DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show sufficient details that one who is familiar with the specification can understand what is being depicted without having to reference the specification as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Scheduling refueling so as to limit vapor loss in a Hydrogen Tank.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-12 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-12 recites at least one step or instruction for providing data, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The system is communicating a set of data that is suitable for analysis and doesn’t do anything with that data to change the non abstract realm. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-12 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites (I typically bolded additional elements and underlined abstract ideas) (additional element);
10. Claim 1 A method for reducing hydrogen evaporation losses in a liquid hydrogen tank, the tank being refillable and installed on board a vehicle in order to supply the vehicle, the tank being provided with a vent for discharging gaseous hydrogen out of the tank in the event of overpressure, the method comprising the following steps: - providing data on the next refill of the liquid hydrogen tank as a function of a next parking operation of the vehicle planned after the next refill, the next refill data providing at least a target fill level to be reached for the next refill of the liquid hydrogen tank, the target fill level being determined in such a way that, at the start of the parking operation of the vehicle after a possible journey of the vehicle between the refill to the target fill level and the start of the parking operation, the liquid hydrogen tank has a start-of-parking fill level designed such that, for the duration of this next parking operation of the vehicle, the loss of hydrogen through the liquid hydrogen tank vent is minimized.
This is considered evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG). Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-8, 10-12 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 9 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-8, 10-12) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 9), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a vehicle with a hydrogen gas tank as recited in independent Claim 1 and 9 and its dependent claims; and a server, a client device and a trackable sensor as recited in independent Claim 1 and 9 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and 9 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 9 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a vehicle as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 9 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 9 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-12 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a vehicle and a hydrogen liquid tank as recited in independent Claim 1 and 9 and its dependent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, on page 6 this is performed by the on board computer found in vehicles today.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term vehicle is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the vehicle. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-12 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system and method of Claims 1-12 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-12 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 9 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-12 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-12 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-12 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Coutant (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0027612).
Regarding claim 1 and 9, Coutant discloses a method for reducing hydrogen evaporation losses in a liquid hydrogen tank (abstract), the tank being refillable and installed on board a vehicle in order to supply the vehicle (¶19 discloses vehicles), the tank being provided with a vent (140) for discharging gaseous hydrogen out of the tank in the event of overpressure, the method comprising the following steps:
- providing data on the next refill of the liquid hydrogen tank (note: any fuel gauge provides data having to do with refilling) as a function of a next parking operation of the vehicle planned after the next refill, the next refill data providing at least a target fill level to be reached for the next refill of the liquid hydrogen tank, the target fill level being determined in such a way that, at the start of the parking operation of the vehicle after a possible journey of the vehicle between the refill to the target fill level and the start of the parking operation (411, 412, 413, 414 are sensors that provide this information when tracking initial level to current level data as shown in fig. 5),
the liquid hydrogen tank has a start-of-parking fill level designed such that, for the duration of this next parking operation of the vehicle, the loss of hydrogen through the liquid hydrogen tank vent is minimized (this is intended use limitation that all fuel tanks are designed for since the tank is meant to hold the fuel and not let it escape.).
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Coutant discloses in which the next refill data is determined at least as a function of a dormancy parameter which represents a latency before the liquid hydrogen tank is vented due to a pressure inside the liquid hydrogen tank increasing as the hydrogen evaporates (the next refill is determined based on amount of fuel in the tank).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 2, Coutant discloses in which the determination of the next refill data uses a thermodynamic model providing a relationship between the dormancy parameter and the start-of-parking fill level (¶36 discloses how thermal factors affect the fill level).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 3, Coutant discloses in which the thermodynamic model is in the form of a correspondence table associating a liquid hydrogen tank fill percentage, or the start-of-parking fill level, with values of the dormancy parameter (¶36 discloses how gasses will settle during inactivity).
Regarding claim 5 and 10 which depends from claim 1 and 9 respectively, Coutant discloses in which the next refill data is determined as a function of two different thermodynamic models, using one of the models if the duration of the next parking operation is less than a predetermined threshold, and using the other model if the duration of the next parking operation of the vehicle is greater than the predetermined threshold (the refill is based on tank parameters. Those parameters change based on the idleness of the vehicle as discussed in ¶36).
Regarding claim 7 and 11 which depends from claim 1 and 10 respectively, Coutant discloses in which the next refill data is also determined as a function of data relating to a vehicle's journey history (the journey history is what depletes the tank and so the need to refill and the tanks data is based on the journey).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 1, Coutant discloses in which the next refill data is determined as a function of data input by a user via a human-machine interface (the human is driving the vehicle and so is a function of the driving inputted into the vehicle).
Regarding claim 12 which depends from claim 9, Coutant discloses in which the system is configured to perform at least one of the following steps: - processing data from sensors measuring a level of liquid hydrogen in the liquid hydrogen tank (412); - processing data relating to a driving cycle (sensor option addressed); - retrieving a journey history of the vehicle; - communicating with a liquid hydrogen refuelling network database and GPS; - calculating next refill data comprising a next refuelling location, a timetable and information on the target fill level of the liquid hydrogen tank; - displaying the next refill data to a user via a human-machine interface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coutant (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0027612) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Somoza (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0241957).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 1, Coutant does not disclose in which the next refill data also takes into account a consumption of liquid hydrogen during a journey of the vehicle between the instant the next refill data is provided and the instant the vehicle reaches a liquid hydrogen refuelling station.
Somoza, which deals in vehicle fueling, teaches in which the next refill data also takes into account a consumption of liquid hydrogen during a journey of the vehicle between the instant the next refill data is provided and the instant the vehicle reaches a liquid hydrogen refuelling station (¶104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Coutant with the calculation of Somoza because this allow for convenient refueling times (¶104).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please review when considering a response to this office action
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747