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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 3-4 and 6 as well as the addition of claims 7-9.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the claim amendments, see page 5 of the Remarks, filed 21 July 2026, with respect to the drawing objection of claim 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection of claim 3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the claim amendments, see page 5 of the Remarks, filed 21 July 2026, with respect to the claim objection of claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the claim amendments, see page 5 of the Remarks, filed 21 July 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the claim amendments, see pages 5-8 of the Remarks, filed 21 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new claim limitations which include the control unit adapted to calculate the pressure rise rate, the information transmission of the type of receptacle, the inverse proportion, and the prohibiting of the nozzle when the nozzle flow of the nozzle is larger than the receptacle flow that change the scope of the claim 1.
The amendments affected the prior scope, requiring further search and considerations. Therefore, the instant office action has been made FINAL.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handa (US 20170074458 A1) in view of Aoki (JP 4492063 B2) in further view of Uchida (JP 2015214992 A), OPW Global (hereafter OPW) (See: https://web.archive.org/web/20201127144807/https://www.opwglobal.com/docs/libraries/retail-fueling/product-catalogs/clean-energy-products/hydrogen-equipment/l-series-hydrogen-fueling-receptacle.pdf?sfvrsn=2017aec4_2), Inagi (US 20120125480 A1), and Fujita (US 20180266633 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Handa discloses a fuel cell electric vehicle (V, Figure 1), comprising:
a fuel cell system provided with a fuel cell (Paragraph [0050], the fuel cell system generates electric power) and a hydrogen tank (31, Figure 1);
at least one receptacle (38, Figure 1) for connection to a nozzle (92, Figure 1), the at least one receptacle (38, Figure 1) being provided at the head of a hydrogen introducing pipe (39, Figure 1) of the fuel cell electric vehicle (V, Figure 1), and
a control unit (6, Figure 1) adapted to transmit information (Paragraph [0053], the control unit transmits information regarding the hydrogen tank) and adapted to calculate the pressure rise rate,
wherein the pressure rise rate for the hydrogen filling is in inverse proportion relation to a capacity of the hydrogen tank,
wherein the inverse proportion relation includes a coefficient determined by the temperature of the gas (Paragraphs [0063-0064] and [0070], the pressure rise rate (R) is in the inverse proportion to the capacity of the tank (M) and the inverse proportion includes a coefficient (K) which is the temperature of the gas in the relational expression (2)).
Handa does not disclose:
a fuel cell;
wherein the at least one receptacle has a receptacle pressure and a receptacle flow; and
a control unit adapted to transmit information on the type of receptacle of the fuel cell electric vehicle for determining a proper flow for hydrogen filling of the hydrogen tank and adapted to calculate the pressure rise rate,
wherein the information on the type of the at least one receptacle is transmitted when a nozzle pressure of the nozzle is equal to or lower than the receptacle pressure of the at least one receptacle,
wherein the inverse proportion relation includes a coefficient determined by the type of the at least one receptacle, and
wherein hydrogen filling at a nozzle flow is prohibited when the nozzle flow of the nozzle is larger than the receptacle flow of the at least one receptacle.
Aoki teaches a hydrogen supply station, comprising:
determining a proper flow for hydrogen filling of the hydrogen tank (Paragraphs [0038] and [0047], the proper flow for the hydrogen filling of the hydrogen tank (7) is determined based on the maximum allowable filling speed of the hydrogen tank),
a nozzle pressure of the nozzle is equal to or lower than the receptacle pressure of the at least one receptacle (Paragraphs [0037-0038] and [0050], the control unit (6) receives the information regarding the pressure and permits the hydrogen filling), and
wherein hydrogen filling at a nozzle flow is prohibited when the nozzle flow of the nozzle is larger than the receptacle flow of the at least one receptacle (Paragraphs [0038] and [0047], the hydrogen filling speed (nozzle flow) is less than the reference speed (receptacle flow) and does not exceed the reference speed of the tan (receptacle) based on information regarding the receptacle flow or filling speed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Handa to include determining a proper flow for hydrogen filling of the hydrogen tank and adapted to calculate the pressure rise rate, a nozzle pressure of the nozzle is equal to or lower than the receptacle pressure of the at least one receptacle, and hydrogen filling at a nozzle flow is prohibited when the nozzle flow of the nozzle is larger than the receptacle flow of the at least one receptacle as taught by Aoki with the motivation to suppress the inside of the tank from being heated when filling with hydrogen to reduce the pressure energy loss.
Handa and Aoki do not teach:
a fuel cell;
a control unit of the fuel cell vehicle;
wherein the at least one receptacle has a receptacle pressure and a receptacle flow; and
a control unit adapted to transmit information on the type of receptacle of the fuel cell electric vehicle for determining a proper flow for hydrogen filling of the hydrogen tank,
wherein the inverse proportion relation includes a coefficient determined by the type of the at least one receptacle.
Uchida teaches a fuel gas filling system, comprising:
a fuel cell (Paragraph [0012]); and
a control unit (230, Figure 1) adapted to transmit information on the type of receptacle (Paragraphs [0016-0018], the type of receptacle is transmitted by the control unit) of the fuel cell electric vehicle (200, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Handa and Aoki to include a fuel cell and a control unit adapted to transmit information on the type of receptacle of the fuel cell electric vehicle as taught by Uchida with the motivation to provide a desired flow rate based on information received from the vehicle to increase the filling speed.
Handa, Uchida, and Aoki do not teach:
a control unit of the fuel cell vehicle;
wherein the at least one receptacle has a receptacle pressure and a receptacle flow; and
wherein the inverse proportion relation includes a coefficient determined by the type of the at least one receptacle.
Inagi teaches a gas filling system, comprising:
the information about the type of the receptacle that the control unit has received (Paragraph [0050], the temperature of the receptacle is the information of the receptacle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Handa, Uchida, and Aoki to include the information about the type of the receptacle that the control unit has received as taught by Inagi with the motivation to control the flow rate of the hydrogen more accurately before it enters the tank.
Handa, Uchida, Inagi, and Aoki do not teach:
a control unit of the fuel cell vehicle; and
wherein the at least one receptacle has a receptacle pressure and a receptacle flow
Fujita teaches a fuel cell electric vehicle, comprising:
a control unit (28, Figure 2) of the fuel cell vehicle (20, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Handa, Uchida, Inagi, and Aoki to include a control unit of the fuel cell vehicle as taught by Fujita with the motivation to determine if the filling amount of the hydrogen gas filled into the tank is approaching the target filling amount in order to control the filling speed.
Handa, Uchida, Inagi, Fujita, and Aoki do not teach:
wherein the at least one receptacle has a receptacle pressure and a receptacle flow
OPW teaches a hydrogen fueling receptacle, comprising:
wherein the at least one receptacle has a receptacle pressure and a receptacle flow (Specifications, the receptacle has a minimum flow rate as well as a maximum allowable pressure).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Handa, Uchida, Inagi, Fujita, and Aoki to include the at least one receptacle has a receptacle pressure and a receptacle flow as taught by OPW with the motivation to determine the correct receptacle size for a vehicle.
Through the combination of Handa, Uchida, Inagi, Fujita, OPW, and Aoki, the control unit (6, Figure 1) of Handa transmits information on the type of receptacle as seen in Uchida where the information is used to determine a proper flow for the hydrogen filling of the hydrogen tank as seen in Aoki in which the control unit within the vehicle calculates the pressure rise rate and determines the proper flow as seen in Fujita. Additionally, the control unit and inverse proportion of Handa would receive the type of receptacle as seen in Uchida where the temperature is the temperature of the receptacle as seen in Inagi.
Regarding Claim 2:
Handa discloses:
wherein the control unit (6, Figure 1) is adapted to transmit a information regarding the hydrogen tank (Paragraph [0053]).
Handa, Uchida, Inagi, OPW, and Aoki do not teach:
wherein the control unit is adapted to transmit a capacity of the hydrogen tank.
Fujita teaches:
wherein the control unit (28, Figure 2) is adapted to transmit a capacity of the hydrogen tank (Paragraph [0030], the filling capacity of the hydrogen tank (22) is transmitted).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Handa, Uchida, Inagi, OPW, and Aoki to include the control unit is adapted to transmit a capacity of the hydrogen tank as taught by Fujita with the motivation to control the filling speed and filling amount that is dispensed to the vehicle tank.
Regarding Claim 5:
Handa discloses:
wherein the control unit (6, Figure 1) is adapted to transmit wirelessly (Paragraph [0054], infrared communication device is used to send a signal to the hydrogen station).
Regarding Claim 9:
Handa discloses:
wherein the control unit (6, Figure 4) is adapted to transmit a temperature in the hydrogen tank (Paragraphs [0052-0053]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handa in view of Aoki in further view of Uchida, OPW, Inagi, Fujita, and Handa 2 (US 20160305611 A1).
Regarding Claim 7:
Handa discloses:
a value of the pressure rise rate is determined based on the inverse proportion relation (Paragraphs [0063-0064] and [0070]).
Handa, Uchida, Inagi, OPW, Fujita, and Aoki do not teach:
wherein the pressure rise rate is determined by a map where a value of the pressure rise rate is determined based on the inverse proportion relation.
Handa 2 teaches a gas filling method, comprising:
a map where a value of the pressure rise rate is determined based on the relation is created, and the pressure rise rate is determined by the map (Paragraphs [0061-0064], the map is used in the calculation for the rising pressure rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Handa, Uchida, Inagi, OPW, Fujita and Aoki to include a map where a value of the pressure rise rate is determined based on the relation is created, and the pressure rise rate is determined by the map where the control unit can calculate the pressure rise rate as seen in Handa as taught by Handa 2 with the motivation to determine a filling time based on the predetermined reference state of the tank.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handa in view of Aoki in further view of Uchida, OPW, Inagi, Fujita, and Lee (US 20160273713 A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
Handa discloses:
the hydrogen tank (31, Figure 1).
Handa, Uchida, Inagi, OPW, Fujita, and Aoki do not teach:
wherein the hydrogen tank has a capacity of more than 30 kg.
Lee teaches a fuel gas tank filling system, comprising:
wherein the hydrogen tank (12, Figure 1) has a capacity of 30 kg (Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Handa, Uchida, Inagi, OPW, Fujita, and Aoki to include the hydrogen tank has a capacity of 30 kg as taught by Lee with the motivation to hold a large amount of gas for travel.
Handa, Uchida, Inagi, OPW, Fujita, Lee and Aoki discloses the claimed invention except for the hydrogen tank has a capacity of more than 30 kg. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the hydrogen tank have capacity of more than 30 kg, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto (US 12111017 B2) teaches a filling module comprising a fuel cell vehicle and multiple receptacles.
Saiki (US 8684044 B2) teaches a fluid charging system comprising a fuel cell vehicle, a hydrogen tank, a receptacle, and a control unit.
Hoover (US 11254202 B2) teaches a fueling system comprising a fuel cell vehicle, a hydrogen tank, a receptacle, and a control unit.
Shin (US 20240377030 A1) teaches a vehicle refueling system comprising a fuel cell vehicle, a hydrogen tank, a receptacle, and a control unit.
Yamaguchi (US 11326740 B2) teaches a gas filling method comprising a fuel cell vehicle, a hydrogen tank, a nozzle, a control unit, and a receptacle.
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 STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES whose telephone number is (571)272-5373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
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.
/STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
