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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 22 Sept 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the abstract overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 22 Sept 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference number 40 from Figure 3.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “12” has been used to designate both fuel line rail and connecting line as discussed in ¶ 54 of the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, lines 4 and 14 “each pressure vessel” should likely read “each pressure vessel of the at least two pressure vessels”.
In Claim 1, line 9 “each respective pressure sensor” should likely read “each respective pressure sensor of the at least one pressure sensor”.
In Claim 13, line 4 “progression of pressure” should likely read “progression of the pressure”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation “wherein the pressure detection space (31) positioned within each of the at least two pressure vessels (19) is delimited by the interior space (27) of the least two pressure vessels (19) and/or the flow space (44) delimited by the connecting line (12)”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear how the pressure detection space can be both positioned within each of the at least two pressure vessels and delimited by the flow space delimited by the connecting line, since the connecting line is outside of the pressure vessel as seen in Figure 3. For purposes of examination, the connecting line will be interpreted as being “within” the pressure vessels.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1) as being anticipated by Verghade et al (US 2014/0026991) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Verghade et al (US 2014/0026991) in view of Suess (US 2006/0033322).
Regarding Claim 1, Verghade et al discloses pressure vessel system (Figure 8) for a motor vehicle1. The system comprising:
at least two pressure vessels (3 in Figure 8; ¶ 61), for filling with a fluid as fuel (hydrogen for a fuel cell; ¶ 30), wherein each pressure vessel (3) comprises: an interior space (within 3 as seen in Figure 8), a pressure detection space (at least the duct 15 connected to each vessel as seen in Figure 8), and at least one pressure sensor (35 in Figure 8) for detecting a pressure (¶ 78), wherein each respective pressure sensor (35) is positioned in the pressure detection space (at the duct 15 as shown in Figure 8) of each of the at least two pressure vessels (3) in the pressure vessel system (Figure 8), and
a computer unit (microprocessor 11; ¶ 72) for determining a leak in the pressure vessel system (¶ 76) using pressure data detected by each respective pressure sensor (¶ 78),
wherein, depending on the pressure data of the fluid in the pressure detection space (within 15 as measured by sensor 35) in each pressure vessel, the leak is detected in the pressure vessel system (¶ 76 and ¶ 78).
However, in the event Applicant successfully argues that Verghade et al fails to disclose wherein each pressure vessel comprises: an interior space, a pressure detection space, and at least one pressure sensor for detecting a pressure, wherein each respective pressure sensor is positioned in the pressure detection space of each of the at least two pressure vessels, Suess teaches a pressure vessel system (¶ 5; Figure 2A) with at least two pressure vessels (38 and 40 in Figure 2A) wherein each pressure vessel comprises: an interior space (within the tanks 38 and 40 filled with the fuel), a pressure detection space (the interior of the space of each tank 38 and 40), and at least one pressure sensor (59; ¶ 27) for detecting a pressure (the pressure within the tank as taught in ¶ 27), wherein each respective pressure sensor is positioned in the pressure detection space of each of the at least two pressure vessels (within the interior of the tank to measure the pressure within the interior of the tank as taught in ¶ 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Verghade et al with the position of the pressure sensors as taught by Suess for the advantage of measuring the pressure within the tank, as taught by Suess (¶ 27).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the pressure sensors of Verghade et al to measure the pressure within the tank since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide additional pressure information from within the tank itself or to consolidate the system to provide the pressure sensor within the tank to protect it from the environment or tampering.
Regarding Claim 2, Verghade et al discloses a chronological progression of the pressure of the fluid in each pressure detection space is detected by the at least one pressure sensor depending on time (¶ 78 discloses measuring the pressure at each sensor 35 over the course of a timer and comparing the pressure at the end of the timer to a threshold pressure), and
the leak in the pressure vessel system is detected depending on the chronological progression of the pressure of the fluid in each pressure detection space (¶ 78 discloses measuring the pressure at each sensor 35 over the course of a timer and comparing the pressure at the end of the timer to a threshold pressure).
Regarding Claim 3, Verghade et al disclose where the at least two pressure vessels (3) are connected to one another in a fluidically conducting manner by a connecting line (at least by duct 5; Figure 8 from one tank via 150 to 5 to 150 and the other tank) and the connecting line delimits a flow space (Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 4, Verghade et al discloses wherein the connecting line (Figure 8 from one tank via 150 to 5 to 150 and the other tank) opens into a service valve (49) as a closing element (Figure 8) for conducting the fluid to a conversion unit (to the fuel cell disclosed in ¶ 66).
Regarding Claim 5, Verghade et al discloses wherein the at least two pressure vessels (3) are each configured to comprise a fluid opening (at 22) for introducing and releasing the fluid into and out of the at least two pressure vessels through the fluid opening (¶ 51), and the fluid opening (at 22) of the at least two pressure vessels (3) is opened and closed by a closing element (25).
Regarding Claim 6, Verghade et al disclose where the pressure detection space positioned within each of the at least two pressure vessels is delimited by the interior space of the least two pressure vessels and/or the flow space (44) delimited by the connecting line (pressure sensors 35 measure at least the connecting line Figure 8 from one tank via 150 to 5 to 150 and the other tank), or alternatively Suess teaches where the pressure detection space positioned within each of the at least two pressure vessels is delimited by the interior space of the least two pressure vessels (¶ 27; Figure 2A).
Regarding Claim 10, Verghade et al disclose where the pressure in each pressure detection space is detected while the closing elements opening into each pressure detection space is closed (¶ 78 discloses measuring pressure with valves 25 closed).
Regarding Claim 12, Verghade et al disclose a method for operating a pressure vessel system (Figure 8) having a plurality of pressure vessels (3 in Figure 8), which each delimit an interior space (within the tank 3) and a pressure detection space (within the conduit 15 attached to each tank 3), for a motor vehicle (¶ 30). The method comprising:
introducing a fluid, as fuel, (hydrogen for a fuel cell; ¶ 30) through at least one fluid opening (at 22) into at least one pressure vessel (3) of the plurality of pressure vessels by opening a respective closing element (25; ¶ 51) for the at least one fluid opening (at 22) so that the interior space (within the tank 3) of the at least one pressure vessel (3) is filled with the fluid (¶ 51),
releasing the fluid as fuel through the at least one fluid opening from the at least one pressure vessel by opening the respective closing element (¶ 51) for the at least one fluid opening (at 22), so that the interior space (within 3) of the at least one pressure vessel is emptied of the fluid (¶ 51),
storing the fluid in the interior space of the at least one pressure vessel by the respective closing element of the fluid openings of the at least one pressure vessel remaining closed during a storage period (Figure 8),
detecting a pressure of the pressure detection space of the at least one pressure vessel using at least one pressure sensor (35), the at least one pressure sensor (35) is positioned in the pressure detection space (within 15),
determining a leak in the pressure vessel system using pressure data detected by the at least one pressure sensor (35) via a computer unit (microprocessor 11; ¶ 72),
wherein the respective closing element (25), which is necessary for closing each pressure detection space (15), is always closed during the storage period and, during said storage period, the pressure of the fluid in each pressure detection space (15) is detected, and the leak in the pressure vessel system (Figure 8) is detected depending on the pressure data for the fluid in each pressure detection space (¶ 78).
However, in the event Applicant successfully argues that Verghade et al fails to disclose wherein a plurality of pressure vessels, which each delimit an interior space and a pressure detection space, detecting a pressure of the pressure detection space of the at least one pressure vessel using at least one pressure sensor, the at least one pressure sensor is positioned in the pressure detection space, Suess teaches a pressure vessel system (¶ 5; Figure 2A) with at least two pressure vessels (38 and 40 in Figure 2A) wherein each pressure vessel comprises: an interior space (within the tanks 38 and 40 filled with the fuel), a pressure detection space (the interior of the space of each tank 38 and 40), and at least one pressure sensor (59; ¶ 27) for detecting a pressure (the pressure within the tank as taught in ¶ 27), wherein each respective pressure sensor is positioned in the pressure detection space of each of the at least two pressure vessels (within the interior of the tank to measure the pressure within the interior of the tank as taught in ¶ 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Verghade et al with the position of the pressure sensors as taught by Suess for the advantage of measuring the pressure within the tank, as taught by Suess (¶ 27).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the pressure sensors of Verghade et al to measure the pressure within the tank since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide additional pressure information from within the tank itself or to consolidate the system to provide the pressure sensor within the tank to protect it from the environment or tampering.
Regarding Claim 13, Verghade et al disclose where the leak is detected depending on the pressure data detected by the at least one pressure sensor (35) in each pressure detection space by comparing a chronological progression of pressure in each pressure detection space (¶ 78 discloses measuring the pressure at each sensor (35) over the course of a timer and comparing the pressure at the end of the timer to a threshold pressure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verghade et al (US 2014/0026991) in view of in view of Suess (US 2006/0033322) in further view of van der Donk et al (US 2014/0231531).
Regarding Claim 7, Verghade et al discloses wherein detection of the leak depends on the pressure data for the fluid of each pressure detection space (35 in Figure 8), which is detected by the at least one pressure sensor (35), and by the chronological progression of the pressure in each pressure detection space (¶ 78 discloses measuring the pressure at each sensor 35 over the course of a timer and comparing the pressure at the end of the timer to a threshold pressure),
but fails to expressly disclose the pressure data for the fluid of each pressure detection space being compared with one another.
Van der Donk et al teaches a pressure system (Figure 1) wherein the detection of the leak depends on the pressure data for the fluid of the at least two different pressure detection spaces (measured via 40 and 40b; Figure 1; ¶ 95-96), which data can be detected by the at least two pressure sensors (40 and 40b), and by being compared with one another (¶ 95-96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Verghade et al with the system as taught by Van der Donk et al for the advantage of measuring abnormal pressure data values at different points in the system, to determine a system fault as taught by Van der Donk et al (¶ 95).
Regarding Claim 8, Verghade et al discloses comparing the chronological progression in each pressure detection space (¶ 78 discloses measuring the pressure at each sensor 35 over the course of a timer and comparing the pressure at the end of the timer to a threshold pressure), with at least one reference value (the threshold disclosed in ¶ 78) and the leak is detected in an event of a deviation from the at least one reference value (¶ 78),
but fails to expressly disclose wherein the chronological progression in each pressure detection space, are compared with one another.
Van der Donk et al teaches wherein the chronological pressure progression in at least two different pressure detection spaces (measured via 40 and 40b; Figure 1; ¶ 95-96), are compared with one another (measured via 40 and 40b; Figure 1; ¶ 95-96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Verghade et al with the system as taught by Van der Donk et al for the advantage of measuring abnormal pressure data values at different points in the system, to determine a system fault as taught by Van der Donk et al (¶ 95).
Regarding Claim 9, Verghade et al discloses wherein depending on a size of the deviation (¶ 78 and 86), a service note, a warning or an emergency message is issued (¶ 86 discloses an audio and/or visual warning).
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verghade et al (US 2014/0026991) in view of in view of Suess (US 2006/0033322) in further view of Satou et al (US 2003/0209282).
Regarding Claim 11, Verghade et al discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the pressure vessel system comprises a drainage system for the at least one pressure vessel, which is filled with the fluid, for releasing the fluid from the at least two pressure vessels into an environment when a specified limit value of a discharge parameter is exceeded.
Satou et al teaches wherein the pressure vessel system (Figure 1) comprises a drainage system (out 9) for the at least one pressure vessel (60), which is filled with the fluid (¶ 19), for releasing the fluid from the at least two pressure vessels into an environment (¶ 70) when a specified limit value of a discharge parameter is exceeded (high pressure is disclosed in ¶ 96-97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Verghade et al with the drainage system as taught by Satou et al for the advantage of lowering the pressure within the system to a safe atmospheric pressure as taught by Satou et al (¶ 98).
Regarding Claim 17, Satou et al teaches wherein the discharge parameter is temperature and/or pressure (high pressure is disclosed in ¶ 96-97).
Claim(s) 14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verghade et al (US 2014/0026991) in view of in view of Suess (US 2006/0033322) in further view of Uchida et al (US 2017/0059089).
Regarding Claim 14, Verghade et al discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein a temperature of the fluid in each pressure detection space is detected by at least one temperature sensor, and the leak in the pressure vessel system is detected depending on temperature data detected by the at least one temperature sensor.
Uchida et al teaches wherein a temperature of the fluid is detected by temperature sensor (by sensor 36; Figure 9), and the leak in the pressure vessel system is detected depending on temperature data detected by the temperature sensor (Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the system of Uchida et al to provide two temperatures sensors to measure the temperature of the at least two different pressure detection spaces since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide additional means to measure temperature into the system to more clearly indicate which section of the system has an error or leak.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Verghade et al with the system as taught by Uchida et al for the advantage of better calculating flow into and out of a fluid tank to determine if a leak is actually present, as taught by Uchida et al (¶ 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Uchida et al teaches wherein the temperature data detected by the at least one temperature sensor is a chronological temperature progression (Figure 9 from time t1 to t2).
Regarding Claim 18, Uchida et al teach where the at least one temperature sensor (36) includes at least one temperature sensor positioned in the pressure detection space (as it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the system of Uchida et al to provide two temperatures sensors to measure the temperature of the at least two different pressure detection spaces since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art as discussed above) of each of the plurality of pressure vessels (3 of Verghade et al).
Regarding Claim 19, Verghade et al discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein a temperature of the fluid in each pressure detection space is detected by at least one temperature sensor, and the leak in the pressure vessel system is detected depending on temperature data detected by the at least one temperature sensor.
Uchida et al teaches wherein a temperature of the fluid is detected by temperature sensor (by sensor 36; Figure 9), and the leak in the pressure vessel system is detected depending on temperature data detected by the temperature sensor (Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the system of Uchida et al to provide two temperatures sensors to measure the temperature of the at least two different pressure detection spaces since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide additional means to measure temperature into the system to more clearly indicate which section of the system has an error or leak.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Verghade et al with the system as taught by Uchida et al for the advantage of better calculating flow into and out of a fluid tank to determine if a leak is actually present, as taught by Uchida et al (¶ 6).
Regarding Claim 20, Uchida et al teach where the at least one temperature sensor (36) includes at least one temperature sensor positioned in the pressure detection space (as it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the system of Uchida et al to provide two temperatures sensors to measure the temperature of the at least two different pressure detection spaces since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art as discussed above) of each of the plurality of pressure vessels (3 of Verghade et al).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suess (US 2006/0033322) in view of Verghade et al (US 2014/0026991).
Regarding Claim 15, Suess discloses a motor vehicle (20 in Figure 1). The motor vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body (28),
a plurality of wheels (Figure 1),
a pressure vessel system (24),
at least one conversion unit (26; ¶ 22) as a fuel cell unit and/or an internal combustion engine (¶ 22), which can be operated using the combustible fluid from the pressure vessel system in order to convert electrochemical energy of the combustible fluid into electrical and/or mechanical energy (¶ 22)
but fails to expressly disclose the pressure vessel system is configured according to claim 1.
Verghade et al teaches wherein the pressure vessel system is configured according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the pressure vessel system of Verghade et al to be used in a motor vehicle as taught by Suess for the purpose of utilizing the system of Verghade et al in an alternative system such as a motor vehicle in which pressure vessel systems are known and desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 Sept 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that Verghade et al fails to disclose the newly amended limitations where at least one pressure sensor is positioned in a pressure detection space. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the pressure sensor of Verghade et al is not disposed in the tank) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim requires wherein each pressure vessel comprises: an interior space (27), a pressure detection space (31), and at least one pressure sensor (32) for detecting a pressure, wherein each respective pressure sensor (32) is positioned in the pressure detection space (31) of each of the at least two pressure vessels (2) however while teach pressure vessel comprises a pressure detection space, the pressure detection space is not necessarily the interior space within the tank. Therefore, Verghade et al discloses wherein each pressure vessel (3) comprises: an interior space (within 3 as seen in Figure 8), a pressure detection space (at least the duct 15 connected to each vessel as seen in Figure 8), and at least one pressure sensor (35 in Figure 8) for detecting a pressure (¶ 78), wherein each respective pressure sensor (35) is positioned in the pressure detection space (at the duct 15 as shown in Figure 8) of each of the at least two pressure vessels (3) in the pressure vessel system (Figure 8) and this argument is unpersuasive.
Additionally, Suess teaches where the pressure sensor is positioned within a pressure detection space delimited by the interior of the vessel, as discussed above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the temperature sensor is not provided within a pressure detection space delimited by the pressure vessel as required by Claims 18 and 20) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Uchida et al teaches wherein a temperature of the fluid is detected by temperature sensor (by sensor 36; Figure 9), and the leak in the pressure vessel system is detected depending on temperature data detected by the temperature sensor (Figure 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the system of Uchida et al to provide two temperatures sensors to measure the temperature of the at least two different pressure detection spaces since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide additional means to measure temperature into the system to more clearly indicate which section of the system has an error or leak. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Verghade et al with the system as taught by Uchida et al for the advantage of better calculating flow into and out of a fluid tank to determine if a leak is actually present, as taught by Uchida et al (¶ 6). Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
1 The recitation “for a motor vehicle” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone.