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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/20/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 31 recites the limitation “the fuel tank includes at least two different types of non-renewable hydrogen fuel stored therein in a known proportion.” It is unclear what structure is identifying a hydrogen fuel from a renewable source and a non-renewable source, wherein the difference between renewable and non-renewable is in the production of the hydrogen, not in the end product, wherein both produce hydrogen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fulton et al (US 7,721,682 hereinafter “Fulton”).
In regards to claim 30:
Fulton teaches a fuel system for a prime mover (18), the fuel system comprising: a fuel tank (42) including a single outlet, the single fuel tank including a known proportion of a renewable hydrogen fuel and at least one type of a non-renewable hydrogen fuel stored therein (Col 10, Lines 54-58 recites “As indicated by bubble 200, the blending system 26 is controlled to provide the constituents (e.g., hydrogen gas and methane) in an integrated, proportional mixture at a selected pressure and temperature.” and wherein methane is a hydrogen fuel comprising a carbon atom with four hydrogen atoms), the single outlet providing a blend of the stored renewable and non-renewable hydrogen fuels to the prime mover (Figure 1 shows a single fuel line from the fuel tank to the engine).
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, 4, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al (US 11,738,638 hereinafter “Koo”) in view of Foody et al (US 2022/0298432 hereinafter “Foody”).
In regards to claim 1:
Koo teaches a fuel system for a prime mover (600), the fuel system comprising: a first fuel tank (210) including a hydrogen fuel, the first fuel tank (210) including a first outlet (connected to first communication line 212) for supplying the renewable hydrogen fuel to the prime mover; and a second fuel tank (220) including a hydrogen fuel, the second fuel tank (220) including a second outlet (connected to second communication line 222) for supplying the hydrogen fuel to the prime mover (600).
Koo does not specify the hydrogen in the first tank to be renewable and the hydrogen in the second tank to be non-renewable.
Foody teaches the supply of renewable hydrogen and the supply of non-renewable hydrogen (Paragraph [0149]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the fuel tanks of Koo to have renewable and non-renewable hydrogen as taught by Foody in order to differentiate the two fuel sources so that the first fuel tank only provides renewable hydrogen and the second fuel tank only provides non-renewable hydrogen.
In regards to claim 4:
Koo teaches the first outlet and the second outlet are connected to a fuel manifold (300), and the fuel manifold is connected to the prime mover (Configuration of connections are shown in Figure 1).
In regards to claim 21:
Koo teaches the first fuel tank and the second fuel tank are located on a vehicle (20) propelled by operation of the prime mover.
In regards to claim 22:
Koo teaches the first fuel tank is configured to be installed on the vehicle with the renewable hydrogen fuel stored in the first fuel tank and the second fuel tank is configured to be installed on the vehicle with the non-renewable hydrogen fuel stored in the second fuel tank.
In regards to claim 23:
Koo teaches the first fuel tank is configured to be filled with the renewable hydrogen fuel while the first fuel tank is installed on the vehicle and the second fuel tank is configured to be filled with the non-renewable hydrogen fuel while the second fuel tank is installed on the vehicle.
In regards to claim 24:
Koo teaches the first outlet and the second outlet are controlled so that a blend of the renewable hydrogen fuel and the non-renewal hydrogen fuel is provided to fuel the prime mover (The fuels are regulated by flow rate adjusting valve 700 to combine flows of hydrogen from the fuel tanks).
In regards to claim 25:
Koo teaches the first fuel tank and the second fuel tank are connected to a common inlet (manifold 300 is the common inlet, receiving all of the fuel flow from the plurality of fuel tanks).
In regards to claim 26:
Koo teaches one or more additional fuel tanks (230) (Col 7, Lines 26-35 recites four or more tanks may be provided) for storing one or more different types of the non-renewable hydrogen fuel (Foody teaches non-renewable hydrogen fuels).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo and Foody as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iida et al (US 2010/0276024 hereinafter “Iida”) and Groom (US 9,701,194).
In regards to claim 2:
Koo does not teach the first fuel tank includes a first inlet for receiving the renewable hydrogen fuel and the second tank includes a second inlet for receiving the non-renewable hydrogen fuel, and the first inlet is configured differently than the second inlet to inhibit non-renewable hydrogen fuel from being placed into the first fuel tank.
Iida teaches a hydrogen fuel tank having an inlet (500).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the fuel tanks of Koo to have inlets as taught by Iida in order to allow refueling of the fuel tanks (Paragraph [0039]).
Groom teaches a fuel nozzle inhibitor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the fuel tanks of Iida to have their inlets configured differently as taught by Groom in order to prevent refueling of the tanks with an undesired fuel (Col 1, Lines 40-43). The changing and altering of fuel tanks to allow specific nozzles that refuel a specific fuel is known in the art so that a fuel tank is not provided with an undesired fuel.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo and Foody as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swann (US 12,031,493).
In regards to claim 3:
Koo does not teach the first outlet and the second outlet are connected separately to the prime mover.
Swann teaches a prime mover (104) that are separately connected to a first outlet and a second outlet of respective first fuel tank (106) and second fuel tank (108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the first and second outlet of Koo connected separately to the prime mover in order to provide the fuels at individual flow rates and pressures (Col 16, Lines 24-30).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo and Foody as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wankewycz et al (US 2022/0041299 hereinafter “Wankewycz”).
In regards to claim 5:
Koo teaches a third fuel tank (230), the third fuel tank including a third outlet (connected to first communication line 232) for supplying the hydrogen fuel to the prime mover.
Koo is silent to the third fuel tank including an additional type of hydrogen fuel.
Wankewycz teaches different types of hydrogen fuel (Paragraph [0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the fuel system of Koo to have a third additional type of hydrogen fuel as taught by Wankewycz in order to provide a third type of hydrogen fuel differing based on a combination of pressure, and state such as liquid or gaseous based on storage and usage needs (Paragraph [0114] recites hydrogen stored at various pressures, and storable as liquid and gaseous hydrogen to accommodate weight limits).
In regards to claim 6:
Koo teaches the first outlet, the second outlet, and the third outlet are connected to a fuel manifold, and the fuel manifold is connected to the prime mover (The connection and configuration is shown in Figure 1, where the first, second, and third fuel tanks (210, 220, 230) are connected from their outlet by respective connection lines (212, 222, 232) to the fuel manifold (300) before being delivered to prime mover 600).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo, Foody, and Wankewycz as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Iida.
In regards to claim 7:
Koo does not teach the first fuel tank includes a first inlet for receiving the renewable hydrogen fuel, the second tank includes a second inlet for receiving the non-renewable hydrogen fuel, and the third tank includes a third inlet for receiving the additional type of hydrogen fuel.
Iida teaches a hydrogen fuel tank having an inlet (500).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the fuel tanks of Koo to have inlets as taught by Iida in order to allow refueling of the fuel tanks (Paragraph [0039]).
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo and Foody as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Nagino et al (US 2021/0405603 hereinafter “Nagino”).
In regards to claim 27:
Koo teaches the second fuel tank includes a first type of the non-renewable hydrogen fuel but does not teach the one or more additional tanks include: a third fuel tank including a third type of the non-renewable green hydrogen fuel; and a fourth fuel tank including a fourth type of the non-renewable hydrogen fuel.
Nagino teaches a non-renewable green hydrogen fuel and a non-renewable grey hydrogen fuel (Paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the fuel tanks of Koo to have a non-renewable green hydrogen fuel and a non-renewable fourth type of hydrogen fuel as taught by Nagino in order to provide a diversified number of hydrogen fuels based on different environmental loads of production (Paragraph [0032] of Nagino).
In regards to claim 28:
Koo teaches the one or more additional tanks (Col 7, Lines 26-35 recites four or more tanks may be provided) include a fifth tank including additional renewable hydrogen fuel (Foody and Nagino both recite the usage of renewable hydrogen as a fuel).
In regards to claim 29:
Koo teaches the first fuel tank, the second fuel tank, the third fuel tank, the fourth fuel tank, and the fifth fuel tank are connected to a common inlet (wherein all fuel tanks are connected to the common manifold 300 of Koo).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulton in view of Foody and Vakacharla (US 2025/0162865).
In regards to claim 31:
Fulton teaches the fuel tank having a known proportion of hydrogen fuel but does not teach the fuel tank includes at least two different types of non-renewable hydrogen fuel stored therein in a known proportion.
Foody teaches non-renewable hydrogen fuels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the fuel tank of Fulton to have a known proportion of non-renewable hydrogen as taught by Foody in order to provide a blend of renewable and non-renewable hydrogen that are chemically indistinguishable. Having the hydrogen component of the fuel of Fulton to comprise both renewable and non-renewable sources of hydrogen would be obvious in order to provide hydrogen fuel, wherein the non-renewable hydrogen is representative of the process of producing the hydrogen and not of the hydrogen itself. Foody teaches the non-renewable hydrogen selectively blended with renewable hydrogen (Paragraph [0149]) and it would be obvious to know the proportion of renewable hydrogen sources and non-renewable sources when producing hydrogen due to different constraints associated to each form of hydrogen, for example grey hydrogen is produced from natural gas.
Conclusion
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