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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Specifically, Claim 13 requires “a plurality of nozzle configurations, wherein the mobile hydrogen fueling system is configured to select one fueling nozzle configuration from the plurality of nozzle configurations based on aircraft type and/or receptacle type”. However, this limitation is not mentioned in Applicant’s Specification, nor shown in the drawings.
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall et al. (US 2017/0362076).
Regarding Claim 1, Hall et al. discloses a mobile hydrogen fueling system configured to provide hydrogen fuel to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, comprising:
- a mobile hydrogen storage tank (Fig 14 and para 42: "a mobile fuel station 1402 having fuel reservoirs 1404, 1406, 1408 which are connected to a hybrid fuel line 1410". Para 30 discloses hydrogen as a possible fuel);
- a robotic arm (Fig 9 and para 37, wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises robotic arms) connected to the mobile hydrogen storage tank having a nozzle (fuel pump 906) configured to interconnect with a corresponding receptacle on the hydrogen storage tank of the aircraft (para 37: The mobile fuel station 900 may further comprise additional apparatuses 902, 904, 906 which allow the mobile fuel station 900 to perform maintenance services in addition to a refueling service, perform a refueling service autonomously..."); and
- an autonomous vehicle (mobile vehicle 900) configured to locate the mobile hydrogen storage tank in a position near the aircraft to allow the robotic arm to interconnect the nozzle to the corresponding receptacle (shown at least at Figs 9-10 and paras 37-38. Hall additionally teaches utility for " all forms of vehicles, including those used on land, sea, or air" at para 36).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Hall et al. similarly discloses a method of providing hydrogen fueling to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft (using the apparatus above in the rejection of Claim 1), comprising:
- positioning a mobile hydrogen storage tank (fuel reservoirs 1404, 1406, 1408) in a position near the aircraft using an autonomous vehicle (mobile vehicle 900);
- detecting a location of a corresponding receptacle of the hydrogen storage tank (para 37: "A preprogrammed autonomous system may utilize the fuel cap grip 904 to open a fueling panel, release a gas cap, and tighten a gas cap on the vehicle being refueled"); and
- connecting a nozzle in communication with the mobile hydrogen storage tank to the corresponding receptacle using a robotic arm (para 37: " A preprogrammed autonomous system may utilize the fuel pump 906 to insert fuel into the vehicle." Para 37 additionally discloses the use of items 904 and 906 via a robotic arm).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 10, 12, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al.
Regarding Claim 10, Hall et al. teaches a mobile hydrogen fueling system configured to provide hydrogen fuel to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, further comprising a second automated robotic arm having a second nozzle configured to remove hydrogen gas from the aircraft (one of ordinary skill in the art would simply duplicate the robotic arm and nozzle of the Hall reference, as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Doing so would have the predictable and obvious result of more refueling capacity; The court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 12, Hall et al. teaches a mobile hydrogen fueling system configured to provide hydrogen fuel to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, wherein the mobile hydrogen fueling system is configured to fill-up the hydrogen storage tank of the aircraft within a time required by an airline operator (although the Hall reference does not explicitly address "a time required by an airline operator", it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try to meet the practical requirements of an airline operator, or any recipient of a refueling service. The optimization of hydrogen delivery components to meet time parameters is considered to be of routine skill in the art).
Regarding Claim 24, similarly, Hall et al. teaches a method of providing hydrogen fueling to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, further comprising filling the hydrogen storage tank of the aircraft within the time required by an airline operator (although the Hall reference does not explicitly address "a time required by an airline operator", it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try to meet the practical requirements of an airline operator, or any recipient of a refueling service. The optimization of hydrogen delivery components to meet time parameters is considered to be of routine skill in the art).
Claims 2-3, 5, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. in view of Boisen (US 2020/0276909).
Regarding Claim 2, Hall et al. teaches the claimed invention, to include a communication system for refueling, but does not explicitly recite “a communication system configured to transmit data between the aircraft and the mobile hydrogen fueling system during a transfer of hydrogen fuel” as claimed by Applicant.
Such systems, however, are widely known, as evidenced by Boisen et al. who teaches a communication system (100) configured to transmit data between the aircraft and the mobile hydrogen fueling system during a transfer of hydrogen fuel (the invention of the Boisen reference is drawn to "Communications systems and methods for hydrogen fueling and electric charging"; see at least Fig 1 and para 21). Examiner additionally notes Applicant appears to admit such systems are widely known through the disclosure of SAE 12799 Standard - Hydrogen Surface Vehicle to Station Communications Hardware and Software at para 44 of Applicant’s Specification.
The Hall and Boisen references each teach hydrogen refueling. The Boisen reference additionally teaches specifics of communications protocols to achieve computer-assisted refueling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Boisen’s communication techniques to the structure of Hall in order to gain the advantages of specific communications protocols to achieve computer-assisted refueling.
Regarding Claim 3, Hall et al., as modified by Boisen et al., additionally teaches a second redundant communication system configured to transmit data between the aircraft and the mobile hydrogen fueling system during a transfer of hydrogen fuel (Boisen et al. para 41: "...in various embodiments, NFC link 230 and V2X link 250 may be utilized in a redundant fashion, as desired, in order to transfer the same (or similar) information between vehicle 202 and station 206").
Regarding Claim 5, Hall et al. is silent on an array of sensors configured to detect conditions selected from a list consisting of hydrogen gas, heat, smoke, and flame sensors, although the reference does teach hydrogen refueling, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand would require some sensing capability to at least monitor fuel levels during the refueling process.
Regardless, Boisen et al., additionally teaches an array of sensors configured to detect conditions selected from a list consisting of hydrogen gas, heat, smoke, and flame sensors (Boisen et al., para 27 discloses "temperature sensor 251, a pressure sensor 252...configured to provide data reflecting hydrogen flow conditions within station conduit 264 to station safety system 208 via one or more station data buses 267 or other suitable wired or wireless links").
The Hall and Boisen references each teach hydrogen refueling. The Boisen reference additionally teaches specifics of refueling parameters to ensure safe refueling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Boisen’s communication techniques to the structure of Hall in order to gain the advantages of having specifics of refueling parameters to ensure safe refueling.
Regarding Claim 16, Hall et al., is silent on transmitting data regarding hydrogen fuel pressure and hydrogen fuel pressure within the hydrogen storage tank of the aircraft during a transfer of hydrogen fuel, although the reference does teach hydrogen refueling, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand would require some sensing capability to at least monitor fuel levels during the refueling process.
Regardless, Boisen et al. teaches transmitting data regarding hydrogen fuel pressure and hydrogen fuel pressure within the hydrogen storage tank of the aircraft during a transfer of hydrogen fuel (see the rejections of Claims 2, 3, and 5 above, and paras 21, 31, and 27 of the Boisen reference).
The Hall and Boisen references each teach hydrogen refueling. The Boisen reference additionally teaches specifics of refueling parameters to ensure safe refueling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Boisen’s communication techniques to the structure of Hall in order to gain the advantages of having specifics of refueling parameters to ensure safe refueling.
Claims 4, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al., in view of McNicholas (US 2017/0233243).
Regarding Claims 4, 17, and 18 Hall teaches autonomous refueling of a vehicle (e.g. aircraft), but is silent on emergency break-away connections as claimed by Applicant’s Claims 4, 17, and 18. However, such systems are known and widely used for the obvious purpose of ensuring safety during refueling, and to mitigate explosion risks.
For example, McNicholas teaches female filling locking coupler 3 as a "quick-release, break-away fitting" at para 32, wherein release is dependent upon "excessive motion of the vehicle being fueled" (e.g., a "force") at para 41.
The Hall and McNicholas references each teach hydrogen refueling. The McNicholas reference additionally teaches a coupler that mitigates the risk of explosion during a mishap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the refueling nozzle of Hall et al. (and the recipient vehicle) employed the coupler system of McNicholas, in order to gain the advantages of lower risk of explosion.
Therefore, Hall et al., as modified by McNicholas, teaches:
Claim 4: a mobile hydrogen fueling system configured to provide hydrogen fuel to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, wherein a breakaway connection is configured to automatically disconnect the mobile hydrogen storage tank from the aircraft and stop a hydrogen fuel flow when a force exceeding a disconnect force threshold is applied to the breakaway connection (McNicholas teaches female filling locking coupler 3 as a "quick-release, break-away fitting" at para 32, wherein release is dependent upon "excessive motion of the vehicle being fueled" (e.g., a "force") at para 41.)
Claim 17: a method of providing hydrogen fueling to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, further comprising automatically disconnecting the nozzle from the receptacle and stopping a hydrogen fuel flow when a force exceeding a disconnect force threshold is applied to the nozzle (see the rejection of Claim 4 above, and McNicholas, paras 32 and 41).
Claim 18: a method of providing hydrogen fueling to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, further comprising:
- automatically disconnecting the nozzle from the receptacle and stopping a hydrogen fuel flow if an array of sensors detect conditions exceeding a predetermined threshold (see the rejection of Claim 6 above, and McNicholas, para 65),
- wherein the array of sensors is configured to detect conditions selected from a list consisting of hydrogen gas, heat, smoke, and flame sensors (McNicholas teaches use of "Optical sensor(s) such as infrared, ultraviolet, individually or combined, can sense fire and/or heat; also sensor(s) such as rate of temperature rise and ionization can detect excessive temperature and smoke." See at least para 45 and/or Fig 8, which teach fire sensors 306).
PNG
media_image2.png
540
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Hall et al. discloses a mobile hydrogen fueling positioning system, comprising the mobile hydrogen fueling system in accordance with claim 1 (see the rejection of Claim 1 above), but does not explicitly cite an array of sensors configured to detect the location of corresponding receptacle on the aircraft selected from a list consisting of optical, magnetic, and ultrasonic sensors, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 14. The reference, however, does teach automated hydrogen refueling utilizing robotic arms (see Hall et al., Fig 9), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand would require some sensing capability to locate a receptacle on the recipient vehicle (e.g., aircraft).
Regardless, McNicholas teaches an array of sensors configured to detect the location of corresponding receptacle on the aircraft selected from a list consisting of optical, magnetic, and ultrasonic sensors (explicitly taught at para 50).
The Hall and McNicholas references each teach autonomous hydrogen refueling. The McNicholas reference additionally provides specifics on enabling autonomous refueling through the use of positioning sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the robotic refueling arm(s) of the Hall reference was further equipped with positioning sensors as taught by McNicholas, in order to gain the advantages of autonomous refueling.
Claims 8-9 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al., in view of Hobbs (US 2005/0000802).
Regarding Claims 8-9 and 20-21, Hall et al. teaches the claimed invention, to include a mobile hydrogen refueling platform (900). The reference does not detail the specific equipment needed to accomplish hydrogen refueling and/or distribution, so is silent on the limitations of Claims 8-9, 11, and 20-21, which require a compressor and a “hydrogen chiller”.
However, these are widely-known, standard components in any hydrogen refueling and/or distribution system, and essential to the provision of safe fluid transfer between storage tanks. One of ordinary skill in the art would know to utilize both compressors and heat exchangers (e.g. “hydrogen chillers”) to properly pressurize and cool hydrogen gas to enable safe fluid transfer.
Hobbs, for example, teaches a hydrogen compressor (Fig 1 and at least para 37, compressor 130 as part of refueling system 100), and a hydrogen chiller (cooling options are taught at para 90).
PNG
media_image3.png
540
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the general disclosure of mobile refueling platform 900 of the Hall reference with the specific, necessary, and commonplace hydrogen refueling components such as compressors and heat exchangers, in order to achieve safe hydrogen fluid transfer.
Therefore, Hall et al., as modified by Hobbs, teaches:
Claim 8, a mobile hydrogen fueling system configured to provide hydrogen fuel to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, further comprising: a hydrogen compressor (Fig 1 and at least para 37, compressor 130 as part of refueling system 100).
Claim 9, a mobile hydrogen fueling system configured to provide hydrogen fuel to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, further comprising: a hydrogen chiller (cooling options are taught at para 90).
Claim 20, a method of providing hydrogen fueling to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, further comprising compressing gaseous hydrogen from the mobile hydrogen storage tank using a hydrogen compressor (see the rejection of Claim 8 above, and Hobbs, Fig 1 and para 37).
Claim 21, a method of providing hydrogen fueling to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, further comprising cooling compressed gaseous hydrogen using a hydrogen chiller (see the rejection of Claim 9 above, and Hobbs, para 90).
Regarding Claim 19, the Hall reference is silent on automatically releasing a fire suppressant if an array of sensors detect conditions exceeding a predetermined threshold. However, Hobbs teaches automatically releasing a fire suppressant if an array of sensors detect conditions exceeding a predetermined threshold (Fig 1 and paras 106-109).
Hobbs additionally teaches said array of sensors (being) configured to detect conditions selected from a list consisting of hydrogen gas, heat, smoke, and flame sensors (see also para 67: “There may be a temperature monitor or sensor within vent stack 140, for example, a thermocouple, to detect a fire within vent pipe 140 or exhausting into vent pipe 140”).
The Hall and Hobbs references each teach hydrogen refueling. The Hobbs reference additionally teaches fire suppression, which is an obvious and desirable safety feature. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the fire suppression system of Hobbs to the disclosures of Hall et al. in order to gain a desirable safety feature.
Claims 11 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al., in view of Minas (US 2023/0366513, filed 10 May, 2022).
Regarding Claims 11 and 22-23, the Hall reference teaches refueling a hydrogen vehicle via mobile fueling platform 900, which receives fuel from fuel plant 102 (see the rejection of Claim 1 above and para 29). However, the Hall reference is silent on defueling said hydrogen vehicle, and is therefore silent on:
- “a compressor connected to the second nozzle and a buffer tank downstream from the compressor configured to store the hydrogen gas removed from the aircraft”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 11,
- “removing hydrogen gas from the hydrogen storage tank of the aircraft through a second nozzle connected to a second receptacle on the hydrogen storage tank of the aircraft”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 22, and
- “compressing the hydrogen gas removed from the aircraft and storing it in a buffer tank”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 23.
Minas, however, teaches defueling an aircraft into hydrogen containers 236, and further teaches the limitations of the above claims. Per Minas (see para 50), "the hydrogen containers 236 are at high enough pressures…that a compressor is included to drive the onboard CcH2 into the hydrogen containers 236. When included in the example system 200, the compressor is located upstream of the hydrogen containers 236 and downstream of the split valve 234”.
PNG
media_image4.png
542
616
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Hall and Minas references each teach the transfer of hydrogen fuel. The Minas reference additionally teaches a method of defueling a vehicle and storing the hydrogen, which is useful for both maintaining appropriate pressures within the vehicle’s tanks, as well as conserving fuel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplant the disclosures of Hall et al. (which teaches mobile refueling platform 900 receiving fuel from fuel plant 102 in order to perform refueling operations) with the defueling-related teachings of Minas (to include the use of necessary compressors that enable fluid transfer) in order to gain at least the advantages of maintaining appropriate pressures within the vehicle’s tanks, and fuel conservation.
Therefore, Hall et al., as modified by Minas above, teaches:
Claim 11, a mobile hydrogen fueling system configured to provide hydrogen fuel to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, further comprising: a compressor connected to the second nozzle and a buffer tank downstream from the compressor configured to store the hydrogen gas removed from the aircraft (see Minas, para 50).
Claim 22, a method of providing hydrogen fueling to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, further comprising removing hydrogen gas (via defueler valve 232) from the hydrogen storage tank ("onboard CcH2 tank 206) of the aircraft (204) through a second nozzle (two separate nozzles for fueling and defueling are shown at Fig 2) connected to a second receptacle on the hydrogen storage tank of the aircraft (see Fig 2 and at least para 48).
Claim 23, a method of providing hydrogen fueling to a hydrogen storage tank of an aircraft, further comprising compressing the hydrogen gas removed from the aircraft and storing it in a buffer tank (see Minas, para 50).
Claims 13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al., in view of Pollica et al. (US 2022/0136655).
Regarding Claims 13 and 25, Hall et al. teaches the claimed invention, to include nozzles. The reference does not provide details of said nozzles, and is therefore silent on:
- “a plurality of nozzle configurations, wherein the mobile hydrogen fueling system is configured to select one fueling nozzle configuration from the plurality of nozzle configurations based on aircraft type and/or receptacle type”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 13, and
- “selecting one fueling nozzle configuration from a plurality of nozzle configurations based on aircraft type and/or receptacle type”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 25.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would know, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to properly select nozzles that were appropriate for the recipient vehicle(s). In the present case, it would have been obvious to try the appropriate nozzle(s), since doing so amounts to merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Regardless, and in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner additionally provides Pollica et al., who teaches:
Claim 13, a plurality of nozzle configurations (shown at Fig 30 and taught at para 211), wherein the mobile hydrogen fueling system (3000) is configured to select one fueling nozzle configuration from the plurality of nozzle configurations based on aircraft type and/or receptacle type (para 211: "According to some embodiments, dispenser 3020 may be configured with two separate flow paths to deliver hydrogen gas to nozzle 3025a configured for use with a first type of vehicle (e.g., cargo trucks, etc.) and to deliver hydrogen gas to nozzle 3025b configured for use with a second type of vehicle (e.g., passenger busses").
Claim 25, selecting one fueling nozzle configuration from a plurality of nozzle configurations based on aircraft type and/or receptacle type (see the rejection of Claim 13 above, and Fig 30 and para 211 of the Pollica reference).
PNG
media_image5.png
836
1112
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Hall and Pollica references each teach hydrogen refueling. The Pollica reference additionally teaches the ability to refuel different vehicles with different receptacles and/or pressurization requirements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplant the disclosure of Hall with the teachings of Pollica, by trying the appropriate nozzle for the recipient vehicle(s), in order to gain the advantages of refueling different vehicles with different receptacles and/or pressurization requirements.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al., in views of Boisen and McNicholas.
Regarding Claim 6, Hall et al, as modified by Boisen, is silent on an emergency shut down system connected to the array of sensors and configured to automatically disconnect the nozzle from the receptacle and stop a hydrogen fuel flow if the array of sensors detects conditions exceeding a predetermined threshold.
However, and as shown above (see the rejections of Claims 1, 4, 14, 17, and 18) McNicholas teaches an emergency shut down system connected to the array of sensors and configured to automatically disconnect the nozzle from the receptacle and stop a hydrogen fuel flow if the array of sensors detects conditions exceeding a predetermined threshold (this concept explained at para 65: "The use of one or more sensors in combination with one or more micro-switches or other switches combines to automatically determine when threshold limits are exceeded, and can initiate a “LOCK-OUT” of the fueling system closing isolation valve/valves to prevent/disable fuel/oxidizer flows/transfers.").
The Hall, Boisen, and McNicholas references each teach hydrogen refueling. The McNicholas reference additionally teaches an emergency shutdown system comprising a breakaway coupler and related sensors that mitigates the risk of explosion during a mishap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the refueling nozzle of Hall et al. (and the recipient vehicle) employed the coupler system (to include the related array of sensors) of McNicholas, in order to gain the advantages of lower risk of explosion.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al., in views of Boisen and Hobbs.
Regarding Claim 7, Hall et al, as modified by Boisen, is silent on a fire suppression system connected to the array of sensors and configured to automatically release a fire suppressant if the array of sensors detects conditions exceeding a predetermined threshold.
However, Hobbs, in addition to teaching a compressor and chiller, also teaches a fire suppression system (Fig 1 and paras 106- 109: fire suppression system 155) connected to the array of sensors and configured to automatically release a fire suppressant if the array of sensors detects conditions exceeding a predetermined threshold (para 107 teaches active monitoring "which may trigger an alarm, shut off equipment, operate valves, and/or the like". Examiner broadly interprets Hobbs teachings of monitoring and action triggers as "exceeding a determined threshold" as claimed by Applicant).
The Hall, Boisen and Hobbs references each teach hydrogen refueling. The Hobbs reference additionally teaches fire suppression, which is an obvious and desirable safety feature. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the fire suppression system of Hobbs to the modified disclosures of Hall et al. in order to gain a desirable safety feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230294644 A1 also teaches automated hydrogen refueling of a vehicle via robotic arms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753