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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 3-4.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the specification amendments, see page 6 of the Remarks, filed 27 April 2026, with respect to the objections of the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments claim amendments, see page 6 of the Remarks, filed 27 April 2026, with respect to the claim objections of claims 1-2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 1-2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-4 seen on pages 7-8 of the Remarks:
It is understood that claims 1-2 contain a new scope that further clarifies the closing of the valve of the hydrogen tank. However, it is still read by the references seen below in which the Applicant’s arguments will be addressed.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant that Murayamna, Wang, and Kizaki fail to teach or make obvious the last two lines in each of claims 1 and 2.
Murayamna discloses the structure of the hydrogen tank system (1, Figure 1) which includes a control unit (Paragraph [0055]). Wang teaches that the control unit (5 and 6, Figures 13 and 14) obtains the internal pressure of the pipe and reports the internal pressure when the pressure is greater than a predetermined pressure or the pressure difference is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (Paragraphs [0076-0078] and [0084-0085]) with the motivation to determine if there are any leaks in the system to prevent the gas potentially going into the passenger compartment (Paragraph [0089]). Kizaki teaches the control unit (3, Figure 3) closes a valve of the hydrogen tank prior to reporting (Paragraphs [0079] and [0090]) with the motivation to ensure there is not a gas leak in the system that would cause inconstant power provide to the fuel cell (Paragraph [0019]).
Wang teaches that the pressure sensor (41, Figure 15) obtains the pressure constantly (Paragraph [0077]) in the pipe (12, Figure 15). Once a value of the pressure is determined to be greater than a predetermined pressure the control unit begins to start the report (Paragraph [0078]). The valve is closed in Wang when the control unit sends the signal that the valve needs to be closed due to the report (Paragraph [0083]). While Kizaki teaches that the valves are closed as the pressure is determined in the pipe (Paragraph [0079]), the control unit makes the determination if there is a gas leak and then generates a report (Paragraphs [0052], [0059], and [0090]). Through the combination of the prior art references, the control unit of Murayamna can receive the constant pressure readings of Wang for the pipe in which the valve of the hydrogen tank is closed after obtaining a pressure reading that is above a predetermined pressure or value. The control unit of Murayamna would be capable of controlling the valves, making the determination, and sending a report as seen in Kizaki with the information provided by Wang. The limitations of “the control unit closes a valve of the hydrogen tank after acquiring the internal pressure and prior to or at the same time as the reporting” and “the control unit closes a valve of the hydrogen tank after acquiring the pressure P2 and prior to or at the same time as reporting” are taught by the prior art for claims 1 and 2.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0011], Page 4, Line 2, “1” should be amended to –Figure 1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (JP 2016157522 A) in view of Wang (US 20130202988 A1) in further view of Kizaki (US 20090064764 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Murayama discloses a hydrogen tank system (1, Figure 1, the fuel cell system is the hydrogen tank system), comprising:
a hydrogen tank (25, Figure 4);
a hydrogen consuming device (12, Figure 1, the fuel cell stack is the hydrogen consuming device); and
a hydrogen filling port (7, Figure 1),
wherein at least part of a pipe (9a and 9b, Figure 1, the hydrogen pipes are at least part of a pipe) from the hydrogen filling port (7, Figure 1) to the hydrogen tank (25, Figure 1) is same as at least part of a pipe from the hydrogen tank to the hydrogen consuming device (Figure 1, the pipe contains a section that is the same between the hydrogen filling port, hydrogen tank, and hydrogen consuming device), and
a control unit (Paragraph [0055]).
Murayama does not disclose:
after the hydrogen tank is filled with hydrogen and before the hydrogen is supplied to the hydrogen consuming device, a control unit acquires an internal pressure at the same part of the pipes, and reports when the internal pressure is lower than a predetermined pressure,
wherein the control unit closes a valve of the hydrogen tank after acquiring the internal pressure and prior to or at the same time as said reporting.
Wang teaches a hydrogen fuel cell system, comprising:
after the hydrogen tank is filled with hydrogen and before the hydrogen is supplied to the hydrogen consuming device, a control unit acquires an internal pressure at the same part of the pipes, and reports when the internal pressure is lower than a predetermined pressure (Paragraph [0077], [0078], and [0084-0085], the pressure sensor is connected to the control unit (5 and 6, Figures 13and 14) that is constantly operating and taking the internal pressure of the manifold (same part of pipes) and reports when the internal pressure is lower than a predetermined pressure (the alarm sounds when the pressure is lower than the pressure limiting value) in which the fuel cell is in a standby state during and after the filling); and
wherein the control unit closes a valve of the hydrogen tank after acquiring the internal pressure (Paragraphs [0077-0078], the pressure is obtained constantly in which the valve closes once the internal pressure) and at the same time as said reporting (Paragraphs [0083] and [0085], the control unit closes the valves at the time when the reporting is completed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murayama to include after the hydrogen tank is filled with hydrogen and before the hydrogen is supplied to the hydrogen consuming device, a control unit acquires an internal pressure at the same part of the pipes, and reports when the internal pressure is lower than a predetermined pressure, the control unit closes a valve of the hydrogen tank after acquiring the internal pressure, and the control unit closes a valve of the hydrogen tank at the same time as said reporting as taught by Wang with the motivation to determine if there are leaks in the system to prevent the gas potentially going into the passenger compartment.
Murayama and Wang do not expressly teach:
wherein the control unit closes a valve of the hydrogen tank after acquiring the internal pressure and prior to or at the same time as said reporting.
Kizaki teaches an anomaly judgement device for a hydrogen tank system, comprising:
wherein the control unit (3, Figure 3) closes a valve of the hydrogen tank prior to or at the same time as said reporting (Paragraphs [0079] and [0090], the valve (G1) of the hydrogen tank (11) is closed prior to reporting (the image issued is the reporting)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murayama and Wang to include the control unit closes a valve of the hydrogen tank prior to or at the same time as said reporting as taught by Kizaki with the motivation to ensure there is not a gas leak in the system that would cause inconstant power provided from the fuel cell.
Additionally, claim 1 includes the limitation “reports when the internal pressure is lower than a predetermined pressure” in line 9 of the claim. Under MPEP 2111.04, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system is to have the structure that performs the function if a condition precedent is met. Both Murayama, Wang, and Kizaki teach the control unit that obtains a pressure where the structure (the control unit) can perform the function if the internal pressure is lower than a predetermined pressure.
Regarding Claim 2:
Murayama discloses a hydrogen tank system (1, Figure 1, the fuel cell system is the hydrogen tank system), comprising:
a hydrogen tank (25, Figure 4);
a hydrogen consuming device (12, Figure 1, the fuel cell stack is the hydrogen consuming device); and
a hydrogen filling port (7, Figure 1), wherein
at least part of a pipe (9a and 9b, Figure 1, the hydrogen pipes are at least part of a pipe) from the hydrogen filling port (7, Figure 1) to the hydrogen tank (25, Figure 1) is same as at least part of a pipe from the hydrogen tank to the hydrogen consuming device (Figure 1, the pipe contains a section that is the same between the hydrogen filling port, hydrogen tank, and hydrogen consuming device), and
a control unit (Paragraph [0055]).
Murayama does not disclose:
a control unit acquires a pressure P1 at the same part of the pipes after the hydrogen tank is filled with hydrogen, and a pressure P2 at the same part of the pipes after a predetermined time has elapsed since the hydrogen tank is filled with the hydrogen and before the hydrogen is supplied to the hydrogen consuming device, and reports when a difference between the pressure P1 and the pressure P2 is greater than or equal to a predetermined value, and
wherein the control unit closes a valve of the hydrogen tank after acquiring the pressure P2 and prior to or at least the same time as the reporting.
Wang teaches a hydrogen fuel cell system, comprising:
a control unit (5 and 6, Figures 13 and 14) acquires a pressure P1 at the same part of the pipes (12, Figure 15) after the hydrogen tank (13, Figure 15) is filled with hydrogen, and a pressure P2 at the same part of the pipes after a predetermined time has elapsed since the hydrogen tank is filled with the hydrogen and before the hydrogen is supplied to the hydrogen consuming device (200, Figure 15), and reports (Paragraph [0076-0077], [0078], and [0084-0085], the pressure sensor is connected to the control unit (5 and 6, Figures 13and 14) that is constantly operating where it obtains the pressure after filling and a predetermined time thereafter as well as taking the internal pressure of the manifold (same part of pipes) and reports when the pressure is above or below a threshold in which the fuel cell is in a standby state during and after the filling); and
wherein the control unit closes a valve of the hydrogen tank after acquiring the internal pressure and at the same time as said reporting (Paragraphs [0083] and [0085], the control unit closes the valves at the time when the reporting is completed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murayama to include a control unit acquires a pressure P1 at the same part of the pipes after the hydrogen tank is filled with hydrogen, and a pressure P2 at the same part of the pipes after a predetermined time has elapsed since the hydrogen tank is filled with the hydrogen and before the hydrogen is supplied to the hydrogen consuming device and reports and the control unit closes a valve of the hydrogen tank after acquiring the internal pressure and closes a valve of the hydrogen tank at the same time as said reporting as taught by Wang with the motivation to determine if there are leaks in the system to prevent the gas potentially going into the passenger compartment.
Murayama and Wang do not expressly teach:
a pressure P2 at the same part of the pipes after a predetermined time has elapsed and before the hydrogen is supplied to the hydrogen consuming device, and reports when a difference between the pressure P1 and the pressure P2 is greater than or equal to a predetermined value,
wherein the control unit closes a valve of the hydrogen tank after acquiring the pressure P2 and prior to or at least the same time as the reporting.
Kizaki teaches an anomaly judgement device for a hydrogen tank system, comprising:
a control unit (3, Figure 3) acquires a pressure P2 at the same part of the pipe (15, Figure 3) after a predetermined time has elapsed and before the hydrogen is supplied to the hydrogen consuming device (100, Figure 3, the fuel cell is the hydrogen consuming device), and reports when a difference between the pressure P1 and the pressure P2 is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (Paragraphs [0071], [0073], and [0090], the control unit acquires a second pressure for a predetermined time prior to hydrogen being supplied to the fuel cell and reports (the image issued is the reporting) when the difference between the pressures and flow rates is greater than a predetermined value), and
wherein the control unit (3, Figure 3) closes a valve of the hydrogen tank after acquiring the pressure P2 and prior to or at least the same time as the reporting (Paragraphs [0079] and [0090], the valve (G1) of the hydrogen tank (11) is closed prior to reporting (the image issued is the reporting)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murayama and Wang to include a control unit acquires a pressure P2 at the same part of the pipe after a predetermined time has elapsed and before the hydrogen is supplied to the hydrogen consuming device, and reports when a difference between the pressure P1 and the pressure P2 is greater than or equal to a predetermined value and the control unit closes a valve of the hydrogen tank after acquiring the pressure P2 and prior to or at least the same time as the reporting as taught by Kizaki with the motivation to determine if an anomaly is occurring to prevent damage to the components within the system.
Additionally, claim 2 includes the limitation “reports when a difference between the pressure P1 and the pressure P2 is greater than or equal to a predetermined value” in lines 10-11 of the claim. Under MPEP 2111.04, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system is to have the structure that performs the function if a condition precedent is met. Murayama, Kizaki, and Wang teach the control unit that obtains a pressure where the structure (the control unit) can perform the function of reporting if the difference between the pressure P1 and the pressure P2 is greater than or equal to a predetermined value
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 11306873 B2) teaches a universal hydrogen filling performance evaluation system comprising a hydrogen tank, a hydrogen filling port, and at least part of a pipe.
Kawase (US 20200232603 A1) teaches a high pressure container system and fuel cell vehicle comprising a hydrogen tank, a fuel cell, pressure sensors, measuring the pressure, and at least part of a pipe.
Kwon (US 11815228 B2) teaches a system and method for filling tanks comprising a hydrogen tank, a hydrogen filling port, a fuel cell, a pressure sensor, and at least part of a pipe.
Mori (US 8714183 B2) teaches a system for hydrogen charging comprising a hydrogen tank, a hydrogen filling port, a fuel cell, a pressure sensor, and at least part of a pipe.
Komiya (US 10141589 B2) teaches a fuel cell system comprising a hydrogen tank, a hydrogen filling port, a fuel cell, a pressure sensor, and at least part of a pipe.
Kaine (US 9017885 B2) teaches a fuel supply system comprising a hydrogen tank, a hydrogen filling port, a fuel cell, a pressure sensor, determining leaks, and at least part of a pipe.
Saito (US 9682701 B2) teaches a fuel cell system comprising a hydrogen tank, a hydrogen filling port, a fuel cell, a pressure sensor, and detecting leaks.
Saito 2 (US 10060897 B2) teaches a vehicle comprising a hydrogen tank, a hydrogen filling port, a fuel cell, a pressure sensor, and detecting leaks.
Ehgartner (US 11662064 B2) teaches a pressure vessel system for a vehicle comprising a hydrogen tank, a hydrogen filling port, a fuel cell, and a pressure sensor.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights