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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “vehicle”, “combustion process”, “electricity generation process”, and “fuel cell system” of claim 19 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 5, paragraph 12: “This sudden fall the heating power” should read “This sudden fall of the heating power”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, lines 3-4 recite, “a difference in temperature upstream and downstream of the heat exchanger” should read “a difference in temperature upstream of the heat exchanger and downstream of the heat exchanger”
Claim 17, line 1: “a liquid-hydrogen tank” should read “the liquid-hydrogen tank”
Claim 18 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Claim 1, line 2: “integrated heating device” draws corresponding structure to the following recitations of the present specification, “that the heating device comprises a heat exchanger through which a heating medium flows (Pg. 4, paragraph 10)”, “Alternatively, when using a heating device 5, which is designed as an electric heating element, the heating power can be detected directly via the electric parameters (Pg. 11, paragraph 26)”, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 11-20 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.
Claim 11, line 6 recites, “detecting a temporal course of the heating power and/or of the tank pressure” which is unclear to the Examiner as to what is required by the phrase “temporal course” as there is no clear definition of this phrase provided in the specification nor is the phrase commonly used in the art. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the phrase “temporal course” to mean a change over time. The Examiner recommends amending the claims to clarify what is meant by a temporal course.
The term “sudden” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sudden” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The rate at which the change occurs is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “sudden” for purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “sudden” to mean unexpectedly or all at once. The Examiner recommends amending the claims to clarify what defines a sudden change.
The term “sudden” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sudden” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The rate at which the rise or fall occurs is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “sudden” for purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “sudden” to mean unexpectedly or all at once. The Examiner recommends amending the claims to clarify what defines a sudden rise and a sudden fall.
Claims 12-17 and 19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
Claim 18 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 17.
Claim 20 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 19.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hirose (US Patent No. 8,315,824), hereinafter Hirose.
Regarding claim 1, Hirose discloses a method for removing hydrogen from a liquid-hydrogen tank having an integrated heating device for evaporating liquid hydrogen and having an emptying line for removing evaporated hydrogen (see annotated Fig. 1 of Hirose below, hydrogen tank 10, heater 14, emptying line A; Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 6-7, The hydrogen gas in the hydrogen tank 10 is supplied to a fuel cell (FC) system 18; Col. 6-7, lines 66-67 and 1, FIG. 3 is a flowchart for a routine executed by the ECU 16 to calculate the remaining quantity of liquid hydrogen in the tank), comprising the steps of:
supplying heating power for removal of the evaporated hydrogen in order to maintain a tank pressure (Fig. 3, step 102; Col. 7, lines 5-7, Next, in the routine shown in FIG. 3, the heater 14 provided in the tank 10 is driven by the ECU 16 to apply a predetermined heat quantity E into the liquid hydrogen (Step 102));
detecting a temporal course of the heating power and/or of the tank pressure (Fig. 3, step 100 and 104; Col. 7, lines 1-4 and 8-11, In the routine shown in FIG. 3, first, the internal pressure P of the tank is detected by the pressure sensor 12 provided in the tank 10 (Step 100). The detected output signal is supplied to the ECU 16…. When a heat quantity Eis applied, the internal pressure of the tank increases to phase-transit some of the liquid hydrogen to a gas. The pressure sensor 12 detects the pressure P' (Step 104). The detected output signal is supplied to the ECU 16; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above); and
monitoring the temporal course for a sudden change in the heating power and/or a pressure gradient of the tank pressure (Fig. 3, steps 104-110; Further, the steps of Hirose at least imply monitoring the temporal course for a sudden change in the heating power and/or a pressure gradient of the tank pressure since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Hirose
Regarding claim 19, Hirose discloses the method according to claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above), further comprising the step of propelling a vehicle at least partially by removed hydrogen, wherein the removed hydrogen is supplied to a combustion process or an electricity generation process in a fuel cell system of the vehicle (Fig. 1, FC system 18; Col. 1, lines 10-15, The present invention relates to a hydrogen storage system suitable for vehicles, airplanes, ships, and the like using hydrogen as a fuel (hereinafter, referred to as "hydrogen fuel vehicles"). More particularly, it relates to a remaining quantity detecting system for detecting the remaining quantity of stored liquid hydrogen; Further, the steps of Hirose at least imply the step of propelling a vehicle at least partially by removed hydrogen since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
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.
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.
Claims 12, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (US Patent No. 8,315,824), hereinafter Hirose in view of Stahl et al. (US 20180135994), hereinafter Stahl.
Regarding claim 12, Hirose discloses the method according to claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above).
However, Hirose does not explicitly disclose wherein the integrated heating device is an electric heating element and wherein a heating power of the electric heating element is supplied continuously or in a pulsed manner.
Stahl teaches wherein the integrated heating device is an electric heating element and wherein a heating power of the electric heating element is supplied continuously or in a pulsed manner (Fig. 3, heating device 3; Pg. 4, paragraph 30, The upper line in the region on the right in FIG. 1 shows the pressure profile 20 if at the point in time t0 the heating device 3 is switched (due to the predefined density being undershot and in dependence on route information) from the regular operation mode into the continuous operation mode and is subsequently operated in the continuous operation mode; Pg. 4, paragraph 31, If the heating device 3 is in the regular operation mode, the gas in the pressure tank 2 is heated by the heating device 3 at intervals in order to reach or re-establish a predefined pressure of the gas in the pressure tank 2. In the regular operation mode, the heating device 3 heats at intervals, that is to say switches on and off again; Pg. 4, paragraph 32, It is also contemplated, however, that the heating device 3 has an electrical heater, a laser heat device and/or a wire heater).
Hirose fails to teach wherein the integrated heating device is an electric heating element and wherein a heating power of the electric heating element is supplied continuously or in a pulsed manner, however Stahl teaches that it is a known method in the art of hydrogen removal for supply of gaseous hydrogen to fuel cells to include wherein the integrated heating device is an electric heating element and wherein a heating power of the electric heating element is supplied continuously or in a pulsed manner. This is strong evidence that modifying Hirose as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient pressure control to enact the removal of gaseous hydrogen). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose by Stahl and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing sufficient pressure control to enact the removal of gaseous hydrogen.
Regarding claim 14, Hirose discloses the method according to claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above).
However, Hirose does not explicitly disclose wherein in a case of a continuously adjusted heating power, the continuously adjusted heating power is monitored for a sudden drop in an event of a constant removal of the hydrogen.
Stahl teaches wherein in a case of a continuously adjusted heating power, the continuously adjusted heating power is monitored for a sudden drop in an event of a constant removal of the hydrogen (Fig. 3, heating device 3; Pg. 4, paragraph 30, The upper line in the region on the right in FIG. 1 shows the pressure profile 20 if at the point in time t0 the heating device 3 is switched (due to the predefined density being undershot and in dependence on route information) from the regular operation mode into the continuous operation mode and is subsequently operated in the continuous operation mode; Pg. 5, paragraph 40, The temperature profile 40 in the continuous operation mode (upper line in the region on the right in FIG. 2) rises continuously since the heating device 3 heats the gas in the pressure tank 2 continuously. The heating lies in the region of several dozen kelvin. Consequently, the pressure rises above the predefined pressure value. After a certain time, the quantity of gas in the pressure tank 2 becomes low, with the result that the pressure in the pressure tank drops 2 again despite further heating by the heating device 3 in the continuous operation mode; Further, the teachings of Stahl at least imply the continuously adjusted heating power is monitored for a sudden drop in an event of a constant removal of the hydrogen since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Hirose fails to teach wherein in a case of a continuously adjusted heating power, the continuously adjusted heating power is monitored for a sudden drop in an event of a constant removal of the hydrogen, however Stahl teaches that it is a known method in the art of hydrogen removal for supply of gaseous hydrogen to fuel cells to include wherein in a case of a continuously adjusted heating power, the continuously adjusted heating power is monitored for a sudden drop in an event of a constant removal of the hydrogen. This is strong evidence that modifying Hirose as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient pressure control to enact the removal of gaseous hydrogen). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose by Stahl and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing sufficient pressure control to enact the removal of gaseous hydrogen.
Regarding claim 15, Hirose discloses the method according to claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above).
However, Hirose does not explicitly disclose wherein the pressure gradient is monitored when the heating power is supplied in a pulsed manner and wherein the pressure gradient is monitored for a sudden rise or a sudden fall depending on whether heating is currently taking place or not.
Stahl teaches wherein the pressure gradient is monitored when the heating power is supplied in a pulsed manner and wherein the pressure gradient is monitored for a sudden rise or a sudden fall depending on whether heating is currently taking place or not (Pg. 4, paragraph 30, The lower line shows the pressure profile 10 if at the point in time t0 the heating device 3 is left in the regular operation mode or is operated in the regular operation mode. The point in time t0 is determined by the filling level optimization device 1 depending on the route information (and on the density of gas in the pressure tank). The regular operation mode is the normal, conventional operating mode if sufficient gas is available in the pressure tank 2 while gas is extracted from the pressure tank 2. In the region on the left in FIG. 1, the pressure drops continuously. In this region, no heating of the gas or the pressure tank 2 by the heating device 3 takes place. The regular operation mode of the heating device 3 is activated (region with sawtooth-like profile) only if the pressure of the gas in the pressure tank 2 drops below a predefined minimum pressure. Immediately before the point in time t0, the heating device 3 is operated in the regular operation mode).
Hirose fails to teach wherein the pressure gradient is monitored when the heating power is supplied in a pulsed manner and wherein the pressure gradient is monitored for a sudden rise or a sudden fall depending on whether heating is currently taking place or not, however Stahl teaches that it is a known method in the art of hydrogen removal for supply of gaseous hydrogen to fuel cells to include wherein the pressure gradient is monitored when the heating power is supplied in a pulsed manner and wherein the pressure gradient is monitored for a sudden rise or a sudden fall depending on whether heating is currently taking place or not. This is strong evidence that modifying Hirose as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient pressure control to enact the removal of gaseous hydrogen). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose by Stahl and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing sufficient pressure control to enact the removal of gaseous hydrogen.
Regarding claim 16, Hirose discloses the method according to claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above).
However, Hirose does not explicitly disclose further comprising the steps of generating and outputting a warning message when the sudden change is detected.
Stahl teaches further comprising the steps of generating and outputting a warning message when the sudden change is detected (Pg. 5, paragraph 42, If the predefined or predetermined density value is undershot, the current consumption of gas and the remaining quantity of gas in the pressure tank 2 is detected… Then one of the reachable refueling stations, in particular gas refueling stations, is selected on this basis, and the driver is informed about the decision or recommendation. In addition, the route to the selected gas refueling station can be displayed to the driver on the navigation system 4).
Hirose fails to teach further comprising the steps of generating and outputting a warning message when the sudden change is detected, however Stahl teaches that it is a known method in the art of hydrogen removal for supply of gaseous hydrogen to fuel cells to include further comprising the steps of generating and outputting a warning message when the sudden change is detected. This is strong evidence that modifying Hirose as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing a driver with real time system status to inform decision making to improve overall user friendliness). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose by Stahl and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing a driver with real time system status to inform decision making to improve overall user friendliness.
Regarding claim 20, Hirose discloses the method according to claim 19 (see the rejection of claim 19 above).
However, Hirose does not explicitly disclose wherein in an event of a warning message, a remaining range of the vehicle is estimated and is output together with the warning message.
Stahl teaches wherein in an event of a warning message, a remaining range of the vehicle is estimated and is output together with the warning message (Pg. 5, paragraph 42, If the predefined or predetermined density value is undershot, the current consumption of gas and the remaining quantity of gas in the pressure tank 2 is detected. Subsequently (if appropriate in consideration of the current consumption), the residual range of the motor vehicle, which residual range is possible with the available quantity of gas in the pressure tank 2, is determined without switching the heating device 3 from the regular operation mode into the continuous operation mode… Then one of the reachable refueling stations, in particular gas refueling stations, is selected on this basis, and the driver is informed about the decision or recommendation. In addition, the route to the selected gas refueling station can be displayed to the driver on the navigation system 4; Further, the teachings of Stahl at least imply wherein in an event of a warning message, a remaining range of the vehicle is estimated and is output together with the warning message since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Hirose fails to teach wherein in an event of a warning message, a remaining range of the vehicle is estimated and is output together with the warning message, however Stahl teaches that it is a known method in the art of hydrogen removal for supply of gaseous hydrogen to fuel cells to include wherein in an event of a warning message, a remaining range of the vehicle is estimated and is output together with the warning message. This is strong evidence that modifying Hirose as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing a driver with real time system status to inform decision making to improve overall user friendliness). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose by Stahl and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing a driver with real time system status to inform decision making to improve overall user friendliness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (US Patent No. 8,315,824), hereinafter Hirose in view of Udischas et al. (US Patent No. 6,363,728), hereinafter Udischas and Okada et al. (US 20040013921), hereinafter Okada.
Regarding claim 13, Hirose discloses the method according to claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above).
However, Hirose does not explicitly disclose wherein a heating medium flows through a heat exchanger in the integrated heating device.
Udischas teaches wherein a heating medium flows through a heat exchanger in the integrated heating device (Fig. 1, bulk vessel 110, heating device 130; Col. 5, lines 10-12, The source of energy is a heat exchanger 130 having either a liquid transfer media circulating in a metallic coil).
Hirose fails to teach wherein a heating medium flows through a heat exchanger in the integrated heating device, however Udischas teaches that it is a known method in the art of hydrogen removal for supply of gaseous hydrogen to fuel cells to include wherein a heating medium flows through a heat exchanger in the integrated heating device. This is strong evidence that modifying Hirose as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient pressure control to enact the removal of gaseous hydrogen). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose by Udischas and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing sufficient pressure control to enact the removal of gaseous hydrogen.
Further, Hirose as modified does not disclose wherein the heating power is detected on a basis of a volume flow of the heating medium and a difference in temperature upstream and downstream of the heat exchanger.
Okada teaches wherein the heating power is detected on a basis of a volume flow of the heating medium and a difference in temperature upstream and downstream of the heat exchanger (Fig. 4, tank , heat exchanger 5, temperature sensors TS2 and TS3, flow meter FM; Pg. 4, paragraph 36, In the heat exchanger 5, heat exchange is conducted between exhausted heat possessed in steams at a relatively high temperature exhausted from the fuel cell 1 and cold water as a cold temperature medium and temperature sensors TS1-TS3 or the flow meters FM and the pumps are controlled to control the temperature to an aimed level).
Hirose as modified fails to teach wherein the heating power is detected on a basis of a volume flow of the heating medium and a difference in temperature upstream and downstream of the heat exchanger, however Okada teaches that it is a known method in the art of hydrogen removal for supply of gaseous hydrogen to fuel cells to include wherein the heating power is detected on a basis of a volume flow of the heating medium and a difference in temperature upstream and downstream of the heat exchanger. This is strong evidence that modifying Hirose as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient pressure control to enact the removal of gaseous hydrogen based on real time sensor data to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose as modified by Okada and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing sufficient pressure control to enact the removal of gaseous hydrogen based on real time sensor data to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (US Patent No. 8,315,824), hereinafter Hirose in view of Holmstrom (DE 102018004050), hereinafter Holmstrom.
Regarding claim 17, Hirose discloses the method according to claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above).
However, Hirose does not disclose a method for completely emptying a liquid-hydrogen tank, from which hydrogen is removed according to the method according to claim 11, comprising the steps of:
after the sudden change is detected, heating the liquid-hydrogen tank until a limit temperature is reached and subsequently purging the liquid-hydrogen tank with an inert gas.
Holmstrom teaches using an inert gas that is heated above the its boiling point for purging a cryogenic storage tank when the tank is near empty (Pg. 6-7, The source 22 The inert fluid may include inert fluid in a liquid state or in a gaseous state. The inert fluid is, for example, liquefied or vaporized nitrogen. The inert fluid may be referred to as a "flushing medium" or a "treating medium". The heating control device 24 is designed to be in the first fluid line 20 to heat contained inert fluid. The heating control device 24 is configured to heat the inert fluid so that it reaches a preset temperature. For example, the preset temperature is set to a high temperature, but below the closed tank temperature limit 2 itself. The heating control device 24 includes, for example, a heating element or a heat exchanger. The temperature of the inert fluid is determined, for example, by a temperature sensor 27 measured. The temperature sensor 27 is adapted to the temperature of the inert fluid downstream of the heating control device 24 to eat. This will control the heating control device 24 based on the measured temperature, allows a temperature of the inert fluid downstream of the heating control device 24 to keep within a predetermined temperature range. The predetermined temperature range is for example by an upper temperature limit, which is the maximum allowable temperature of the closed container 2 and determines a lower temperature limit which is a lowest temperature that the inert fluid should have to ensure that the inert fluid has evaporated if it was liquefied prior to heating. For example, the temperature limit is between 150 °C and 200 °C. In most cases, however, it is desirable to achieve as high a temperature of the inert fluid as possible, close to the upper temperature limit, in order to achieve a rapid process. The inert fluid is heated to the highest possible temperature without the vacuum seal of the closed container 2 to damage. By measuring the temperature of the heated inert fluid before placing it in the closed container 2 is allowed in, the flow of inert fluid in the first fluid line 20 be optimized so that the inlet temperature is stable at maximum temperature. Alternatively, a user of the arrangement may use the heating control device 24 with feedback of the obtained temperature from the temperature sensor 27 control manually).
Hirose fails to teach a method for completely emptying a liquid-hydrogen tank, from which hydrogen is removed according to the method according to claim 11, comprising the steps of: after the sudden change is detected, heating the liquid-hydrogen tank until a limit temperature is reached and subsequently purging the liquid-hydrogen tank with an inert gas, however Holmstrom teaches that it is a known method in the art of hydrogen removal for supply of gaseous hydrogen to fuel cells to include using an inert gas that is heated above the its boiling point for purging a cryogenic storage tank when the tank is near empty. This is strong evidence that modifying Hirose as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. ensuring the tank is completely empty of potentially hazardous cryogenic gas to improve system safety during maintenance and/or refueling operations). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose by Holmstrom and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of ensuring the tank is completely empty of potentially hazardous cryogenic gas to improve system safety during maintenance and/or refueling operations.
Regarding claim 18, Hirose discloses the method according to claim 17 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the limit temperature is greater than or equal to a boiling point of the inert gas (Holmstrom, Pg. 6-7, The source 22 The inert fluid may include inert fluid in a liquid state or in a gaseous state. The inert fluid is, for example, liquefied or vaporized nitrogen. The inert fluid may be referred to as a "flushing medium" or a "treating medium". The heating control device 24 is designed to be in the first fluid line 20 to heat contained inert fluid. The heating control device 24 is configured to heat the inert fluid so that it reaches a preset temperature. For example, the preset temperature is set to a high temperature, but below the closed tank temperature limit 2 itself. The heating control device 24 includes, for example, a heating element or a heat exchanger. The temperature of the inert fluid is determined, for example, by a temperature sensor 27 measured. The temperature sensor 27 is adapted to the temperature of the inert fluid downstream of the heating control device 24 to eat. This will control the heating control device 24 based on the measured temperature, allows a temperature of the inert fluid downstream of the heating control device 24 to keep within a predetermined temperature range. The predetermined temperature range is for example by an upper temperature limit, which is the maximum allowable temperature of the closed container 2 and determines a lower temperature limit which is a lowest temperature that the inert fluid should have to ensure that the inert fluid has evaporated if it was liquefied prior to heating. For example, the temperature limit is between 150 °C and 200 °C. In most cases, however, it is desirable to achieve as high a temperature of the inert fluid as possible, close to the upper temperature limit, in order to achieve a rapid process. The inert fluid is heated to the highest possible temperature without the vacuum seal of the closed container 2 to damage. By measuring the temperature of the heated inert fluid before placing it in the closed container 2 is allowed in, the flow of inert fluid in the first fluid line 20 be optimized so that the inlet temperature is stable at maximum temperature. Alternatively, a user of the arrangement may use the heating control device 24 with feedback of the obtained temperature from the temperature sensor 27 control manually). Further, the limitations of claim 18 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bosmann et al. (WO 2020120261) discloses a similar method for removing hydrogen from a liquid-hydrogen tank having an integrated heating device for evaporating liquid hydrogen and having an emptying line for removing evaporated hydrogen.
Kaburagi et al. (US Patent No. 8,522,906) discloses a similar method for removing hydrogen from a liquid-hydrogen tank having an integrated heating device for evaporating liquid hydrogen and having an emptying line for removing evaporated hydrogen.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 July 14th, 2026
Prosecution Insights