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 .
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.
Claim 27 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.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "contact region” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as neither claim 16 nor claim 15 disclose a contact region. For purposes of compact prosecution the contact region is read to refer to the contact region of claim 22, and claim 26 is read to depend on claim 22 instead of claim 16.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka (US 20210039489 A1), hereafter known as Kataoka, in view of Sharp (US 3777501 A), hereafter known as Sharp; or alternatively over Kataoka in view of Bauer (US 3425455 A), hereafter known as Bauer.
Regarding claim 15, 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 (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, Sharp teaches thermal insulation provided in an interior of the wall (fig 1, col 4, lines 10-14, mylar film 18 and cellular structure 12 which form the thermal insulation, is interior to outer cover 22, Sharp). Sharp 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 Sharp into Kataoka and use the fuel line of Sharp as the passages inside manifold 34 of the fuel system of Kataoka. The fuel line of Sharp features capillary insulation, which is light weight and able to be configured to fit different shapes and angles (col 1, lines 53-61, Sharp), which is advantageous for vehicle fuel lines.
Alternatively, 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).
Claims 16-28, 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka in view of Sharp.
Regarding claim 16, Kataoka in view of Sharp discloses the fuel line according to claim 15, wherein at least one pipe at least conjointly forms the thermal insulation (fig 1, the insulation includes mylar film 18, which exists as a pipe inside the fuel line, Sharp).
Regarding claims 17,18,19, Kataoka in view of Sharp discloses the fuel line according to claim 15, but does not disclose wherein a wall thickness of the thermal insulation is less than a wall thickness of the wall by a factor of at least 2 (claim 17), at least 5 (claim 18), or at least 10 (claim 19). However, considering the differences between the mylar film 18 of Sharp, which is one mil, or 1/1000th of an inch thick (col 4, lines 12-14, Sharp), and the wall (manifold block 34 of Kataoka, which connects the high pressure fuel tanks with the fuel cell), it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the wall of Kataoka in view of Sharp to be greater 1/100th of an inch, or more than 10 times as thick as the film, 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 20, Kataoka in view of Sharp discloses the fuel line according to claim 16, wherein at least one gap is provided at least in regions between the wall and the at least one pipe (fig 1, col 3 lines 63-66 Sharp, cells 14 provide gaps between outer wall 22 and mylar film pipe 18).
Regarding claim 21, Kataoka in view of Sharp discloses the fuel line according to claim 20, wherein the at least one pipe is permeable to fuel at least in regions (col 4, lines 17-25, fig 1, Sharp; the liquid, which in the case of Kataoka in view of Sharp is fuel, flows through openings 24 in mylar film pipe 18, thus the pipe is permeable to fuel via the openings) whereby pressure in the at least one gap and pressure in an interior region of the at least one pipe at least approximate one another (col 4, lines 25-32, Sharp; after the fuel evaporates inside the gaps, the pressure in the gaps is equal to the pressure in the pipe).
Regarding claim 22, Kataoka in view of Sharp discloses the fuel line according to claim 20, wherein the at least one pipe has at least one contact region in which the at least one pipe bears on the wall (fig 7, mylar film pipe 58 has connector portions 68 and 69, which bears on wall 50 in the connection regions, Sharp), and in other regions is spaced apart from the wall by the at least one gap (fig 6, mylar pipe 58 in the non-connecting regions is space apart from wall 52 by cell 89, Sharp).
Regarding claims 23, 24,25, Kataoka in view of Sharp 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 at least one pipe by a factor of at least 10 (claim 23), at least 100 (claim 24), and at least 1000 (claim 25) (fig 1, col 4, lines 17-36, Sharp, the liquid flows into cells 14 and vaporizes to insulate the liquid in pipe 18. Since the cells are closed off from each other, the fluid inside the cells is not flowing from one end of the pipe to the other, thus having a flow rate of zero. Thus, if the fluid inside pipe 18 is nonzero, which is true in the case of fueling, the factor is larger than 1000.)
Regarding claim 26, Kataoka in view of Sharp discloses the fuel line according to claim 12, wherein the at least one pipe has 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).
Regarding claim 27, Kataoka in view of Sharp discloses the fuel line according to claim 26, wherein 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 Sharp has contact regions at connector portions, each branch will have a contact region adjacent to it.)
Regarding claim 28, Kataoka in view of Sharp discloses the fuel line according to claim 16, wherein the at least one pipe is configured to be insertable into the interior of the wall (col 6, lines 12-15, fig 5, Sharp, cover 22 is applied over the core and the mylar film pipe, thus the mylar film pipe is inserted into the cover. When applied to Kataoka, the tube of Sharp is inserted into the manifold of Kataoka)
Regarding claim 31, Kataoka in view of Sharp 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 the fuel line of claim 15 (fig 2, vessels 30 are connected by fuel line 34 and 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).
Regarding claim 32, Kataoka in view of Sharp 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 Sharp 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 not Sharp discloses electrically activated shut off valves).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka in view of Bauer.
Regarding claim 29, Kataoka in view of Bauer discloses the fuel line according to claim 15, wherein the insulation comprises an insulation coating applied to an inside of the wall (fig 2, Bauer, insulation layer 12 is inside the outer wall of the pipe).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka in view of Sharp, in further view of CP LabSaftey’ s webpage “Stainless Steel Chemical Compatibility”, hereafter known as LabSaftey.
Regarding claim 30, Kataoka in view of Sharp discloses the fuel line according to claim 15, wherein the wall comprises 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).
Kataoka in view of Sharp 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, Sharp, 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 Sharp and make the wall of Kataoka in view of Sharp 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McGrew (US 3755056 A) and (US 3675809 A) discloses an insulation pipe that is permeable to fuel.
Duri (US 20230160501 A1) discloses a fuel line that is permeable to fuel via secondary channels.
Robbie (US 20030106325 A1) discloses a cryogenic fluid transfer pipe with permeable inner pipe.
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
/KENNETH RINEHART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753