DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 6) that Eidmann does not disclose “by displacing the pressure vessels along the floating bearings, a dynamic intrusion space at the opposite longitudinal end is defined” citing the space between 130 and 110 is not at the opposite longitudinal end (the end of the fixed bearings). This is found unpersuasive as the claim clearly states “and at an opposite longitudinal end is fastened to a floating bearing” earlier in the claim. The opposite longitudinal end is clearly the end with the floating bearing per the previous claim limitations placing the opposite longitudinal end at the side of the floating bearings. Therefore Eidmann’s space still applies. The examiner further would like to point out that applicant’s specification supports these interpretations as well stating “intrusion spaces no longer have to be available on both sides…to be defined on one side, in particular on the side of the floating bearing” (paragraph 6). The examiner further would additionally like to point out that in a side impact on the opposite fixed bearing side would also move the tanks along the floating bearing axis creating a dynamic intrusion space anyways, i.e. the space on either side of the car between the rocker panel and the tanks would increase through use of the movement provided by the floating bearings therefore creating dynamic intrusion space.
Applicant argues (page 6) that Eidmann and Stahl fail to teach floating bearings that are parallel to and offset between the pressure vessels. This is found unpersuasive as the floating bearings of Stahl indeed run parallel to the line of tanks (see annotated figure below) and also can still be considered offset between tanks in their current location. Further the floating bearings in fact extend past the periphery of the main wall of the tanks 110/120 and are partially in between the tanks.
PNG
media_image1.png
781
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 – Stahl
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.
Claims 15-20, 22-26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102019202895 Eidmann in view of US 2016/0272104 Stahl.
Regarding claim 15, Eidmann discloses a pressure vessel assembly (see figures 1-5), comprising a plurality of pressure vessels which are disposed so as to be mutually parallel (figure 1 or figure 3; pressure vessels 110); one or a plurality of fixed bearings 114/120/113; and one or a plurality of floating bearings (130/137/117/118); wherein each pressure vessel at one longitudinal end is fastened to a fixed bearing and at an opposite longitudinal end is fastened to a floating bearing (see figure 2) wherein the floating bearings define an initial intrusion space and, by displacing the pressure vessels along the floating bearings, a dynamic intrusion space opposite the floating bearings is define (see space between plate/wall 130 and vessel 110). Eidmann discloses the pressure vessel assembly of claim 15 above. Eidmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the floating bearings, when viewed in a direction transverse to a longitudinal direction of the pressure vessels, are disposed so as to be offset between the pressure vessels. This is disclosed by Stahl (see figure 1, floating bearing 144, see paragarphs 42 and 43). Clearly it is well known to provide attachment bearings to vehicular pressure tanks at an offset position as disclosed by Stahl. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize offset bearings as disclosed by Stahl with the pressure tanks of Eidmann in order to provide additional support and extra degrees of freedom and displaceability. Further this is additionally just a simple substation of one known element (bearings of Stahl) for another (bearings of Eidmann) to obtain predictable results and use of a known technique to improve similar devices (different bearing attachment means in vehicular pressure tank supports systems).
Regarding claims 16-17, Eidmann discloses the pressure vessel assembly of claim 15 above. Eidmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the floating bearings enable a displaceability of at least 10 mm or at least 20 mm and wherein the floating bearings enable a displaceability of at most 150 mm. This is found to be a design choice in automobile manufacturing within the realm of tolerance and spacing utilizing routine experimentation to find the required clearances between parts. Applicant has not provided an unexpected results with said measurements of displaceability and it is found that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize such spacings to provide for expansion of the tank between plates (the entire purpose of the floating valve is to provide some degree of movement). Said degree of movement would be explicitly limited by sizing constraints and therefore it would be in the realm of design choice and routine experimentation to determine said tolerances/displaceability.
Regarding claim 18, Eidmann discloses wherein the floating bearings enable a displaceability along or parallel to a longitudinal direction of the pressure vessels (see figure 2, arrows showing displaceability in a longitudinal direction along tank 110).
Regarding claims 19 and 22, Eidmann discloses wherein only one pressure vessel is fastened to each fixed bearing and wherein only one pressure vessel is fastened to each floating bearing (see figures 2-4, showing a single fixed and single floating bearing 115/113/116/118/117 for each tank 110).
Regarding claims 20 and 23, Eidmann discloses wherein the pressure vessels are assigned to a plurality of groups and wherein pressure vessels of each group are conjointly fastened to one or a plurality of fixed bearings and wherein the pressure vessels are assigned to a plurality of groups and wherein pressure vessels of each group are conjointly fastened to one or a plurality of floating bearings (see figures 1-5) It can be interpreted that the groups of tanks 110 are connected to bearings that are conjointly fastened to a plurality of fixed and plurality of floating bearings (since all of the bearings are connected to each other through plates 120 and 130).
Regarding claim 24, Eidmann discloses wherein one, some, or all fixed bearings is/are rigidly connected to at least one floating bearing (see figure 5, all bearings are connected to the same overall frame, further these bearings are both connected to the vehicle at some point which are all inherently rigidly connected to each other).
Regarding claim 25, Eidmann discloses the pressure vessel assembly of claim 15 above. Eidmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the floating bearings are configured as friction bearings having a guide rail or as roller support bearings having a guide rail. The examiner goes on official notice that frication bearings with guide rails and roller support bearings having guide rails are both well known types of bearings and it would have been obvious to apply said specific type of floating bearings as the floating bearings in Eidmann as a simple substation of one known element (friction bearings with guide rails) for another (floating bearing of Eidmann) to obtain predictable results and use of a known technique to improve similar devices in order to reduce friction during movement at the floating bearing do to tank expansion.
Regarding claim 26, Eidmann discloses motor vehicle, comprising: a body; and at least one pressure vessel assembly according to claim 15 which is installed in the body (see abstract).
Regarding claim 29, wherein a first rocker panel is disposed laterally to the pressure vessel assembly so as to be directly adjacent to the fixed bearings or at a spacing of at most 150 mm from the fixed bearings; and/or wherein a second rocker panel is disposed laterally to the pressure vessel assembly so as to be directly adjacent to the floating bearings or at a spacing of at most 150 mm from the floating bearings. See rejection of claims 16-17 above with regard to the spacing of at most 150mm. With regard to rocker panels, The examiner goes on official notice that rocker panels are well known in vehicular manufactures and said pressure vessel assembly as shown in Eidmann would inherently be lateral to a rocker panel in a vehicle (which is found to be on the lateral side of the car between wheel wells).
Claim 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eidmann and Stahl as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication number 20200180428 Sawai et al. (hereinafter Sawai).
Regarding claim 27, Eidmann discloses the pressure vessel assembly of claim 15 above. Eidmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the pressure vessels of the pressure vessel assembly are aligned transversely to a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle. This is disclosed by Sawai who provides that similar pressure vessels can be placed in a vehicle in a transverse direction (see figure 2, tanks are transverse to the vehicle longitudinal axis, see front of car at FR). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize a pressure tank arrangement as disclosed by Sawai with the pressure tanks of Eidmann in order to improve collision resistance performance by allowing tank longitudinal movement in a vehicle from side to side. Further this is additionally just a simple substation of one known element (pressure tank direction of Sawai) for another (Pressure tank direction of Eidmann) to obtain predictable results and use of a known technique to improve similar devices (different directions of installing pressure tanks in a vehicle).
Regarding claim 28, Eidmann discloses the pressure vessel assembly of claim 15 above. Eidmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the pressure vessels are asymmetrically disposed along a transverse direction of the motor vehicle such that the initial intrusion space is configured on one side of an installation space and the fixed bearings are contiguous to the other side of the installation space. This is disclosed by Sawai who explicitly provides for a gap to be provided at one end of the pressure vessels (see paragraph 9, see figure 2, gap on one side, 16/18, tanks are off center in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize a pressure tank arrangement as disclosed by Sawai with the pressure tanks of Eidmann in order to improve collision resistance performance by allowing tank longitudinal movement in a vehicle from side to side. Further this is additionally just a simple substation of one known element (pressure tank direction of Sawai) for another (Pressure tank direction of Eidmann) to obtain predictable results and use of a known technique to improve similar devices (different directions of installing pressure tanks in a vehicle).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes US 8,465057 Dandalides et al. which also provides for suspension bearings placed directly in the middle between fuel tanks (see bearing system 27/30/20 offset between tanks 12 and 14). .
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 Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Johnathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-1000. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798