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
Regarding arguments related to previously rejected claims 15,17-19,21-28,30-33, the applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 103 rejections. While Sharp does disclose a gap, the gap within the cells of Sharp are part of the insulation itself, and there is indeed no gap between the insulation layer and the pipe. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Duri (US 20230160501 A1).
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.
Claims 35-38 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. New claims 35-38 depend on claim 13, which is cancelled, thus making it unclear the full disclosure of the claims. For purposes of compact prosecution, claims 35-38 are read to depend on claim 15, as stated in the applicants remarks filed 5/26/2026.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15, 17-19,21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duri (US 20230160501 A1), hereafter known as Duri.
Regarding claim 15, Duri discloses a fuel line for a pressure vessel system of a motor vehicle (fig 2, the fuel feed line of Duri can be used as a fuel line of a motor vehicle), the fuel line comprising:
a wall (fig 2, line 20 has an outer wall, Duri);
and thermal insulation provided in an interior of the wall (fig 2, insulation is formed by the web of material around channels 22, with thicknesses a and b in fig 3, Duri),
wherein a pipe at least partly forms the thermal insulation (figs 2 and 3, primary channel 21 with diameter D is a pipe and is part of the thermal insulation, Duri),
wherein at least one gap is provided between the wall and an exterior surface of the pipe, the at least one gap spacing the pipe apart from the interior of the wall at least in regions (figs 2 and 3, gap in the form of secondary channels 22 space the pipe 21 apart from the wall in the regions they occupy, Duri), and
wherein the wall is configured to compensate mechanical loads resulting from internal pressure prevalent in the fuel line (fig 2, wall inherently compensates for the mechanical loads from the pressure inside channel 21, Duri).
Regarding claim 17, Duri discloses the fuel line according to claim 15, wherein a wall thickness of the thermal insulation is less than a wall thickness of the wall by a factor of at least 2 (fig 2, para 0025, the main and secondary channels , the strip of material has thickness “a” of 2 mm, and from the relative proportions in fig 2, the wall is at least twice the thickness of the strip, Duri).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Considering the strip between the primary and secondary channels is 2 mm thick, as well as other embodiments of Duri such as what is shown in fig 11 where the wall is substantially thicker, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the wall of Duri to be more than 10 times as thick as the strip, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 21, Duri discloses the fuel line according to claim 15,wherein the (fig 4B, Duri, pipe 21 is permeable to fuel via holes 24), whereby pressure in the at least one gap and pressure in an interior region of the pipe at least approximate one another (fig 4B, para 0083, fluid freely circulates between the primary and secondary channels via holes 24, thus approximately evening out the pressure, Duri).
Regarding claim 22, Duri discloses the fuel line according to claim 20, wherein the pipe has at least one contact region in which the pipe bears down on the wall, and in other regions is spaced apart from the wall by the at least one gap (fig 2 and 5D, in regions between the secondary channels and between the ends of secondary channels which are labeled 23, the pipe bears on the wall via their attachment regions, and in other regions the pipe is separated from the wall via secondary channels 22, Duri).
Regarding claims 23-25, Duri discloses the fuel line according to claim 20, wherein, during fueling, a flow rate of the fuel in the at least one gap is lower than in an interior region of the pipe by a factor of at least 10 (fig 5D, para 0088, Duri, the fuel stagnates and vaporizes in the secondary channels, and since secondary channels terminate at 23, thus the fuel in the gap is not flowing, and if the fluid inside pipe 21 is nonzero, which is true when the turbopump is active, the factor is larger than 1000).
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 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duri in view of Kataoka (US 20210039489 A1), hereafter known as Kataoka
Regarding claim 26, Duri discloses the fuel line according to claim 22, but does not disclose wherein the pipe has at least one branch which is in each case fluidically connected to a rail connector for connecting a pressure vessel.
However, Kataoka teaches a pipe having at least one branch which is in each case fluidically connected to a rail connector for connecting a pressure vessel (fig 2, Kataoka, connectors 32 connect rail 34 to pressure vessels 30). Kataoka describes a fuel line for hydrogen, a field related to Duri and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Kataoka into Duri and use the branched fuel rail and connector system of Kataoka to connect the pipe of Duri to a pressure vessel containing fuel. The pipe of Duri is intended to connect fuel tank 10 to turbopump 30, as shown in fig 1, and the branch and rail connector system allows for the connection to be done, as well as add the possibility of connecting multiple fuel tanks, as shown in fig 2 of Kataoka.
Regarding claim 27, Duri in view of Kataoka discloses the fuel line according to claim 26, wherein the at least one contact region is provided so as to be adjacent to the at least one branch (fig 2, Kataoka, connectors 32 connect pressure vessels 30 to branches in fuel rail 34 and 34a. Since the fuel line of Duri has contact regions around main channel 21, each branch of Duri in view of Kataoka will have a contact region adjacent to it.)
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duri in view of CP LabSaftey’ s webpage “Stainless Steel Chemical Compatibility”, hereafter known as LabSaftey.
Regarding claim 30, Duri discloses the fuel line according to claim 15, wherein the wall is part of a metallic block in which at least one fuel duct is incorporated (fig 10 and 11, Duri, the wall can be part of a block, but material is not disclosed).
Duri does not disclose the block to be metallic, however, LabSaftey teaches using 316 stainless steel for application involving hydrogen (compatibility table page 5, hydrogen gas is shown as “A-Excellent”, LabSaftey). LabSaftey is a reference document about susceptibility of stainless steel to various chemicals, including hydrogen, a field related to Duri and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of LabSaftey into Duri and make the wall of Duri out of stainless steel. Stainless steel is well known in the art for not only its hydrogen compatibility, but also corrosion resistance. Additionally, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to produce the fuel line out of a metallic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka in view of Bauer (US 3425455 A), hereafter known as Bauer.
Regarding claim 31, Kataoka discloses a pressure vessel system for storing fuel (fig 2, Kataoka, pressure vessels 30), the pressure vessel system comprising:
a pressure vessel assembly comprising a plurality of pressure vessels fluidically connected to one another by a fuel line (fig 2, vessels 30 are connected by fuel line 34 and 34a, Kataoka),
the fuel line comprising a wall and thermal insulation provided in an interior of the wall (not disclosed),
wherein the wall is configured to compensate mechanical loads resulting from internal pressure prevalent in the fuel line (fig 4, wall 34 inherently compensates for the mechanical loads from the pressure inside channel 34a, Kataoka)
wherein the pressure vessels in an installed position are disposed substantially parallel to one another (fig 2, vessels 30 are parallel to each other, Kataoka).
Kataoka does not disclose thermal insulation provided in an interior of the wall. However, Bauer teaches thermal insulation provided in an interior of the wall (fig 2, col 1 line 65 to col 2 line 14, plastic foam insulation 12 is sprayed onto the interior of pipe exterior wall 10, Bauer). Bauer describes a system of transporting hydrogen, a field related to Kataoka and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Bauer into Kataoka and sprayed the insulation 12 and barrier coating 16 of Bauer onto the inside of the fuel line of Kataoka. The insulation lowers fuel lost to high temperatures and the impervious barrier allows the wall of Kataoka to be not made of high cost nickel allow steels, which lowers the cost of production (col 1, lines 36-46, Bauer).
Regarding claim 32, Kataoka in view of Bauer discloses the pressure vessel system according to claim 31, wherein the fuel line is configured as a fuel rail, (fig 2, fuel manifold 34 and channel 34a form the fuel rail, Kataoka), and wherein a shut-off valve is provided on the fuel line (fig 2, paragraph 0047, Kataoka, valve 36 is an opening closing valve for fuel line 34) and wherein the pressure vessels of the pressure vessel assembly are configured as communicating pipes (fig 2, pressure vessels 30 in the assembly are communicating, Kataoka).
Regarding claim 33, Kataoka in view of Bauer discloses the pressure vessel system according to claim 32, wherein no electrically activatable shut-off valves are provided between the pressure vessels and the fuel line (neither Kataoka nor Bauer discloses electrically activated shut off valves).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka, in view of Bauer, in further view of LabSaftey.
Regarding claim 34, Kataoka discloses a fuel line (fig 2, fuel line is composed of manifold 34 and channel 34a, Kataoka) for a pressure vessel system of a motor vehicle (figs 1 and 2, the fuel line is for a system of pressure vessels in a vehicle, Kataoka), the fuel line comprising:
a wall (fig 4, wall 34, Kataoka);
and thermal insulation provided in an interior of the wall, the insulation comprising an insulating coating applied to the interior of the wall (not disclosed)
wherein the wall is part of a metallic block in which at least one fuel duct is incorporated (fig 2, Kataoka, wall consists of manifold block 34 with fuel duct 34a, but the material is not disclosed),
wherein the wall is configured to compensate mechanical loads resulting from internal pressure prevalent in the fuel line (fig 4, wall 34 inherently compensates for the mechanical loads from the pressure inside channel 34a, Kataoka).
Kataoka does not disclose thermal insulation provided in an interior of the wall. However, Bauer teaches thermal insulation provided in an interior of the wall (fig 2, col 1 line 65 to col 2 line 14, plastic foam insulation 12 is sprayed onto the interior of pipe exterior wall 10, Bauer). Bauer describes a system of transporting hydrogen, a field related to Kataoka and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Bauer into Kataoka and sprayed the insulation 12 and barrier coating 16 of Bauer onto the inside of the fuel line of Kataoka. The insulation lowers fuel lost to high temperatures and the impervious barrier allows the wall of Kataoka to be not made of high cost nickel allow steels, which lowers the cost of production (col 1, lines 36-46, Bauer).
Kataoka in view of Bauer does not disclose the block as metallic. However, LabSaftey teaches using 316 stainless steel for application involving hydrogen (compatibility table page 5, hydrogen gas is shown as “A-Excellent”, LabSaftey). LabSaftey is a reference document about susceptibility of stainless steel to various chemicals, including hydrogen, a field related to Kataoka, Bauer, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of LabSaftey into Kataoka in view of Bauer and make the wall of Kataoka in view of Bauer out of stainless steel. Stainless steel is well known in the art for not only its hydrogen compatibility, but also corrosion resistance. Additionally, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to produce the fuel line out of a metallic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28, 35-38 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Malas (US 8893748 B2) discloses pipeline for hydrogen with annular gap insulation
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights