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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Referring to specific claims (e.g., “according to claim 3”, etc…) within the body of the specification is improper. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, “claims” should be “claim”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 10. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, “An” should be “The”. 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 – 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is indefinite as to the structure of the interface of the attachment, since SAE J2799 only specifies the communication protocols for refueling compressed hydrogen vehicles. The actual standard for the physical fueling connection, including the fuel port structure, is defined by SAE J2600. The Examiner suggest actually defining the structure of the attachment interface.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the light" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the mouthpiece" in line 2 (both occurrences). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the mouthpiece" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the illumination of the light or the change of color" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 19 recite the limitation "the gas pressure at the refueling port" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear how the attachment can be both a dummy plug for an electric vehicle and an attachment for a hydrogen vehicle. The Examiner suggest deleting “wherein the attachment is configured as a dummy plug adapter for the charging port of an electric vehicle, or”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the gas detection sensor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2 - 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Okawachi (2011/0247726) reference discloses a hydrogen refueling apparatus having a nozzle (23), gas detector sensor (45) and leak testing (para 0051).
The Takezawa (12072063) reference discloses a safety joint (100), which immediately cuts off hydrogen gas flow.
The Donzis et al. (2016/0311410) reference discloses a fuel door lock used on hydrogen vehicles.
The Aitken et al. (7926522) reference discloses a plug (46) with lock (58) for a fuel port.
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
Prosecution Insights