DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed April 9, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1-16 remain pending.
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 .
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. Currently, no claim limitation is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2010/038069 to Hillier et al. (Hillier) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2023/0228050 to Salis et al. (Salis). Hillier was cited on an IDS and a copy thereof filed with the application. Therefore, a copy has not been included with this office action.
Regarding claim 1, Hillier discloses a refueling station (title/abstract) configured to be transported to a work site (via the trailer(s), the station can be transported to a desired location, including a work site), the refueling station comprising: a compressor unit (compression device; see page 5, lines 24-25) configured to: receive hydrogen in input from at least one of a hydrogen source (100 or 310, 312, 314) connected to the compressor (the hydrogen source and compressor are connected) and a hydrogen tank (100) and a hydrogen distribution network, and compress the received hydrogen (the compression device compresses the hydrogen from the source); and an injection nozzle (the fluid passage of the coupling of the hose which connects to vehicle 200) connected to the compressor unit and configured to be coupled to a hydrogen accumulator of a snow groomer to deliver the compressed hydrogen into the hydrogen accumulator of the snow groomer (the coupler/injector is configured to connect to any complimentary receiver of a vehicle which can include a hydrogen-powered snow groomer). Hillier does not disclose the system being used to refuel a snow groomer powered by hydrogen and comprising a frame, first and second tracks, tools connected to the frame, a cabin mounted to the frame, and a hydrogen accumulator. Salis teaches a hydrogen powered snow groomer (1; where the snow groomer is hydrogen powered, see [0019]) including a frame (2), first and second tracks (shown in Fig. 2), tools (8, 9) connected to the frame, a cabin (3) mounted to the frame, and a hydrogen accumulator (the fuel cells, see [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the system of Hillier to refuel the snow groomer of Salis. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the snow groomer requires refueling and look to existing hydrogen fueling systems. The portable nature of the refueling system of Hillier allows it to be delivered to remote locations where snow groomers are typically found.
Regarding claim 2, Hillier discloses an outer casing (the outer casing of pod 1) arranged around the compressor unit (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Hillier discloses the refueling station of claim 2 (see above), but does not disclose the outer casing extends along a first direction for a first length of between 1.5 meters and 2.5 meters, along a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction for a second length of between 3 meters and 4 meters, and along a third direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction and to the second direction for a third length of between 1.5 meters and 2.5 meters. Hillier does disclose the casing is mounted on a trailer sized to be transported via roads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sized to casing in the range of 1.5-2.5m x 3-4m x 1.5-2.5m, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Choosing a desired size within the parameters of being transportable via roads is an obvious matter of design choice which does not alter the function or operation of the system.
Regarding claim 7, Hillier discloses an electrical connector configured to be coupled to a power supply module (see page 7, line 32 - page 8, line 6; electrical connector to connect to a power main or to a battery).
Regarding claim 9, Hillier further discloses the hydrogen source comprises a containment frame (300) configured to contain a plurality of hydrogen tanks (310, 312, 314).
Regarding claim 10, Hillier discloses a method of refueling a vehicle (200) with hydrogen at a work site (the site at which the station is parked and the vehicle refueled can be considered a work site), the method comprising: transporting (via trailer/pod 1 and an attached vehicle) a hydrogen refueling station comprising a compressor unit (compression device; page 5, lines 24-25) and an injection nozzle (the fluid passage of the coupling of the hose which connects to vehicle 200) to the work site; injecting hydrogen into the compressor unit (page 9, lines 24-33) from at least one of a hydrogen source (310, 312, 314) and a hydrogen distribution network; compressing the hydrogen received by the compressor unit (the compression device compressed the hydrogen); coupling the injection nozzle to a hydrogen accumulator of the vehicle (see Fig. 1); and delivering the compressed hydrogen into the hydrogen accumulator of the vehicle by the injection nozzle (compressed hydrogen flows into the hydrogen tank of the vehicle through the nozzle). Hillier does not disclose the vehicle is a snow groomer. Salis teaches a hydrogen powered snow groomer (1; where the snow groomer is hydrogen powered, see [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the system of Hillier for supplying hydrogen to a snow groomer as taught by Salis. The transportable nature of the station of Hillier allows it to be moved to a location as needed, rather than needing to move the snow groomer to a hydrogen refueling station, reducing downtime of the snow groomer and potentially saving money.
Regarding claim 11, Hillier further discloses moving the refueling station from the work site to another work site by at least one of a transport vehicle (the station is moved via a vehicle to different locations/work sites as needed) and a crane.
Regarding claim 12, Hillier further discloses comprising connecting the compressor unit to the at least one of the hydrogen source (source 310, 312, 314 is connected to the compression device) and the hydrogen distribution network.
Regarding claim 13, Hillier discloses coupling the hydrogen source comprising a plurality of hydrogen tanks (310, 312, 314) to a transport vehicle, and transporting the hydrogen source at the refueling station by the transport vehicle (page 10, lines 3-6; the hydrogen source can be transported by a vehicle connected to trailer 300 or can be incorporated into the same trailer as the compressor and both transported via a single vehicle).
Claim 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillier as modified by Salis and further in view of US Patent 7,128,103 to Mitlitsky et al. (Mitlitsky).
Regarding claim 4, Hillier as modified by Salis discloses the refueling system of claim 1 (see above), and further discloses manifold configured to fluidically connect the compressor unit to the injection nozzle (the hose between the compression device and the vehicle). Hillier does not disclose a manifold connecting the compressor unit to the nozzle. Mitlitsky teaches a hydrogen refueling station including a manifold (see Fig. 3 which shows a manifold connecting the compressor to the nozzles) connected between a compressor (94) and dispensing nozzles (130, 132) so that more than one vehicle can be connected to the station at once. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a manifold to connect the compressor to the nozzle(s) as taught by Mitlitsky in the system of Hillier as modified by Salis so that more than one vehicle can be connected to the system at once.
Regarding claim 5, Hillier further discloses a flexible connection pipe (hose connecting the compression device and the vehicle; see Fig. 1). As modified to include the manifold, the flexible connection pipe would be connected to the manifold.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillier as modified by Salis in view of US Patent 10,236,522 to O’Brien et al. (O’Brien).
Regarding claim 6, Hillier as modified by Salis discloses the refueling system of claim 1 (see above), but does not disclose a heating unit configured to heat the compressor unit. O’Brien teaches a hydrogen dispensing system which includes a heater (220) configured to heat the compressor unit (see Fig. 2) to prevent freezing (col. 17, lines 40-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a heater as taught by O’Brien in the system of Hillier to prevent freezing.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102021211085 to Schuelke (Schuelke) in view of Salis. DE102021211085 to Schuelke was cited on an IDS and a copy thereof (including English translation) included with the application. Therefore, a copy has not been included with this office action. Further, citations of specific portions of the text refer to the English translation.
Regarding claim 14, Schuelke discloses a method to refuel a vehicle with hydrogen at a work site (the site at which the vehicle is refueled can be considered a work site), the method comprising: placing a first hydrogen-fueled vehicle (F2) in proximity to a second hydrogen-fueled vehicle (F1; see Fig. 1); connecting, by a connection pipe (1), a first hydrogen accumulator (hydrogen tank) of the first vehicle to a second hydrogen accumulator (hydrogen tank) of the second vehicle; and feeding, through the connection pipe, a flow of hydrogen from the first hydrogen accumulator to the second hydrogen accumulator ([0043]-[0044]). Schuelke does not disclose the vehicles are crawler vehicles. Salis teaches a hydrogen powered snow groomer (1; where the snow groomer is hydrogen powered, see [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the system of Schuelke for supplying hydrogen from one hydrogen-fueled snow groomer to another hydrogen-fueled snow groomer as taught by Salis for aiding a crawler vehicle which has run out or become very low on fuel without the need to return to a refueling station.
Regarding claim 15, Schuelke further discloses the first hydrogen accumulator contains a first amount of hydrogen and the second hydrogen accumulator contains a second amount of hydrogen less than the first amount of hydrogen (see [0012] and [0033]-[0035]; the tanks have differing amounts of hydrogen and the vehicle having more hydrogen is used to refuel the empty/low fuel vehicle).
Regarding claim 16, Schuelke further discloses controlling the flow through the connection pipe according to at least one of a pressure of the hydrogen contained in the first hydrogen accumulator, a temperature of the hydrogen contained in the first hydrogen accumulator, a pressure of the hydrogen contained in the second hydrogen accumulator, and a temperature of the hydrogen contained in the second hydrogen accumulator (see [0022], [0029] and [0045]-[0047]; the control of the flow is based at least on one of the temperature of the tank(s) and the pressure in the tank(s)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that applying the teachings of Hillier or Schuelke to refueling a snow groomer would require impermissible hindsight is not persuasive. Salis teaches a hydrogen-powered snow groomer. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the snow groomer requires refueling and look to existing hydrogen fueling systems. Both Hillier and Schuelke provide advantageous refueling systems given the remote nature of areas where snow groomers are typically used.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICOLAS A ARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M- F, 8AM - 3PM.
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.
/NICOLAS A ARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 June 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights