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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
the “a regulator” of Claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) ( a regulator suggests there is a second regulator different from the pressure regulator of Claim 1); and
“a controller area network (CAN) bus” in Claims 2 and Claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s)
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant' s election without traverse of Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on November 19, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
In re Claim 5, the recitation “prior to the receiving the first pressure” should be amended to recite—prior to receiving the first pressure--to avoid potential ambiguities and/or § 112(b) issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3, 6, 13, and 14 are 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.
In re claim 3, the phrase "a regulator" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same as the pressure regulator in Claim 1 or a different regulator. For purposes of examination: in order to expedite prosecution, this phrase/term is interpreted as the pressure regulator.
In re Claim 6, the claims recite the limitation "the first tank OTV" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as the OTV of the first tank.
In re Claim 13 and Claim 14, the claims recite the limitation "the first tank OTV" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as a first tank OTV.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miki (US 20060246177 A1).
In re Claim 1, Miki discloses hydrogen storage system (Fig. 8) for a fuel cell electric vehicle (See Fig. 7; [0063] and [0083]: configured as a device that is mounted on a fuel cell electric vehicle) (FCEV),
the system comprising:
a controller (340) in electronic communication (See [0067]) with an on tank valve (351) (OTV) associated with an OTV (351[1]) of a first tank (350[1]);
a pressure regulator pressure sensor (354) associated with a pressure regulator (355) in electronic communication with the controller (340),
the pressure regulator (355) being in fluid communication with at least
a fuel cell supply line (322),
wherein the pressure regulator pressure sensor (355) is configured to sense a pressure ([0092]) in the at least
the fuel cell supply line (See [0092]; 355),
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([0085) in electronic communication with the controller (340), having instructions stored thereon ([0085]: operations of each unit are controlled according to a control program stored in the ROM) that, in response to execution by the controller (340), cause
the controller (340) to perform operations (See [0085]) comprising:
receiving, by the controller (340) and during at least one of a driving condition ([0067]: during drive mode),
a first pressure ([0028]: ) from the pressure regulator pressure sensor (354) representing the fuel cell supply line (322),
commanding, by the controller (340), the OTV (351) to close for a predetermined time interval ([0069-0070]);
receiving, by the controller (340), a second pressure ([0092]: pressure after initial reduction of pressure) from the pressure regulator pressure sensor (355) representing at least one of the fuel cell supply line (322),
determining, by the controller (340), the absolute value of the difference between the first pressure and the second pressure ([0100]) to yield an absolute pressure difference (an absolute value difference is necessarily the result of calculating a pressure difference);
determining, by the controller (340), whether the absolute pressure difference is greater than a predetermined threshold ([0100]: it may be concluded that the supply pressure Pa has fallen when the absolute value of the temporal rate of reduction of the supply pressure Pa is greater than a specific threshold); and
in response to finding that the absolute pressure difference is greater than the predetermined threshold ([0100]), transmitting, by the controller (351), a stuck OTV fault ([0098]: if the supply pressure Pa has not dropped (Step S312), then the control unit 340 concludes that either there is a leak in the valve 351 of one of the hydrogen tanks 350, or that the valve 351 is stuck in the open position, and the control unit 340 performs a fault determination procedure; See also Fig. 9: S318).
In re Claim 3, Miki discloses wherein the hydrogen storage system (Fig. 8) further comprises the pressure regulator (355) in electronic communication with the controller (340).
In re Claim 4 and Claim 11, Miki discloses wherein the operations are commenced in response to the driving condition ([0067]: operations start during drive mode).
In re Claim 5 and Claim 12, Miki discloses wherein the commanding, by the controller (340), the OTV (351) to close occurs prior to the receiving ([0069-0070]) the first pressure ([0028]).
In re Claim 6 and Claim 14, Miki discloses wherein the instructions ([0085]: operations of each unit are controlled according to a control program stored in the ROM) further comprise waiting ([0075]), by the controller (340), after the commanding the first tank OTV (351[1]) to close and prior to the receiving the second pressure ([0092]: pressure after initial reduction of pressure), for the predetermined time interval ([0069-0070]).
In re Claim 7, Miki discloses further comprising a fueling valve (Fig. 1: B1) of the first tank (350 [1]), wherein the instructions ([0085]: operations of each unit are controlled according to a control program stored in the ROM) further comprise commanding, by the controller (340) and prior to the receiving the first pressure ([0028]), the OTV (351) to close.
In re Claim 8, Miki discloses wherein the instructions ([0085]: operations of each unit are controlled according to a control program stored in the ROM) further comprise:in response to finding that the absolute pressure difference is greater than the predetermined threshold initiating ([0098]), by the controller (340), a stuck OTV fault diagnostic process ([0098]).
In re Claim 9, Miki discloses An article of manufacture including a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([0085]: operations of each unit are controlled according to a control program stored in the ROM) in electronic communication with a controller (340), having instructions stored thereon ([0085]) that, in response to execution by the controller (340), cause the controller (340) to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by the controller (340) and during a driving condition ([0067]: during drive mode) a first pressure ([0028]) from a pressure regulator pressure sensor (354) representing at a fuel cell supply line (322);
commanding, by the controller (340), an on tank valve (351) (OTV) to close for a predetermined time interval ([0069-0070]);
receiving, by the controller (340), a second pressure ([0092]: pressure after initial reduction of pressure) from the pressure regulator pressure sensor (355) representing at least one of the fuel cell supply line (322);
determining, by the controller (340), the absolute value of the difference between the first pressure and the second pressure ([0100]) to yield an absolute pressure difference (an absolute value difference is necessarily the result of calculating the absolute value of a pressure difference);
determining, by the controller (340), whether the absolute pressure difference is greater than a predetermined threshold ([0100]: it may be concluded that the supply pressure Pa has fallen when the absolute value of the temporal rate of reduction of the supply pressure Pa is greater than a specific threshold); and
in response to finding that the absolute pressure difference is greater than the predetermined threshold ([0100]), transmitting, by the controller (340), a stuck OTV fault ([0098]: if the supply pressure Pa has not dropped (Step S312), then the control unit 340 concludes that either there is a leak in the valve 351 of one of the hydrogen tanks 350, or that the valve 351 is stuck in the open position, and the control unit 340 performs a fault determination procedure; See also Fig. 9: S318).
In re Claim 13, Miki discloses wherein the instructions ([0085]: operations of each unit are controlled according to a control program stored in the ROM) further comprise waiting, by the controller (340), after commanding the first tank OTV (351[1]) and prior to receiving the first pressure ([0028]), for the predetermined time interval ([0069-0070]).
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.
Claims 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki (US 20060246177 A1) in view of Cun (US 20190255952 A1).
In re Claim 2 and 10, Miki discloses wherein the controller (340) transmits the stuck OTV fault ([0098]).
However, Miki does not explicitly teach, a controller area network (CAN) bus.
On the other hand, Cun (Fig. 2) teaches ([0039]: a bus 216 (e.g., a controller Area Network (CAN)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Miki and to have modified them by a controller area network (CAN) bus as taught by Cun, in order to transmits control data from the various valve control units (See also Cun [0039]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763