DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-5, and 11-17 were filed with the amendment dated 02/27/2026.
Claims 2, 6-10, and 18-24 were canceled.
Claim 17 remains withdrawn from examination.
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
Claims 1 and 3-5 remain allowed.
Upon further consideration, claims 11-16 are being rejected, as set forth below. In view of this new rejection, the Office Action is being made NON-FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 10,040,680 (“McNichols”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,659,624 (“Kelly”) and FR 1128725 (“Pons”).
With regard to claim 11, McNichols discloses a vehicle (200; Fig. 7) comprising: a tank configured to store pressurized fuel (tank not shown but inherently provided as the vehicle receives fuel “vehicle being fueled” in Fig 7); a fill port (at 205) configured to receive pressurized fuel (from fueling system 201) for storage in the tank (within 200); and a safety valve (204), the safety valve (204) disposed in fluid communication between the fill port (at 205) and the tank (inside 200) such that, to flow from the fill port (2050 to the tank (200) (see Fig 7) (valve 204 is a safety valve that is configured to be shut if too much motion; col. 9, lines 5-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McNichols is silent as to the features of the safety valve. McNichols does disclose that the valve and processor can consider other conditions, such as fire (i.e., heat) (col. 9, lines 1-20).
Kelly teaches that it is known in the art to provide a safety valve (10, Fig 1) that comprises a valve body (11) defining an interconnected fluidic network including: an inlet (left end of 25); an outlet (right end of 25); and a flow path (along 25) between the inlet and the outlet (see annotated Fig); a piston (23) disposed within the valve body (11), the piston (23) including: a first end (bottom end, see annotated Fig 1); a second end (top end, see annotated fig 1); and a channel (24) disposed between the first and second ends (see annotated fig 1); wherein the piston (23) is sealed on a side of the channel (24) between the channel (24) and the second end (top end) (at seal 33), and the piston (23) is movable relative to the valve body (11) transversely to the channel between: a first position (position shown in Fig 1) in which the inlet is in fluid communication with the outlet via the flow path (along 25), which passes through the channel; and a second position (when 23 moves down into 23a) in which the piston (23) prevents fluid communication between the inlet (left end of 25) and the outlet (right end of 25) via the flow path (along 25) by obstructing the flow path (col. 3, lines 22-38); and a heat-defeatable barrier (50) that prevents movement of the piston (23) to the second position (col. 2, lines 62-75); the safety valve is disposed such that fluid (i.e., pressurized fuel) flows from the inlet and through the outlet.
PNG
media_image2.png
641
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kelly discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the piston is sealed on a side of the channel between the channel and the first end.
Pons teaches that it is known in the art to modify a valve piston (4) to be sealed on a side of a channel (9) between the channel (9) and a first end (i.e., bottom of 4) (as shown in Figs 3 and 5, seals 7 and 8 are arranged around the channel (9) such that the seal is between the channel (9) and the first end (bottom of 4). Pons further teaches that the seals of Fig 5 can be on the valve piston (4) (“we could also have sealing gaskets embedded in the operculum 4, as in Fig. 1” - see Translation at page 2, lines 11-13).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add seals, such as taught by Pons, to the piston of Kelly so that the piston is sealed on a side of the channel between the channel and first end for the purpose of ensuring “leak-tightness in both open and closed positions” (Pons at Translation at page 2, lines 11-12).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a heat defeatable safety valve as taught by Kelly/Pons in place of the safety valve operating for fire hazards of McNichols or in addition to the valve of McNichols for the purpose of providing an automatic valve that closes upon a fire (i.e., heat) (see McNichols at col. 9, lines 1-20 and Kelly at col. 3, lines 23-26).
Claims 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 10,040,680 (“McNichols”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,659,624 (“Kelly”).
With regard to claim 12, McNichols discloses a vehicle (200; Fig. 7) comprising: a tank configured to store pressurized fuel (tank not shown but inherently provided as the vehicle receives fuel “vehicle being fueled” in Fig 7); a fill port (at 205) configured to receive pressurized fuel (from fueling system 201) for storage in the tank (within 200); and a safety valve (204), the safety valve (204) disposed in fluid communication between the fill port (at 205) and the tank (inside 200) (see Fig 7) (valve 204 is a safety valve that is configured to be shut if too much motion; col. 9, lines 5-8).
McNichols is silent as to the features of the safety valve. McNichols does disclose that the valve and processor can consider other conditions, such as fire (i.e., heat) (col. 9, lines 1-20).
Kelly teaches that it is known in the art to provide a safety valve (10, Fig 1) that comprises a piston (23) disposed within the valve body (11), the piston (23) is movable between: a first position (position shown in Fig 1) in which the inlet is in fluid communication with the outlet via the flow path (along 25); and a second position (when 23 moves down into 23a) in which the valve prevents fluid communication between the inlet (left end of 25) and the outlet (right end of 25) (col. 3, lines 22-38); and a heat-defeatable barrier (50) that prevents movement of the piston (23) to the second position (col. 2, lines 62-75).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a heat defeatable safety valve as taught by Kelly in place of the safety valve operating for fire hazards of McNichols or in addition to the valve of McNichols for the purpose of providing an automatic valve that closes upon a fire (i.e., heat) (see McNichols at col. 9, lines 1-20 and Kelly at col. 3, lines 23-26).
With regard to claim 13, McNichols (as modified by Kelly) discloses that the piston (23) is biased towards the second position (when 23 moves down into 23a) (col. 3, lines 15-23).
With regard to claim 16, McNichols (as modified by Kelly) discloses wherein the heat-defeatable barrier (50) is configured to fail by melting (col. 3, lines 22-26).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 10,040,680 (“McNichols”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,659,624 (“Kelly”) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,041,762 (“Sirosh”).
With regard to claim 14, McNicholas (as modified by Kelly above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing a pressure-relief device configured to vent pressurized fuel from the tank.
Sirosh teaches that it is known in the art to modify a tank with pressurized gas (col. 2, lines 31-33) to include a pressure-relief device (13) configured to vent pressurized fuel from the tank (col. 3, lines 36-43).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a pressure-relief device, such as taught by Sirosh, to the tank of McNicholas for the purpose of allowing “safe release of gas from the tank to the outside if the temperature rises above a predetermined limit” (col. 3, lines 36-43).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 10,040,680 (“McNichols”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,659,624 (“Kelly”) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,838,705 (“Diehl”).
With regard to claim 15, McNicholas as modified by Kelly discloses that the heat defeatable barrier (50 in Kelly) is configured to fail upon reaching a predetermined temperature (see abstract).
Kelly discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the predetermined temperature is from approximately 100 degrees Celsius to approximately 120 degrees Celsius.
Kelly does disclose that the heat defeatable barrier can comprise a low temperature melting metal sold under the trademark of “Serrocast” [sic] (col. 2, lines 63-70).
Diehl teaches that it is known in the art to modify a safety valve to include a piston and a heat defeatable barrier that can melt and comprise a material of “a low temperature solder sold under the trademark ‘Cerrocast’” and that the temperature range for melting may be between around 150 degrees F to 350 degrees F (see col. 2, lines 1-9).
The examiner notes that 150 degrees converts to about 65.56 degrees Celsius and 350 degrees F converts to about 176.67 degrees Celsius. Thus, the range of Diehl contains the claimed range.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a heat defeatable barrier comprising a material that as taught by Diehl which can include a range of 100 to 120 degrees C, in place of the material of McNicholas/Kelly, since the heat defeatable materials are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-5 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious “a first end having an external surface that is exposed to the pressure within the fluidic network outside of the flow path that biases the piston toward the second position; and a second end that is isolated from pressure within the fluidic network; and the piston includes a channel positioned between the first end and the second end such that, when the piston is in the first position, the flow path passes through the channel” (claim 1) in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
The closest prior art reference of record is U.S. Pat. No. 3,659,624 (“Kelly”). Kelly discloses a piston (23) that moves between a first position (Fig 1 position) and a second position (when 23 moves down into 23a). However, Kelly does not disclose a first end having an external surface that is exposed to the pressure within the fluidic network outside of the flow path that biases the piston toward the second position and the piston includes a channel positioned between the first end and the second end such that, when the piston is in the first position, the flow path passes through the channel. The flow path (24) in Kelly passes through channel (at 34), which makes the piston first end that is an external surface the very topmost surface adjacent 50. This top end/first end is not exposed to pressure within the fluidic network. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kelly to arrive at the claimed invention without changing the principle of operation of Kelly or without improper hindsight reasoning.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. No. 5,325,894 (“Kooy”) discloses a vehicle fuel tank for filling with a valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights