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 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.
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, 6-8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oglesby et al (US 2002/0163200 hereinafter “Oglesby”) in view of Tsubouchi (US 2021/0036345).
In regards to claim 1:
Oglesby teaches a fuel storage and supply system for a vehicle (14), the fuel storage and supply system comprising: a number of fuel storage tanks (16, wherein the number is one) for storing pressurized fuel; a fuel conduit arrangement configured to be in fluid communication with the number of fuel storage tanks (16); an expander (18) disposed in the fuel conduit arrangement and further arranged downstream the number of fuel storage tanks, the expander (18) being configured to convert at least a portion of an energy from the pressurized fuel into mechanical work (Paragraph [0018] recites the expander can be used to drive a compressor turbine and/or a generator); and a fuel supply control system, the fuel supply control system comprising a fuel control valve arrangement disposed in the fuel conduit arrangement, the fuel control valve arrangement having a first fuel control valve (26) disposed in the fuel conduit arrangement, and in-between the number of fuel storage tanks (16) and the expander (18), the first fuel control valve being configured to regulate a flow of the pressurized fuel, an expander by-pass channel (42) wherein the expander by-pass channel extends from an inlet position upstream the first fuel control valve to an outlet position downstream the expander, wherein the fuel supply control system further comprises a controller (30) having processing circuitry configured to control flow of fuel through the expander by controlling the first fuel control valve in response to a comparison between a fuel supply characteristics level associated with the number of fuel storage tanks and a demanded fuel delivery characteristics level associated with a fuel-consuming power source (Paragraphs [0029] – [0031] recites the expander being bypassed when the pressure of the fuel falls below a threshold).
Oglesby teaches the first valve to be a multiway valve and does not teach a separate second fuel control valve disposed in an expander by-pass channel; the second fuel control valve being configured to regulate a flow of the pressurized fuel.
Tsubouchi teaches a second valve (120) that regulates a flow through a bypass channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the valve configuration of Oglesby to have a second valve as taught by Tsubouchi in order to have dedicated valves for each passage.
In regards to claim 6:
Oglesby the fuel is hydrogen gas (Paragraph [0001]).
In regards to claim 7:
Oglesby teaches the fuel-consuming power source is a fuel cell system (12).
In regards to claim 8:
Oglesby teaches the expander is configured to be connected to a generator for charging a battery system (Paragraph [0026] of Oglesby recites the expander being used to charge battery 28).
In regards to claim 12:
Oglesby as modified teaches the fuel storage and supply system comprises a fourth flow control valve (126 of Tsubouchi) disposed upstream the inlet position.
In regards to claim 13:
Oglesby teaches the demanded fuel delivery characteristics level associated with a fuel-consuming power source is a demanded fuel injection pressure level for the fuel-consuming power source (Paragraphs [0029] – [0031] of Oglesby recites the pressure of the fuel is controlled based on the pressure required for optimal performance of the fuel cell).
In regards to claim 14:
Oglesby teaches a vehicle comprising a fuel storage and supply system according to claim 1 (Paragraph [0002] of Oglesby).
In regards to claim 15:
Oglesby teaches a method for controlling a fuel storage and supply system, comprising a number of fuel storage tanks (16 the number being one) for storing a pressurized fuel; a fuel conduit arrangement configured to be in fluid communication with the number of tanks (16); an expander (18) disposed in the fuel conduit arrangement and further arranged downstream the number of tanks (Shown in Figure 1), the expander being configured to convert at least a portion of an energy from the pressurized fuel into mechanical work (Paragraph [0018] recites the expander can be used to drive a compressor turbine and/or a generator); and a fuel supply control system, the fuel supply control system comprising a fuel control valve arrangement disposed in the fuel conduit arrangement, the fuel control valve arrangement having a first fuel control valve (26) disposed in the fuel conduit arrangement and in-between the number of tanks and the expander, the first fuel control valve being configured to regulate a flow of the pressurized fuel, an expander by-pass channel (42), the expander by-pass channel extending from an inlet position upstream the first fuel control valve to an outlet position downstream the expander, said method comprising controlling flow of fuel through the expander by controlling the first fuel control valve in response to a comparison between a fuel supply characteristics level associated with the number of fuel storage tanks and a demanded fuel delivery characteristics level associated with a fuel-consuming power source (Paragraphs [0029] – [0031] recites the expander being bypassed when the pressure of the fuel falls below a threshold).
Oglesby teaches the first valve to be a multiway valve and does not teach a separate second fuel control valve disposed in an expander by-pass channel; the second fuel control valve being configured to regulate a flow of the pressurized fuel.
Tsubouchi teaches a second valve (120) that regulates a flow through a bypass channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the valve configuration of Oglesby to have a second valve as taught by Tsubouchi in order to have dedicated valves for each passage.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oglesby and Tsubouchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bronicki et al (US 5,685,154 hereinafter “Bronicki”).
In regards to claim 2:
Oglesby teaches the fuel supply control system is configured to control the fuel storage and supply system in any one of a first operational mode, in which delivery of pressurized fuel is performed through the expander, a second operational mode, in which delivery of pressurized fuel is performed via the expander by-pass channel (Paragraphs [0029] – [0031]).
Oglesby does not teach a dual operational mode, in which delivery of pressurized fuel is performed partly through the expander and partly via the expander by-pass channel.
Bronicki teaches a dual operation mode where an expander (31) can be partially bypassed and have flow going through both an expander and a bypass path (Col 5, Line 65 – Col 6, Line 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have a dual operation mode for Oglesby as taught by Bronicki in order to provide a desired flow (Col 5, Line 65 – Col 6, Line 12).
Claims 3-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oglesby, Tsubouchi and Bronicki as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tsubouchi et al (US 2019/0036139 hereinafter “Tsubouchi ‘139”).
In regards to claim 3:
Oglesby does not teach the fuel supply control system further comprises a third fuel control valve disposed in the fuel conduit arrangement, the third fuel control valve being disposed downstream the outlet position, the third fuel control valve being configured to regulate a flow of the pressurized fuel.
Tsubouchi ‘139 teaches a valve (30) downstream of an expander (Paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the system of Oglesby to have a valve as taught by Tsubouchi ‘139 to have an additional valve downstream of the expander in order to control the pressure towards a fuel consuming power source (12 of Tsubouchi ‘139’).
In regards to claim 4:
Oglesby teaches the fuel supply control system is configured to control the fuel storage and supply system in the first operational mode by controlling the first fuel control valve to an open state, the second fuel control valve to a closed state, while the third fuel control valve is controllable to regulate the flow of the pressurized fuel (Paragraphs [0029] – [0031] of Oglesby recites the flow through the expander being open in a first state and the path to the bypass closed).
In regards to claim 5:
Oglesby teaches wherein the fuel supply control system is configured to control the fuel storage and supply system in the second operational mode by controlling the first fuel control valve to a closed state, the second fuel control valve to an open state, while the third fuel control valve is controllable to regulate the flow of the pressurized fuel (Paragraphs [0029] – [0031] of Oglesby recites the flow through the expander being closed in a second state and the path to the bypass open).
In regards to claim 9:
Oglesby as modified teaches further comprising a heat exchanger (26 of Tsubouchi ‘139) arranged in-between the expander and the third fuel control valve.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oglesby and Tsubouchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minas (US 2024/0208665).
In regards to claim 10:
Oglesby does not teach the number of fuel tanks are grouped into a first sub-group of fuel tanks and a second sub-group of fuel tanks, wherein the first sub-group of fuel tanks is configured to be used in response to a higher demanded fuel injection pressure, while the second sub-group of fuel tanks is configured to be used in response to a lower demanded fuel injection pressure.
Minas teaches a plurality of fuel tanks that can be grouped into a first sub group of high-pressure fuel tanks and a second sub group of low-pressure fuel tanks (Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the system of Oglesby to have high pressure fuel tanks and low pressure fuel tanks as taught by Minas in order to provide fuel at a desired pressure, wherein the fuel can be provided at a pressure between the lowest pressure and the highest pressure based on the pressure deemed appropriate (Paragraph [0020] of Minas).
In regards to claim 11:
Oglesby as modified the expander is disposed downstream the first sub-group of fuel tanks and the second sub-group of fuel tanks, wherein the expander is operated by the feeding of fuel and it is the fuel that expands inside of the expander.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued the prior art does not teach “a second fuel control valve disposed in an expander by-pass channel” in regards to Tsubouchi. Applicant argues “Tsubochi’s valve 120 is not disposed in Tsubochi’s bypass passage 114C. Rather, Tsubochi describes valve 120 as the first on-off valve in the main passage 114B.” Applicant is correct in that the valve 120 is in passage 114B, however 114B although named “main passage” by Tsubochi, 114B is the passage that bypasses expander 11. Wherein the “main passage” of Tsubochi is the “expander by-pass channel”. Applicant further recites that a second valve 122 of Tsubochi is in an expander passage, which is true, which is why this passage is not being relied on as the expander by-pass channel. The inclusion of Tsubochi is to teach that a system can have two passages, one with an expander, and the other that bypasses said expander, wherein it is known in the art that a valve may be placed in both passages.
Applicant has further argued the prior art does not teach “wherein the fuel supply control system further comprises a controller having processing circuitry configured to control flow of fuel through the expander by controlling any one of the first and second fuel control valves in response to a comparison between a fuel supply characteristics level associated with the number of fuel storage tanks and a demanded fuel delivery characteristics level associated with a fuel-consuming power source”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, wherein the prior art of Oglesby teaches a controller 30 that comprises processing circuitry. The controller of Oglesby further controls a flow of fuel through the expander by controlling the first control valve 26 of Oglesby in response to a fuel supply characteristics level associated with the number of fuel storage tanks and a demanded fuel delivery characteristics level associated with a fuel-consuming power source, and this was noted in the previous Non-Final Action with paragraphs [0029] – [0031] of Oglesby being recited. Paragraph [0029] recites “As the vehicle 14 is driven and the fuel supply is depleted, the pressure of the hydrogen gas within the system decreases. Controller 30 monitors this pressure by use of sensors 32 and when the pressure falls below a certain predetermined and/or calibratable level, controller 30 generates a signal to valve 26 effective to cause the hydrogen gas from tank 16 to bypass expander 18 and to flow directly to pressure-reducing regulator 22 through conduit 42. System 10 performs this "bypass" function to ensure that pressure of the hydrogen gas entering fuel cell 12 is sufficient for optimal performance of the fuel cell 12. That is, when the pressure of the gas in tank 16 falls below a certain level, the pressure drop over the expander turbine 18 may cause the pressure of the hydrogen gas to fall below a value which is required for optimal performance of the fuel cell 12. In these situations expander 18 is bypassed and pressure-reducing regulator 22 is accordingly adjusted to provide the desired pressure decrease.” The pressure of the fuel is the fuel supply characteristic level associated with the number of fuel storage tanks and the pressure of the fuel needed for sufficient optimal performance of the fuel cell is the demanded fuel delivery characteristic level associated with the fuel-consuming power source.
Conclusion
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 JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747 /HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights