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 .
Election/Restrictions
The applicant’s response dated 12/29/2025 to the restriction requirement is acknowledged. The applicant elected, with traverse, Group II corresponding to claims 28-30. The examiner notes that claim 28 requires the limitations of claim 16, so claims 16 and 28-30 will be examined.
The applicant traverses the restriction requirement on the grounds that there would be no serious search burden and that since claim 28 requires the limitations of claim 16, the two groups are linked to form a single general inventive concept. The examiner does not agree with the applicant’s arguments for the reasons discussed in the restriction requirement dated 10/29/2025.
With respect to the argument that there would be no serious search burden, this argument is not on point. The present application is a 371 application and restrictions are not based on the serious search burden standard for 371 applications.
With respect to the argument the two groups are linked to form a single general inventive concept, the argument is not persuasive. As noted in the restriction requirement. The limitations of claim 16 are a shared technical feature between the two groups. However, the limitations of claim 16 do not make a contribution over the prior art (see below rejection and restriction requirement). Thus, the two groups lack unity of invention.
The restriction requirement is deemed proper and made final. Accordingly, claims 17-27 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 (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 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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sawai (US 2019/0047404).
PNG
media_image1.png
420
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16: Sawai discloses an arrangement comprising: a pressure vessel system cover (70, fig 4, title, abstract) with an opening (86, fig 4); and a closure element (i.e., valve 46, figs 2-4), fastened in the opening (as shown in fig 4), configured to at least partially close the opening (fig 4), wherein the closure element comprises a covering portion (i.e., the body of 46, fig 4) with at least one sacrificial portion (54, fig 4, ¶0060) and a fastening portion (i.e., the bottom portion of 46 that connects to tube 44, figs 3, 4 and above annotated figure), the closure element is fastened to the pressure vessel system cover in a region of the opening via the fastening portion (see figs 2-4), sealing the covering portion with respect to the pressure vessel system cover, and the at least one sacrificial portion is configured to be destroyed and thus at least partially expose a cutout in the covering portion when a temperature of the covering portion rises above a first temperature threshold value (as discussed in ¶0060).
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(s) 28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai (US 2019/0047404), as applied to claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 28: Sawai discloses a vehicle subassembly (figs 1-4, title, abstract) comprising: a pressure vessel system (fig 2) having a pressure vessel (22, fig 2); a pressure line (i.e., second manifold 38, fig 2) fluidically connected to the pressure vessel; and at least one arrangement according to claim 16 (see above discussion of claim 16), wherein the pressure vessel system cover (70, fig 4) covers the pressure vessel system.
The valve 46 of Sawai is a thermal pressure relief device (¶0060) fluidically connected to the pressure line (figs 2-4); and the opening is adjacent to the pressure relief device (see figs 2-4). But the claim requires a thermal pressure relief device in addition to the closure element of claim 16. In other words, Sawai only disclose one of the two elements in question.
Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sawai to include a second valve 46 (i.e., thermal pressure relief device) fluidically connected to the pressure line and the opening is adjacent to the pressure relief device because such addition would be a simple duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). For example, the inlet of the second valve could be placed in fluid connection with the outlet of the first valve. The addition of a second valve 46 would have the predictable effect of providing redundancy so that the hydrogen would not be drained in the event that the sacrificial portion (54) in one of the valves failed due to mechanical wear or a manufacturing defect.
Regarding claim 30: Sawai wherein the vehicle subassembly is mounted on the underbody of the vehicle (see figs 1 and 4; ¶0076).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 is 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.
Regarding claim 29: Sawai does not reasonably disclose or render obvious the limitations that wherein the fastening portion has a conducting element, which extends transversely to the covering portion and is configured to conduct radiation propagating through the opening or a fluid propagating through the opening along the conducting element, when the closure element is fastened to the pressure vessel system cover, and the conducting element extends along a connecting axis between the opening and an outlet of the pressure relief device.
In particular, Sawai fails to teach wherein the conducting element extends along a connecting axis between the opening and an outlet of the pressure relief device. And there is no reference of record that would have reasonably motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sawai to include said limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4923. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733