, since processors and memory storage are well known, conventional in the art to operate a system based on stored, collected data and it would be obvious to try without unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teach:
Regarding claim 5, the executing of the charging operation of the hydrogen station includes charging the hydrogen from the hydrogen station based on an abnormal charging operation that is different from conditions of the charging operation to be performed, and the determining includes determining whether the hydrogen is charged from the hydrogen station even when the abnormal charging operation is performed.
Claim 8 depends on claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the execution unit charges the hydrogen in the hydrogen station based on an abnormal charging operation that is different from conditions of the charging operation to be performed, and the determination unit determines whether the hydrogen is charged in the hydrogen station even when the abnormal charging operation is performed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Donnelly et al. reference (9284178) discloses another hydrogen dispensing system having a computer control with memory and processor (see col. 4, line 55 – col. 5, line 22).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753