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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2014/0130896 Mayr.
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 12-15 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "opposing terminal faces" in line 11 which is found to be indefinite as it is unclear how these opposing terminal faces relate to “a terminal face” previously claimed in line 8. It is pointed out that a single terminal face can read on “a terminal face” where each port is on said face. This claim will be interpreted that the greatest width of the fitting is less than the length in cases where there are not more than 2 terminal faces.
Claim 15 states “two of the terminal faces” which is found to be indefinite and lack antecedent basis as at least two terminal faces have not been previously disclosed as parent claim states “each first port of each fuel tank fitting positioned in a terminal face of an end of that fuel tank fitting” which only requires a single terminal face that contains more than one port. For the purpose of examination below, it will be assumed that the fitting has at least two ports all of which are in a terminal face and there can be more than one terminal face.
Claims 13-14 depend from claim 12 and therefore inherit the 35 USC 112 deficiencies of their parent claim.
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.
(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.
Claims 5-9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2014/0130896 Mayr.
Regarding claim 5, Mayr discloses a fuel system (figures 1A, 1B, 3) including two or more fuel tanks 11 and two or more fuel fittings (50/51) each coupled directly to an outlet of only a single respective one of the fuel tanks (through threads 52) and including two or more first ports (see ports connected on both sides to 32) each first port of each fuel tank fitting positioned in a terminal face of an end of that fuel tank fitting (ports connected to 32 are at terminal face of 51); wherein for at least one of the first ports, fluid is permitted to flow from the fuel tank, through the fuel tank fitting directly couple to that fuel tank out of the first port and into at least one other of the fuel tanks without flowing through a valve (see paragraph 11, free communication between all the components, valves are provided externally to the fittings 50/51, see valve blocks 12/22, maintenance valve 24 can be mounted at any point in or on the connecting device 31 which is separate from the fittings 50/51).
Regarding claim 6, Mayr discloses wherein each fuel tank fitting is directly coupled via threads to an outlet of only a single respective one of the fuel tanks (see threading 52 connecting each fitting 50/51 to a tank 11).
Regarding claim 7, Mayr discloses a valve in fluid communication with each of the fuel tanks (24/12/22).
Regarding claim 8, Mayr discloses wherein the valve comprises a pressure relief device (see paragraphs 17 and 24, see pressure reducers 21).
Regarding claim 9, Mayr discloses wherein the valve comprises a shut-off valve configured to prevent fluid communication between the fuel tanks and an engine (paragraph 17, shutoff elements, valves, additionally the tanks are fuel tanks to provide fuel to a vehicle).
Regarding claim 16, Mayr discloses wherein two of the terminal faces are oriented perpendicular to each other and do not share an edge with each other (see annotated figure 3 below of Mayr).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayr.
Regarding claim 8-9, See rejection above, if Mayr cannot be utilized to explicitly disclose that the valve is a pressure-relief device, and to disclose a shut-off valve between fuel tanks and an engine, the examiner goes on OFFICIAL NOTICE that pressure relief valves and shut off valves between engines and fuel tanks are well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply said valves to the apparatus of Mayr in order to prevent over pressurization and to control and cut off flow to an engine. This is merely use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results in this case providing control of fuel flow utilizing valves.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayr in view of US 4,832,376 Sugao.
Regarding claim 12, Regarding claim 12, Mayr discloses a method of providing compressed natural gas (CNG) to an engine (figure 1) comprising flowing CNG from a first fuel tank 11 and from a second fuel tank (a different tank 11) through a fuel tank fitting connected to the second fuel tank without flowing the CNG through a valve (fitting 50/51, figure 3) wherein the tank fitting comprises a first end having a connector directly connected to only the second fuel tank of the first and second fuel tank (thread 52 connected to tank 11); a second end comprising multiple first ports each first port positioned in a terminal face of the second end (see ports connected to 32 part of terminal faces of 51); a length from the first end to the second end (total height of 51 top to bottom) and a greatest width between opposing terminal faces that is less than the length and flowing the CNG (see anypoint width of 51). Mayr does not explicitly state the CNG is sent to an engine but the examiner goes on OFFICIAL NOTICE that sending CNG from tanks on vehicles to an engine as fuel is well known in the art and it would have been an obvious use of the fuel being supplied on board the vehicle. CNG is a well known fuel onboard vehicles and engines are well known to be powered by CNG and fuel. Mayr does not explicitly disclose multiple opposing terminal faces. This is disclosed by Sugao who provides for a branch fitting connecting to a tank and a manifold connection that utilizes two opposing terminal faces (see fitting 4 with opposing faces having ports, figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a differently shaped fitting such as a square instead of a cylinder to avoid rotation within the header. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claims 1-4, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayr in view U.S. patent application publication number 2014/0130938 Luparello.
Regarding claims 10 and 11 Mayr does not explicitly disclose the pressures however does mention the tanks can be utilized with CNG. Having CNG at said pressures is well known in the art and disclosed by Luparello, however, stating in a related vehicular CNG dispensing tank arrangement, that the CNG can be at 4500 psi or 3600s psi (see paragraphs 34-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to provide CNG at a slightly lower pressure as disclosed by Luparello with the fitting/tanks of Mayr as the specific CNG pressure is merely a design choice based on vehicular fueling requirements and clearly it is well known to store and dispense with CNG at pressures in the 3000-4500 psi range. Further these pressure ranges would have been obvious to try as needed to supply CNG at appropriate pressures and includes applying a known technique (providing CNG at this pressure range) to a known or similar device (Vehicular CNG tank/dispensing arrangements). Additionally Luparello discloses having a burst pressure of at least 14,400 psi (see paragraph 36). Again, clearly providing dispensing tanks and fittings that can handle a higher burst pressure in the 10,000-36,000 range for high pressure CNG would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further this is a design choice wherein the burst pressure must meet CNG storage/dispensing regulations and CNG is clearly commonly provided in high pressures of either 5000-10000+ in Mayr or at least 3600-4500 in Luparello and having a burst pressure of at least twice that is well known in the art and would be considered use of a known technique to improve similar devices).
Regarding claim 1, Mayr discloses a fuel tank fitting (figure 3, 51) comprising a first end including a single connector configured to be coupled directly to an outlet of only a single fuel tank (thread 52) such that the connector is sealingly received by the outlet (threads 52) or sealingly receives the outlet; wherein the connector has a connection axis (vertically along 51 from tank upward); a second end including two or more first ports each positioned in a terminal face of the second end and such that the connection axis does not extend therethrough (see ports connected to 32 along a terminal face on the second end, outer circumferential face); a first interior passageway extending from the connector (vertical passageway up from 11 to ports/connector 32) and two or more interior passageways connecting the first interior passageway to the first ports such that for each of the first ports, fluid is permitted to flow from the connector through the first interior passageway through one or more second interior passageways and out of the first port without flowing through a valve (no valve required inside fitting 51, fluid flows upward from 11 to the pathways and ports connected to 32). Mayr does not disclose a specific burst pressure however does utilize the tanks and fittings to transport CNG. Luparello discloses providing fittings that have a burst pressure between 10,000 and 36,000 is well known for CNG fittings. See rejection of claims 10 and 11 and motivation above.
Regarding claim 2, Mayr discloses wherein the connector is configured to be coupled to the outlet by rotating at least a portion of the connector relative to the outlet about the connection axis (it is a bolt threaded into threading 52).
Regarding claim 3, Mayr appears to teach at least four ports around the circumference of the banjo bolt 51 (see holes along 32). Additionally, the examiner goes on OFFICIAL NOTICE that banjo bolts with 4 ports/holes are well known in the art and would have easily be utilized to provide enough connections to properly flow CNG efficiently to the header 32. The specific number of ports connecting the banjo bolt to the connector 32 is found to be a design choice and is merely a duplication of parts (providing additional holes) that could be utilized to provide smooth CNG flow as needed depending on hole diameter and location and the size and pressure of the tank and connection manifolds.
Regarding claim 4, Mayr discloses wherein each of the second interior passageways has a center line angularly disposed by approximately 90 degrees relative to the connection axis (all of the ports/pathways connecting to 32 are 90 degrees perpendicular to the vertical centerline flowing upward along 51; see figure 3).
Claims 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayr in view of US 4,832,376 Sugao as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of U.S. patent application publication number 2014/0130938 Luparello.
Regarding claim 13, Mayr further does not explicitly disclose when flowed through the fuel tank fitting, the CNG is at a pressure of between 3,000 psi and 4,500 psi. Having CNG at said pressures is well known in the art and disclosed by Luparello, however, stating in a related vehicular CNG dispensing tank arrangement, that the CNG can be at 4500 psi or 3600s psi (see paragraphs 34-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to provide CNG at a slightly lower pressure as disclosed by Luparello with the fitting/tanks of Mayr as the specific CNG pressure is merely a design choice based on vehicular fueling requirements and clearly it is well known to store and dispense with CNG at pressures in the 3000-4500 psi range. Further these pressure ranges would have been obvious to try as needed to supply CNG at appropriate pressures and includes applying a known technique (providing CNG at this pressure range) to a known or similar device (Vehicular CNG tank/dispensing arrangements).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, see the rejections of claims 8 and 9 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798