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 .
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 1-13 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, without a description of the thermal safety device, the relationship between the trigger device and thermal safety device is unclear. It is believed that the whole assembly should be included in the claim, including the safety valve and breaking of the bulb to show this relationship. This makes it more clear how the movement of the stop places the thermal safety device into a remote emergency configuration and what a remote emergency configuration means.
As to claim 10, the use of the term, “A group,” makes the claim indefinite because it is very broad and since the components of the claimed invention are devices and include structural limitations rather than chemical components.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12435805. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12435805 teaches an assembly comprising: a multifunction valve for a tank containing high-pressure hydrogen of an automotive fuel cell system, comprising: a valve body applicable to the tank, internally having a by-pass duct in communication upstream with the tank and an evacuation duct in communication downstream with an external environment and upstream with the by-pass duct; a thermal safety device operative between the by-pass duct and the evacuation duct, provided with a bulb, which is breakable when exposed to a temperature higher than a threshold safety temperature; an auxiliary device adapted to act mechanically on the bulb to break the bulb, the auxiliary device comprising a hammer that is movable between an advanced position, in which the hammer impacts against the bulb, and a backward position, in which the hammer does not influence the bulb; a trigger group, which, in a configuration of normal operation of the multifunction valve, retains the hammer in the backward position and, in a configuration of remote emergency, is disengaged from the hammer, so that the hammer is brought into the advanced position, in which the hammer breaks the bulb; wherein the trigger group comprises a stop movable between an advanced position, in which the stop mechanically engages the hammer holding the hammer in the backward position and a backward position, in which the stop is disengaged from the hammer; and wherein the trigger group further comprises a heat sensitive element extending along a rectilinear trigger axis beyond the multifunction valve, the heat sensitive element being operatively connected to the stop and comprising at least one heat sensitive section consisting of a wire made of a shape-memory material, which tends to shorten above a critical temperature, moving the stop into the backward position; and a tank having a cylindrical neck with a tank axis; wherein the multifunction valve is applied to the neck of the tank.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The closest prior art, Morgan (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0172540), teaches a trigger assembly having a fire detection portion and a latch control portion, the first detection portion having an elongated body and upon being exposed to heat above a threshold, the first detection portion causes a latch control portion to permit the latch to move from a first configuration to a second configuration to allow gas in a tank to flow out of a pressure relief valve. Morgan (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0172540) also teaches that the pressure relive valve includes a shape memory alloy wire that is configured to shorten when exposed to a temperature above a threshold and to allow the latch to be actuated from the first configuration to the second configuration. However, Morgan (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0172540) fails to teach a trigger abutment that leads to movement of a stop to bring a thermal safety device into a remote emergency configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights