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 .
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 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oshima et al. (US 2024/0183496).
Regarding Claim 1, Oshima et al. discloses a fuel gas storage system (see at least Fig 1 and para 66) comprising:
- a first tank (2A) configured to be able to store fuel gas (hydrogen, per at least para 1) and including a first supply valve (16 and 17) and a first communication valve (13);
- a second tank (2B) configured to be able to store the fuel gas and including a second supply valve (18 and 19) and a second communication valve (14);
- a supply pipe (7 and 8) connecting the first supply valve and the second supply valve to an external device (see at least Fig 1 and para 86, wherein first and second supply lines 7,8 supply fuel to external device (dispenser unit) 5);
- a communication pipe (the combination of first and second pipelines 10, 11) connecting the first communication valve (13) and the second communication valve (14) to each other (see Fig 1 and at least para 29, wherein tanks 2A and 2B are both connected to compressor 4);
- a control unit (para 66: "integrated control panel 9...configured of a control device (controller or control unit)") to be able to control an opened-closed state of each of the first supply valve (16, 17), the second supply valve (18, 19), the first communication valve (13), and the second communication valve (14), (this action explicitly disclosed at para 66),
- wherein the control unit is configured to be a ble to execute specific control to close the first supply valve, and open the first communication valve, the second communication valve, and the second supply valve (per at least para 66, control panel 9 controls "opening/closing of the openable/closable valves 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, the flow rate adjusting valves 27A, 27B, and the cutoff valves 28A, 28B").
Regarding Claim 5, Oshima et al. discloses a fuel gas storage system wherein the first supply valve (16 and 17) is disposed at one end of the first tank (2A), and the first communication valve (13) is disposed at another end of the first tank; and the second supply valve (18 and 19) is disposed at one end of the second tank, and the second communication valve (14) is disposed at another end of the second tank (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
718
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al., in view of Inoue et al. (US 2023/0253586).
Regarding Claim 2, Oshima et al. teaches the claimed invention, to include valves and a control unit (see Claim 1 above). The reference, however is silent on the control unit (being) configured to be able to execute the specific control when a failure of the first supply valve is detected.
Inoue et al., however, teaches the control unit (“control unit 206”, please see flow chart at Fig 3 and the process taught at paras 59-67) is configured to be able to execute the specific control ("second drive operation" at step S4) when a failure of the first supply valve (202) is detected (the Inoue reference teaches activation of the "second drive operation" when valve 202 is "frozen" and fails to open after a number of attempts).
The Oshima and Inoue references each teach control of valves for fuel gas filling purposes. The Inoue reference teaches a method of limiting unnecessary power consumption by quickly mitigating a frozen valve situation after a number of opening attempts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the necessary programming as taught by Inoue et al. to the controller 9 as disclosed by Oshima, in order to gain the advantages of limiting unnecessary power consumption by quickly mitigating a frozen valve situation after a number of opening attempts.
Regarding Claim 3, Oshima et al. teaches the claimed invention, to include valves and a control unit (see Claim 1 above). The reference, however is silent on the control unit (being) further configured to be able to detect the number of times the first supply valve is operated; and the control unit (being) configured to be able to execute the specific control when the number of times the first supply valve is operated exceeds a predetermined number of times.
Inoue et al., however, teaches:
- the control unit (206) is further configured to be able to detect the number of times the first supply valve is operated (Fig 3 and paras 59-67, with emphasis on step S3 and para 64: "In step S3, the controller 206 determines whether or not the valve drive operation has been executed a predetermined number of times"); and
- the control unit (206) is configured to be able to execute the specific control ("second drive operation") when the number of times the first supply valve (202) is operated exceeds a predetermined number of times (para 63: "after the valve drive operation has been performed the predetermined number of times, the controller 206 proceeds to step S4", where the "second drive operation" is executed).
The Oshima and Inoue references each teach control of valves for fuel gas filling purposes. The Inoue reference teaches a method of limiting unnecessary power consumption by quickly mitigating a frozen valve situation after a number of opening attempts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the necessary programming as taught by Inoue et al. to the controller 9 as disclosed by Oshima, in order to gain the advantages of limiting unnecessary power consumption by quickly mitigating a frozen valve situation after a number of opening attempts.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al., in view of Yoshimura et al. (US 2017/0352903).
Regarding Claim 4, Oshima et al. teaches the claimed invention, to include valves and a control unit (see Claim 1 above). The reference, however is silent on the control unit (being) configured to be able to execute the specific control when pressure in the second tank is lower than pressure in the first tank.
Yoshimura et al., however, teaches the control unit is configured to be able to execute the specific control when pressure in the second tank is lower than pressure in the first tank.
Please see Claims 8-12. Here, the Yoshimura reference teaches determining valve failure through controlling first and second valves (Claim 9), wherein failure is determined based on a pressure threshold value lower than the predetermined value (Claim 11), and performing a "specific control", e.g. "when it is determined the failure of any of the first valve and the second valve, a valve having no failure is opened and the reaction gas is supplied to the fuel cell", per Claim 12.
The Oshima and Yoshimura references each teach control of valves for fuel gas filling purposes. The Yoshimura reference additionally teaches a failure determination method of a fuel cell system that automatically restores gas distribution capacity in the event of a failed valve. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the necessary equipment of the Yoshimura reference (to include pressure sensing equipment that is additional to the equipment already disclosed in Oshima et al.) and the necessary software to the controller 9 of the Oshima reference, in order to gain the advantages of a fuel cell system that automatically restores gas distribution capacity in the event of a failed valve.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180269499 A1 (assigned to Applicant) teaches a controller closes a cutoff valve and a purge valve when a pressure value detected by a pressure sensor is an abnormal value. The controller then judges that an on-off valve has failed when the pressure value detected by the pressure sensor P1 has lowered, whereas the controller judges that the pressure sensor has failed when the pressure value detected by the pressure sensor has not lowered.
US 20100266920 A1 (assigned to Applicant) teaches a structure and related method, wherein an output from a pressure sensor or a current sensor is monitored by a control device, and when a failure associated with a closed-valve malfunction of the bypass valve occurs, the degree of opening of the pressure regulating valve is increased to increase an amount of cathode-off gas exhaust, and a revolution speed of an air compressor is reduced to an amount of air discharged by the air compressor, thereby preventing an excessive stoichiometry ratio in the fuel cell.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 3753