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 Amendment
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 March, 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-22 are pending.
Claims 4 and 11 have been cancelled.
Claims 20-22 are new.
Claim Interpretation
The claims remain interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth at pages 3-5 of the Final Office Action mailed on 18 September, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 20 and 21 recite, respectively, “wherein the data management module determines a need for retesting of the or each pressure vessel based on the conditions experienced by the or each pressure vessel over time” and “comprising determining a need for retesting of the or each pressure vessel based on the conditions experienced by the pressure vessel over time”, which renders the claim indefinite. Particularly, the data management module is not disclosed to make the determination of a need, rather the originally-filed specification makes it known that the information possessed by the data management module “may be used to identify the need for retesting based on the conditions the vessel has experienced over time”. See page 2, lines 31-32. This is inherently different as the determination is not positively made by the data management module or the method for digitally monitoring one or more composite pressure vessels, but rather the information it possesses can be used to identify a need for retesting. For this reason, the claimed subject matter of newly presented claims 20 and 21 is considered new matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 13-14, 16-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEASE (US 10,684,157 B2 – published 16 June, 2020), in view of JOHNSRUD (WO 2020/260126 A1 – published 30 December, 2020).
As to claim 1, LEASE discloses a system for digitally monitoring (via 12; 59; col. 4, line 61 – col. 6, line 1; col. 6, line 43 – col.7, line 3) a pressure vessel (28; col.4, lines 5-26) for holding compressed gas, wherein the system comprises a sensor unit (sensors connected to send information within the system, such as those shown in figure 6, at 118, 176, 178, and 180, at least) placeable on the pressure vessel for gathering information (col.4, lines 27-33) regarding the condition of the pressure vessel, a communication unit (58; col. 11, line 9 – col. 12, line 18) for wirelessly communicating the gathered information to a receiver (46) wherein the sensor unit comprises:
a temperature sensor (118; col.8, lines 13-19) for measuring the temperature of the pressure vessel,
a gas pressure sensor (178; col.10, lines 33-39),
at least one power unit (72 and/or 210; col. 5, lines 1-21; col.9, lines 20-26) for supplying power to the sensors and the communication unit, and
wherein the system for digitally monitoring comprises a data management module (56) for storing (via, 194 and/or 196) and analyzing(via, 196) the information sent from the pressure vessel (col. 12, lines 62-67), based on this information, providing updated information on the conditions that the pressure vessel has experienced over time (col. 11, lines 21-28 and col. 12, lines 62-67).
However, LEASE does not disclose wherein the pressure vessel is necessarily a composite pressure vessel.
JOHNSRUD, however, is within the field of endeavor for monitoring pressure vessels (abstract; pg. 11, line 21- pg. 12, line 2). Furthermore, JOHNSRUD teaches wherein it is known to provide the material of the pressure vessel as a composite (abstract). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEASE, in view of the known suitability of composite material forming the pressure vessel, as taught by JOHNSRUD.
As to claim 2, LEASE, as modified, further discloses wherein the system further comprises a capacitive sensor for measuring the level of gas in liquid phase in the pressure vessel (15; col.15, line 50-62).
As to claim 3, LEASE, as modified, further discloses wherein the capacitive sensor for measuring level of gas in liquid phase in the pressure vessel (15) is configured to give a warning if the pressure vessel is overfilled (MPEP §2111.04 – II; col.17, lines 47-56; col. 18, line 55-col.19, line 14).
As to claim 6, LEASE, as modified, further discloses wherein the communication unit (58) is a short-range radio communication unit for communicating information gathered by the sensors to the receiver (col.11, line 9 – col.12, line 18).
As to claim 7, LEASE, as modified, further discloses wherein the receiver is a mobile app (col.11, line 9 – col.12, line 18, in view of col.11, lines 59-64) or an IoT internet gateway (col.11, lines 29-44 and 59-64).
As to claim 8, LEASE, as modified, further discloses wherein the power unit is an energy harvester chip (col.9, lines 20-26).
As to claim 13, LEASE discloses a method for digitally monitoring (via 12; 59; col. 4, line 61 – col. 6, line 1; col. 6, line 43 – col.7, line 3) a pressure vessel (28; col.4, lines 5-26) for holding compressed gas, comprising a sensor unit (sensors connected to send information within the system, such as those shown in figure 6, at 118, 176, 178, and 180, at least) and a communication unit (58; col. 11, line 9 – col. 12, line 18) for wirelessly communicating the gathered information to a receiver (59) attached to the pressure vessel (figure 1 and 1A); wherein the sensor unit comprises a temperature sensor (118; col.8, lines 13-19) for measuring the temperature of the pressure vessel, a gas pressure sensor (178; col.10, lines 33-39), at least one power unit (72 and/or 210; col. 5, lines 1-21; col.9, lines 20-26) for supplying power to the sensors and the communication unit wherein the method comprises the following steps:
supplying power from the power unit to the sensors (col. 5, lines 1-21; col.9, lines 20-26)
measuring the temperature and the gas pressure (col.8, lines 13-19; col.10, lines 33-39),
transmitting the measured and/or stored information with the communication unit to the receiver (col. 11, line 9 – col. 12, line 18),
transmitting the information from the receiver to a user (col. 11, line 9 – col. 12, line 18, such as through readable information provided through the display sections); and
storing(via, 194 and/or 196) and analyzing(via, 196) the information transmitted from the pressure vessel(col. 12, lines 62-67), and based on this information, providing updated information on the conditions at the pressure vessel has experienced over time to the user(col. 11, lines 21-28 and col. 12, lines 62-67).
However, LEASE does not disclose wherein the pressure vessel is necessarily a composite pressure vessel.
JOHNSRUD, however, is within the field of endeavor for monitoring pressure vessels (abstract; pg. 11, line 21- pg. 12, line 2). Furthermore, JOHNSRUD teaches wherein it is known to provide the material of the pressure vessel as a composite (abstract). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEASE, in view of the known suitability of composite material forming the pressure vessel, as taught by JOHNSRUD.
As to claim 14, LEASE, as modified, further discloses measuring of content either by measuring the amount using capacitance (col.17, lines 47-56; col. 18, line 55-col.19, line 14).
As to claim 16, LEASE, as modified, further discloses wherein the communication unit uses communication protocol, capable of being Bluetooth communication protocol, for transmitting the information to the receiver (col. 11, line 9 – col. 12, line 18).
As to claim 17, LEASE, as modified, further discloses wherein the receiver is an IoT gateway (col. 11, line 9 – col. 12, line 18) that can receive information from a plurality of the pressure vessels (claim 18-19, in view of user-selectable information from a plurality of different tanks being received at the display).
As to claim 19, LEASE, as modified, further discloses temporarily storing the measured information in a flash memory on the pressure vessel (col. 13, lines 1-10; col. 14, lines 6-40).
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEASE (US 10,684,157 B2 – published 16 June, 2020), in view of JOHNSRUD (WO 2020/260126 A1 – published 30 December, 2020) and CLARKE (US 2022/0136656 A1 – published 5 May, 2022).
As to claim 5, LEASE, as modified, discloses wherein the sensor unit can control any number of sensors which can be used to measure different conditions of the tank, the vehicle, or system associated with the tank (col.10, lines 42-53).
However, LEASE does not expressly disclose wherein the addition of any number of additional sensors includes a shock sensor for measuring shocks the pressure vessel has been subjected to int eh form of at least one capacitance pressure sensor.
CLARKE, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a system for monitoring a vessel (100) containing fluid therein (abstract). CLARKE teaches wherein the sensor unit can include a number of pressure sensors, including a capacitance pressure sensor (par.95) which is capable of operating as a shock sensor for measuring shocks the vessel is subjected to (MPEP § 2114 – II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEASE, in view of CLARKE to include where the additional number of sensors of the sensor unit includes a capacitance pressure sensor, operable to be a shock sensor, as claimed, to detect and monitor various parameters associated with the vessel (LEASE at col.10, lines 42-53 and CLARKE at par. 95).
As to claim 18, LEASE, as modified, discloses wherein the sensor unit can control any number of sensors which can be used to measure different conditions of the tank, the vehicle, or system associated with the tank (col.10, lines 42-53).
However, LEASE does not expressly disclose wherein the addition of any number of additional sensors includes a shock sensor for measuring shocks the pressure vessel has been subjected to.
CLARKE, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a system for monitoring a vessel (100) containing fluid therein (abstract). CLARKE teaches wherein the sensor unit can include a shock sensor (par.95) which is operable to measure shocks the vessel is subjected to (par. 95). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEASE, in view of CLARKE to include where the additional number of sensors of the sensor unit includes a shock sensor, as claimed, to detect and monitor various parameters associated with the vessel (LEASE at col.10, lines 42-53 and CLARKE at par. 95).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEASE (US 10,684,157 B2 – published 16 June, 2020), in view of JOHNSRUD (WO 2020/260126 A1 – published 30 December, 2020) and KATO (US 2013/0166175 A1 – published 27 June, 2013).
As to claim 9, LEASE, as modified, disclosed the gas pressure sensor (see rejection of claim 1) and further, discloses wherein the gas pressure sensor can be a capacitive sensor (col. 17, lines 26-36).
However, LEASE does not expressly disclose wherein the gas pressure sensor is a capacitive double E sensor.
KATO, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a system for monitoring a vessel containing fluid therein (abstract). KATO teaches wherein a known configuration of a sensor(10) to detect a parameter of the tank is in the form of a capacitive double E sensor (figure 1). This is strong evidence that modifying LEASE as claimed would was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., providing a capacitive sensor of the configuration of a capacitive double E sensor for detecting a parameter of the tank). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEASE by KATO such that the capacitive sensor of the gas pressure sensor is particularly a capacitive double E sensor, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing a capacitive sensor of the configuration of a capacitive double E sensor for detecting a parameter of the tank.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEASE (US 10,684,157 B2 – published 16 June, 2020), in view of JOHNSRUD (WO 2020/260126 A1 – published 30 December, 2020) and Iida (US 6,190,481 B1 – published 20 February, 2001).
As to claim 10, LEASE, as modified, discloses the pressure vessel (28) including an outer casing (outer shell of the vessel, 28, shown in figures 1 and 1A) and the sensor unit can be placed in any position along the vessel, including along the outside of the outer casing (col. 4, line 27-3; col.8 line 36-39; col.8, lines 46-61; col.10, lines 33-39 and 42-67).
In addition, the combination of teachings necessarily provides wherein it is suitable to form a pressure vessel of a composite material, to thereby be a composite pressure vessel (see rejection of claim 1).
However, LEASE does not expressly disclose wherein the pressure vessel includes an inner liner and a layer of composite material, in addition to the outer casing.
Iida, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a system for monitoring a vessel (1) containing fluid therein (col.1,lines 40-44). Iida teaches wherein the pressure vessel is a composite pressure vessel(in view of the materials provided within col. 3, line 65 – col.4, line 24) comprising an inner liner (2), a layer of composite material (E; col. 4, lines 57-59), and an outer casing (3). Particularly, Iida teaches wherein the inclusion of the pressure vessel, as structurally claimed, enables improving gas leakage (col.4, lines 25-27), in addition to a light weight vessel that is capable of maintaining internal pressure against repetitive impacts and excellent reliability (col.2, lines 13-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEASE, in view of Iida to include the additional structural requirements of the pressure vessel, as taught by Iida, for these reasons.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEASE (US 10,684,157 B2 – published 16 June, 2020), in view of JOHNSRUD (WO 2020/260126 A1 – published 30 December, 2020) and VILLARREAL (US 11,015,761 B1 – published 25 May, 2021).
As to claim 12, LEASE, as modified, discloses the pressure vessel (28).
However, LEASE does not expressly disclose wherein the pressure vessel is a liner free composite pressure vessel.
VILLARREAL, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a system for monitoring a vessel containing fluid therein (abstract). VILLARREAL teaches wherein the pressure vessel is a liner free composite pressure vessel (col.2, lines 32-34). Particularly, VILLARREAL teaches wherein the liner-free composite pressure vessel is selected to provide an easily-manufactured vessel that is lighter in weight and smaller than previous vessels, while being able to maintain equivalent size and pressure ratings (col. 2, lines 5-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEASE, in view of VILLARREAL to include the structural and material requirements of the pressure vessel, as taught by VILLARREAL, for these reasons.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEASE (US 10,684,157 B2 – published 16 June, 2020), in view of JOHNSRUD (WO 2020/260126 A1 – published 30 December, 2020)and MATIKO (NPL: Matiko, Joseph W. Beeby, Stephen P.. (2017). Applications of Energy Harvesting Technologies in Buildings - Chapter 7 (pp. 157-198). Artech House. Retrieved from https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt012ZZFC4/applications-energy-harvesting/vibration--introduction).
As to claim 15, LEASE, as modified, discloses wherein the power unit includes an energy harvester chip and supplying harvested energy to the power unit (col. 5, lines 1-21; col.9, lines 20-26).
However, LEASE does not expressly distinguish that the energy harvester chip harvest energy from radio waves.
MATIKO, however, teaches known concepts of energy harvesters. Particularly, MATIKO teaches that energy harvesters harvest energy from sources, such as vibrations (i.e., radio waves are a form of vibration), so as to convert the wasted or unused ambient kinetic energy in the environment into electrical energy that power devices, such as sensors (pg. 157 and 162-163). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the energy harvester of LEASE to particularly harvest energy from radio waves, as taught by MATIKO, to provide electrical energy formed from wasted or unused vibrations (i.e., radio waves) for the purpose of powering devices.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEASE (US 10,684,157 B2 – published 16 June, 2020), in view of JOHNSRUD (WO 2020/260126 A1 – published 30 December, 2020) and MARESCA JR. (US 5,950,487 – published 14 September, 1990).
As to claim 22, LEASE, as modified, discloses the sensor unit, but does not expressly disclose wherein the sensor unit is in the form of a strip adapted to extend the vertical length of the pressure vessel.
MARESCA JR., however, is within the field of endeavor provided a system for monitoring a vessel (20) containing fluid therein (abstract). MARESCA, JR. teaches a sensor unit (10), inclusive of multiple sensors (col.12, lines 3-8) which is in the form of a strip (figure 1A-2) adapted to extend relative to the vertical length of the vessel (figure 1A-2). MARESCA JR. teaches wherein the vertical orientation of the sensor unit, defined as a strip, enables position determination accuracy and reduction in reading errors of the sensors (col. 20,lines 17-23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEASE, in view of MARESCA JR. to include the sensor unit in the form of a strip adapted to extend relative to the vertical length of the pressure vessel for the purpose of ensuring measurement accuracy by reducing reading errors of the sensor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, filed 13 March, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 13, and the dependents thereof, under various rejections made 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 further teachings set forth by LEASE(US 10,684,157 B2 – published 16 June, 2020) and teachings presented by JOHNSRUD (WO 2020/260126 A1 – published 30 December, 2020). Specifically, LEASE discloses wherein the system for digitally monitoring comprises a data management module (56) for storing (via, 194 and/or 196) and analyzing(via, 196) the information sent from the pressure vessel (col. 12, lines 62-67), based on this information, providing updated information on the conditions that the pressure vessel has experienced over time (col. 11, lines 21-28 and col. 12, lines 62-67). More so, JOHNSRUD teaches wherein composite is a known suitable material for pressure vessels within the field of endeavor, such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art. See MPEP § 2144.07. For these reasons, the prior art, as set forth within the new ground(s) rejection(s) herein render the claimed invention of claim 1 and claim 13, at least, obvious.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, in view of the claims being newly presented, and does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim 22 presents the subject matter previously presented in claims 1 and 13, and is obvious, in view of the prior art combination of LEASE (US 10,684,157 B2 – published 16 June, 2020), in view of JOHNSRUD (WO 2020/260126 A1 – published 30 December, 2020) and MARESCA JR.
Conclusion
When evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, all the limitations of the
claims must be considered and given weight, including limitations which do not find support in
the specification as originally filed (i.e., new matter). Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd.
App. 1983) aff’d mem. 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2143.03 – II. The closest prior art of record for the subject matter is considered to be JOHNSRUD (WO 2020/260126 A1 – published 30 December, 2020). However, JOHNSRUD does not disclose, teach, and/or
otherwise suggest the combination of requirements set forth by claims 20-21, as presented within the reply filed on 13 March, 2026. At best, JOHNSRUD teaches the data management module makes it known that the information possessed by the data management module “can be used to monitor...the need for retesting or further testing” (pg. 12, lines 1-2 of JOHNSRUD) but is not disclosed to make the determination of a need or the method determining the need, as presently required by the claim. Without a teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation to modify the prior art to reach the claimed invention, obviousness of the invention cannot be established. While no prior art rejection is made, in view of the limitations being considered and given weight event when they do not have support in the originally-filed specification, determination of patentability cannot be determined, as the claims subject matter not disclosed at the time the invention was effectively filed. Correction of the claims is necessary to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and such corrections does not necessarily preclude the application from receiving further rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, 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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 3/20/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763