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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed May 15, 2025, claims 1-4 were amended, and new claims 5-8 were presented. Claims 1-8 are pending.
The amendments to the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the art rejections of the claims over Friedlmeier in view of Felbaum have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the reinforcing layer being a plurality of layers of fiber bundle with a predetermined thickness” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether the “predetermined thickness” is of the reinforcing layer, the plurality of layers, or the fiber bundle. The specification describes “thickness of the reinforcing layers 12” and thicknesses of the fiber bundles (paras. [0014]-[0015]). For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as the reinforcing layer having a predetermined thickness, which appears to be consistent with the specification and dependent claim 5.
Claim 4 recites “the gas is injected toward an uppermost inner wall surface” in line 2. It is unclear whether the gas is positively recited or not, as claim 1 recites “configured to inject gas.” To the extent the gas being injected is a positive recitation, this appears to recite a method step in an apparatus claim (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)). For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the gas is configured to be injected toward an uppermost inner wall surface.”
Claims 2-8 are also rejected through their dependence on a rejected parent claim (details above).
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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-102017206346 to Pelger et al. (hereinafter, “Pelger”) in view of CN-105333302 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter, “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Pelger discloses a high-pressure tank (pressure vessel 100, Fig. 1) disposed such that its axis (axis A-A, Fig. 1) is horizontal (see Fig. 1), comprising: a liner (container wall 110, Fig. 1); a reinforcing layer (fiber-reinforced layer 130, Fig. 1), the reinforcing layer (fiber-reinforced layer 130) being formed around an outer periphery of the liner (see Fig. 1; para. [0008]); a base (annotated Fig. 1 below) disposed at each of both ends (first and second ends 112, 114, Fig. 1) of the high-pressure tank (pressure vessel 100) in a longitudinal direction of the high-pressure tank (direction of axis A-A); a valve (valves 172, 174, Fig. 1; para. [0032] of translation attached to June 3, 2025 IDS) held in each of the bases (see annotated Fig. 1); and a filling portion (annotated Fig. 1) disposed at each of the valves (valves 172, 174) and having an injection port (annotated Fig. 1; see also para. [0032]), wherein each of the injection ports (annotated Fig. 1) is configured to inject gas toward an upper portion (annotated Fig. 1) of an inside (interior space I, Fig. 1) of the high-pressure tank (pressure vessel 100).
PNG
media_image1.png
525
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pelger Annotated Figure 1
Pelger does not expressly disclose the reinforcing layer being a plurality of layers of fiber bundle with a predetermined thickness, the fiber bundle being wound around an outer periphery of the liner.
Zhang teaches a similar high-pressure tank having a liner and a reinforcing layer (see Fig. 1). Zhang teaches the reinforcing layer is a plurality of layers of fiber bundle wound around an outer periphery of the liner (pp. 3 and 5 of attached translation). Zhang teaches that the fiber bundle is impregnated and cured by resin (see e.g., p. 3, ll. 32-35). Zhang teaches that the reinforcing layer has a predetermined thickness between 10 and 30 mm (p. 3, ll. 18-35). Zhang teaches that this arrangement improves the bearing capability of the tank (p. 2, ll. 26-40; see also p. 4, ll. 10-17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the high-pressure tank of Pelger to form the reinforcing layer of a plurality of layers of impregnated fiber bundle wound around an outer periphery of the liner and cured by resin and having a predetermined thickness of 10 to 30 mm as taught by Zhang for the purpose of improving the bearing capability of the tank, as recognized by Zhang (p. 2, ll. 26-40; p. 4, ll. 10-17).
Regarding claim 3, Pelger further discloses a tank length (length L, Fig. 1) of the high-pressure tank (pressure vessel 100) is equal to or greater than 2100 mm (para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 4, Pelger further discloses the gas (see e.g., paras. [0014]-[0015]) is injected toward an uppermost inner wall surface (annotated Fig. 1) at a center (annotated Fig. 1) of the high-pressure tank (pressure vessel 100) in the longitudinal direction (direction of axis A-A).
Regarding claim 5, Pelger as modified by Zhang already includes the fiber bundle is impregnated and cured by resin (Zhang, see e.g., p. 3, ll. 32-35); and the predetermined thickness is 10mm to 30mm (p. 3, ll. 18-35).
Regarding claim 6, Pelger further discloses the gas injected from the injection ports (see e.g., paras. [0014]-[0015]) is configured to collide at the center (annotated Fig. 1) of the high-pressure tank (pressure vessel 100) and to enhance stirring performance (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Pelger further discloses each of the injection ports (annotated Fig. 1) has a bent portion (annotated Fig. 1) forming a tip (annotated Fig. 1) of each of the injection ports (annotated Fig. 1) directed toward an uppermost inner wall surface (annotated Fig. 1) at a center (annotated Fig. 1) of the high-pressure tank (pressure vessel 100) with respect to an axial direction (direction along axis A-A) of the high-pressure tank (pressure vessel 100).
Regarding claim 8, Pelger further discloses each of the injection ports (annotated Fig. 1) has a bent portion (annotated Fig. 1) forming a tip (annotated Fig. 1) of each of the injection ports (annotated Fig. 1) directed toward the uppermost inner wall surface (annotated Fig. 1) at the center (annotated Fig. 1) of the high-pressure tank (pressure vessel 100).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelger in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. 2025/0084964 to Andreas (hereinafter, “Andreas”).
Regarding claim 2, Pelger as modified by Zhang does not expressly disclose each of the filling portions is provided with a check valve.
Andreas teaches a similar high-pressure tank (tank 300, Fig. 5) disposed with a horizontal axis and a filling portion configured to inject gas towards a wall of the inside of the tank (see e.g., Figs. 2-5). Andreas teaches that the filling portion (filling device 100, Fig. 4) includes a check valve (para. [0059]). Andreas teaches that a check valve prevents gas in the tank from escaping via the filling portion (paras. [0059], [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the high-pressure tank of Pelger/Zhang to include a check valve on each of the filling portions as taught by Andreas for the purpose of preventing gas from escaping via the filling portion, as recognized by Andreas (see paras. [0059], [0067]).
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 LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm 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 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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3733