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
This office action responds to the amendment filed on 01/15/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending in the application. No claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5 -9, filed on 01/15/ 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims 1 and 10 in view of Rike have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwan et al. (US 2006/0231144).
With regards to claim 1:
Schwan et al. discloses (refer to Fig. 1 below) a fuel system comprising:
two or more fuel tanks (124, 126), each containing fuel at a pressure of (70MPa = 10,153 psi) between 3,000 pounds per square inch ("psi") and 12,000 psi;
two or more pressure-relief devices ("PRDs") (164, 168) configured to receive fuel from the fuel tanks and vent the received fuel in response to temperature; and
fuel conduits (166, 170) coupling the fuel tanks to the PRDs such that, for each of the fuel tanks, for each of the PRDs, fuel is permitted to flow from the fuel tank to the PRD without flowing through a valve (146, 148) that is not one of the PRDs.
PNG
media_image1.png
1281
1140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1
With regards to claim 2:
Schwan et al. discloses the fuel system of claim 1, wherein the fuel conduits (166, 170) couple the fuel tanks to the PRDs (164, 168) such that, for each of the fuel tanks, for at least one of the PRDs, fuel is permitted to flow from the fuel tank to the PRD without flowing through another one of the PRDs.
With regards to claim 3:
Schwan et al. discloses the fuel system of claim 1, wherein:
each of the fuel tanks (124, 126) comprises an outlet (150, 152) through which fuel is permitted to exit the fuel tank; and
none of the PRDs (164, 168) are mounted to the outlet (150, 152) of any of the fuel tanks.
With regards to claim 5:
Schwan et al. discloses the fuel system of claim 1, comprising a vent tube (166, 170) configured to receive fuel that is vented by at least one of the PRDs (164, 168).
With regards to claim 6:
Schwan et al. discloses the fuel system of claim 1, wherein the fuel tanks comprise three or more fuel tanks (122, 124, 126).
With regards to claim 8:
Schwan et al. discloses (refer to Fig. 1 above) the fuel system of claim 1, wherein:
the fuel system is installed on a vehicle (see [0004]) having an engine and comprises a shut-off valve (146, 148) configured to control the flow of fuel from the fuel tanks to the engine; and
the fuel conduits couple the fuel tanks to the shut-off valve such that, for each of the fuel tanks (124, 126), fuel is permitted to flow from the fuel tank to the shut-off valve (124, 126) without flowing through a valve that is not one of the PRDs.
With regards to claim 9:
Schwan et al. discloses the fuel system of claim 1, wherein the fuel comprises compressed natural gas ("CNG") or hydrogen.
With regards to claim 10:
In making and/or using the device of Schwan et al., one would necessarily perform the method comprising:
flowing fuel from two or more fuel tanks (124, 126) of a vehicle to two or more PRDs (164, 168) of the vehicle that are configured to vent the fuel in response to temperature;
wherein the fuel tanks are coupled in fluid communication with the PRDs such that, for each of the fuel tanks, for each of the PRDs, fuel is permitted to flow from the fuel tank to the PRD without flowing through a valve that is not one of the PRDs; and
wherein the fuel is at a pressure of between 3,000 psi and 12,000 psi.
With regards to claim 11:
Schwan et al. discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the fuel tanks are coupled in fluid communication with the PRDs such that, for each of the fuel tanks, for at least one of the PRDs, fuel is permitted to flow from the fuel tank to the PRD without flowing through another one of the PRDs.
With regards to claim 12:
Schwan et al. discloses the method of claim 10, wherein:
each of the fuel tanks (124, 126) comprises an outlet (150, 152) through which fuel exits the fuel tank; and
none of the PRDs (164, 168) are mounted to the outlet of any of the fuel tanks.
With regards to claim 14:
Schwan et al. discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the vehicle comprises a vent tube (166, 170) configured to receive fuel that is vented by at least one of the PRDs (164, 168).
With regards to claim 15:
Schwan et al. discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the fuel tanks comprise three or more fuel tanks (122, 124, 126).
With regards to claim 17:
Schwan et al. discloses the method of claim 10, wherein:
the vehicle comprises an engine and a shut-off valve (146, 148) configured to control the flow of fuel from the fuel tanks (124, 126) to the engine; and
the fuel tanks are coupled in fluid communication with the shut-off valve such that, for each of the fuel tanks, fuel is permitted to flow from the fuel tank to the shut-off valve without flowing through a valve that is not one of the PRDs.
With regards to claim 18:
Schwan et al. discloses the method of claim 10, the fuel comprises CNG or hydrogen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwan et al..
With regards to claims 4 and 13:
Schwan et al. discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, except at least one of the PRDs is configured to vent the received fuel upon reaching a temperature that is between approximately 100 °C and approximately 120 °C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure at least one of the PRDs to vent the received fuel upon reaching a temperature that is between approximately 100 °C and approximately 120 °C for particular Application wherein this range works best, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Schwan et al., as modified, discloses the system of claim 4 and the method of claim 13
With regards to claims 7 and 16:
Schwan et al. discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, except the PDRs comprise four or more PDRs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwan et al. to have four or more tanks for the particular system wherein these number of tanks is required, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Schwan et al., as modified, discloses the system of claim 7 and the method of claim 16 wherein the PDRs comprise four or more PDRs (since each tanks comprises a PDR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Minh Le, whose telephone number is 571-270-3805. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MINH Q LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights