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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract submitted 12 September 2024 contains only 43 words where the word count should be within the range of 50-150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0025], the last sentence seen in the paragraph appears incomplete. It is recommended to amend the sentence to end after “below”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4, “a plurality of hydrogen tanks” should be amended to –the plurality of hydrogen tanks--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2, “the hydrogen supply unit” should be amended to –a hydrogen supply unit—or –the hydrogen supply part--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The Office recommends amending the claims to be less narrative. For purposes of examination, the limitations will be considered as they are written.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (JP 2016157522 A) in view of Cannet (US 20090283351 A1) in further view of Pennec (US 20220042649 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Murayama discloses a hydrogen filling apparatus (2, Figure 1, the hydrogen storage tank is the hydrogen filling apparatus) configured to fill a plurality of hydrogen tanks (25, Figure 4, the plurality of hydrogen tanks are the hydrogen tanks in the hydrogen storage unit) with hydrogen, the hydrogen filling apparatus comprising:
a hydrogen supply part (7, Figure 1, the hydrogen filling port is the hydrogen supply part) to which a nozzle for hydrogen filling is to be attached (Paragraph [0057], the mating connector is the nozzle to fill the hydrogen tanks);
storage units (4, Figure 4) into which the plurality of hydrogen tanks (25, Figure 4) are to be installed;
a main pipe (6, Figure 1, the first manifold is the first pipe) that is a pipe extending from the hydrogen supply part (7, Figure 1);
hydrogen supply branch pipes (9a and 9b, Figure 1, the hydrogen pipes are the hydrogen supply branch pipes) that are pipes extending from the main pipe (6, Figure 1) to the hydrogen tanks (25, Figure 4) when the hydrogen tanks are installed; and
a control unit (Paragraph [0055]).
Murayama does not disclose:
a control unit, wherein
the control unit controls a refrigerant to circulate through the main pipe before the hydrogen filling of the hydrogen tanks.
Cannet teaches a gas storage system, comprising:
a main pipe (L, Figure 1, the supply line is the mani pipe); and
a control unit (ECU, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama to include a main pipe and a control unit as taught by Cannet with the motivation to control the flow of gas from the storage units to the main pipe for dispensing.
Murayama and Cannet do not teach:
the control unit controls a refrigerant to circulate through the main pipe before the hydrogen filling of the hydrogen tanks.
Pennec teaches a device for filling with hydrogen, comprising:
control a refrigerant to circulate through the main pipe before the hydrogen filling of the hydrogen tank (Paragraphs [0043], [0053], and [0063], a unit controls the valves and sensors of the device to use the gas as a refrigerant in the device to cool the pipes in the system before filling).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama and Cannet to include control a refrigerant to circulate through the main pipe before the hydrogen filling of the hydrogen tank as taught by Pennec with the motivation to precool the components to prevent damage from the temperature rising too much during filling.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama in view of Cannet in further view of Pennec and Okajima (JP 2013148195 A).
Regarding Claim 2:
Murayama discloses:
at least one of the hydrogen tanks (25, Figure 4) among the plurality of hydrogen tanks and a control unit (Paragraph [0055]).
Murayama and Cannet do not teach:
wherein as the refrigerant circulating according to the control of the control unit, hydrogen is run off at least one of the hydrogen tanks among the installed hydrogen tanks.
Pennec teaches:
as the refrigerant circulating according to the control of the control unit, hydrogen is run off at least one of the tanks (Paragraphs [0049-0050], [0053], and [0063], a unit controls the valves and sensors of the device to use the hydrogen gas as a refrigerant in the device to cool the pipes in the system before filling).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama and Cannet to include as the refrigerant circulating according to the control of the control unit, hydrogen is run off at least one of the tanks as taught by Pennec with the motivation to have multiple gases be used to flush the circuit in the device to check and prepare the circuit for the next filling.
Murayama, Pennec, and Cannet do not expressly teach:
hydrogen is run off at least one of the hydrogen tanks among the installed hydrogen tanks.
Okajima teaches a hydrogen gas replacement, comprising:
hydrogen is run off at least one of the hydrogen tanks (Paragraph [0018], hydrogen gas is run off from the tank (6)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama, Pennec, and Cannet to include hydrogen is run off at least one of the hydrogen tanks as taught by Okajima with the motivation to cool a turbine to prevent overheating.
Through the combination of Murayama, Pennec, Cannet, and Okajima, the hydrogen filling apparatus of Murayama can have hydrogen used as refrigerant for the pipes as seen in Pennec where the hydrogen can come from the hydrogen tank as seen in Okajima.
Regarding Claim 3:
Murayama discloses:
at least one of the hydrogen tanks (25, Figure 4) among the plurality of hydrogen tanks and a control unit (Paragraph [0055]).
Murayama and Cannet do not teach:
wherein the hydrogen tank which the hydrogen as the refrigerant is run off is a hydrogen tank that allows the refrigerant to flow in the main pipe in a longest length.
Okajima teaches:
hydrogen is run off at least one of the hydrogen tanks (Paragraph [0018], hydrogen gas is run off from the tank (6)).
Murayama, Okajima, and Cannet do not teach:
wherein the hydrogen tank which the hydrogen as the refrigerant is run off is a hydrogen tank that allows the refrigerant to flow in the main pipe in a longest length.
Pennec teaches:
wherein the hydrogen tank (17 and 38, Figure 2) which the hydrogen as the refrigerant (Paragraph [0053]) is run off is a hydrogen tank that allows the refrigerant to flow in the main pipe in a longest length (Paragraphs [0053], [0057], and [0063], a unit controls the valves that would allow for the refrigerant to flow in the main pipe (6) in a longest length).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama and Cannet to include as the hydrogen tank which the hydrogen as the refrigerant is run off is a hydrogen tank that allows the refrigerant to flow in the main pipe in a longest length as taught by Pennec with the motivation to ensure the whole circuit is precooled to prevent a potential temperature rise forming in a part of the circuit.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama in view of Cannet in further view of Pennec, Okajima, and Allidieres (US 20210222832 A1).
Regarding Claim 4:
Murayama discloses:
at least one of the hydrogen tanks (25, Figure 4) among the plurality of hydrogen tanks and a control unit (Paragraph [0055]).
Murayama, Pennec, and Cannet do not teach:
wherein when a remaining amount of the hydrogen in the hydrogen tank is at most a predetermined value, hydrogen as the refrigerant is run off another hydrogen tank.
Okajima teaches:
hydrogen is run off at least one of the hydrogen tanks (Paragraph [0018], hydrogen gas is run off from the tank (6)).
Murayama, Pennec, Okajima, and Cannet do not teach:
wherein when a remaining amount of the hydrogen in the hydrogen tank is at most a predetermined value, hydrogen as the refrigerant is run off another hydrogen tank.
Allidieres teaches a station for filling tanks, comprising:
when a remaining amount of the hydrogen in the hydrogen tank (3, 4, 5, and 6, Figure 1, the source stores are the hydrogen tanks) is at most a predetermined value, hydrogen is run off another hydrogen tank (Paragraph [0030], the pressure of the source store is the predetermined value that determines if hydrogen is run off another hydrogen tank).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama, Pennec, Okajima, and Cannet to include when a remaining amount of the hydrogen in the hydrogen tank is at most a predetermined value, hydrogen is run off another hydrogen tank as taught by Allidieres with the motivation to minimize the time dispensing gas.
Through the combination of Murayama, Pennec, Okajima, Cannet, and Allidieres, the hydrogen filling apparatus of Murayama uses the hydrogen as refigerant as seen in Pennec where the determination to switch hydrogen tanks is based on a value as seen in Allidieres.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama in view of Cannet in further view of Pennec and Abd Elhamid (US 20190211972 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
Murayama discloses:
at least one of the hydrogen tanks (25, Figure 4) among the plurality of hydrogen tanks and the hydrogen supply part (7, Figure 1) provides hydrogen gas (Paragraph [0090]).
Murayama and Cannet do not teach:
wherein a refrigerant that is supplied from a hydrogen supply unit, and is cooled in advance is used as the refrigerant.
Pennec teaches:
the refrigerant is used to precool the pipes (Paragraphs [0049-0050], [0053], and [0063).
Murayama, Pennec, and Cannet do not expressly teach:
wherein a refrigerant that is supplied from a hydrogen supply unit, and is cooled in advance is used as the refrigerant.
Abd Elhamid teaches a storage vessel, comprising:
wherein hydrogen is cooled in advance (Paragraph [0033], the gas is cooled prior to use).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama, Pennec, and Cannet to include hydrogen is cooled in advance as taught by Abd Elhamid with the motivation to reduce the temperature increase during refueling.
Through the combination of Murayama, Pennec, Cannet, and Abd Elhamid, the hydrogen filling apparatus of Murayama receives the hydrogen which will be cooled in advanced as seen in Abd Elhamid where it can be used as a refrigerant as seen in Pennec.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (JP 2016157522 A) in view of Pennec (US 20220042649 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
Murayama discloses a method for filling a plurality of hydrogen tanks (25, Figure 4, the plurality of hydrogen tanks are the hydrogen tanks in the hydrogen storage unit) with hydrogen at the same time (Paragraph [0057], [0075], and [0090], the hydrogen tanks can be filled at the same time), the method comprising:
the pipe (6, Figure 1, the first manifold is the first pipe) being for filling the hydrogen tanks (25, Figure 4) with hydrogen; and
a control unit for controlling the valves (Paragraph [0055]).
Murayama does not disclose:
circulating a refrigerant through at least part of a pipe to cool the pipe before hydrogen filling of hydrogen tanks.
Pennec teaches a device for filling with hydrogen, comprising:
circulating a refrigerant through at least part of a pipe to cool the pipe before hydrogen filling of hydrogen tank (Paragraphs [0043], [0053], and [0063], a unit controls the valves and sensors of the device to use the gas as a refrigerant in the device to cool the pipes in the system before filling).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama to include circulating a refrigerant through at least part of a pipe to cool the pipe before hydrogen filling of hydrogen tank as taught by Pennec with the motivation to precool the components to prevent damage from the temperature rising too much during filling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olander (US 5837027 A) teaches a manufacturing process for a gas source comprising a hydrogen tank, a main pipe, a hydrogen supply part and a hydrogen filling apparatus.
Handa (US 7757726 B2) teaches filling a tank with hydrogen comprising multiple hydrogen tanks, a main pipe, and a hydrogen supply part.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES whose telephone number is (571)272-5373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES/Examiner, Art Unit 3753 /KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753