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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Mouthpieces” in claim 1, line 4 should be singular, mouthpiece. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima et al. (US 2023/0408041) (Nakashima) in view of Pietrantoni (US 2001/0040166).
Nakashima discloses a tank module as shown in Fig. 3 comprising a tank (pressure vessel 12) and a holding device (the surrounding enclosure for the pressure vessel 12) that holds the tank, wherein: the tank is provided with a first mouthpiece (bottom valve 31) and a second mouthpiece (top valve 32) at both ends of the tank, and is disposed such that the first mouthpiece is located on a lower side and the other second mouthpiece is located on an upper side; the holding device includes a frame (resin protector 11 with two open ends) and a support member (metal dome 13) disposed at a lower portion of the frame to support the tank; the support member has a hole into which the first mouthpiece on the lower side of the tank is to be inserted such that the mouthpiece is spaced apart from the frame. Nakashima fails to disclose a recess that supports a part of the main body and that the depth of the support member hole being greater than a protrusion amount of the first mouthpiece. Pietrantoni teaches a similar tank module or arrangement for packaging a compressed gas cylinder wherein a holding device with a frame (second container 50 with open ends covered by flaps 52) and a support member (ring 28) supports the end of the cylinder 10 with valve 13 as shown in Fig. 1. The support member has a recess (portion of ring 28 to far right in Fig. 1) that supports a part of a main body of the tank around the hole of the support member (remaining portion of ring 28 having a cylindrical inner surface). A depth of the hole being greater than a protrusion amount of the first mouthpiece (valve 13) protruding from the tank body; and the tank is supported by the support member while the first mouthpiece is apart from the frame. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the support member of Nakashima (metal dome 13) with the support member of Pietrantoni (ring 28) so that the support member contacts the dome-shaped body portion of the tank rather than the mouthpiece portion of the tank to prevent damage or stress from bending or damaging the mouthpiece.
Re claim 2, the curved internal surface of recess of the support member that conforms to a dome-shaped side end portion of the cylinder supports the side end portion.
Re claim 3, the hole of the support member is shaped to catch the first mouthpiece so that the tank does not rotate about an axis (transverse axis of tank).
Re claim 5, the frame has an opening at a portion facing the first mouthpiece (end flap 52 facing the first mouthpiece) disposed on the support member.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietrantoni in view of Baune et al. (2018/0172214) (Baune).
Pietrantoni discloses a tank module comprising a tank (cylinder 10) and a holding device (packaging surrounding and enclosing tank) that holds the tank, wherein: the tank is provided with a first mouthpiece (valve 13) located on a lower side when the configuration of Fig. 1 is rotated 90 degrees CCW; the holding device includes a frame (second container 50 with open ends covered by flaps 52) and a support member (ring 28) disposed at a lower portion of the frame to support the tank; the support member has a hole (remaining portion of ring 28 having a cylindrical inner surface) into which the first mouthpiece on the lower side of the tank is to be inserted, and a recess (portion of ring 28 to far right in Fig. 1) that supports a part of a main body of the tank around the hole, a depth of the hole being greater than a protrusion amount of the first mouthpiece protruding from the tank body; and the tank is supported by the support member without while the first mouthpiece disposed in the hole of the support member contacting is apart from the frame. Pietrantoni fails to disclose a second mouthpiece at the other end. Baune teaches a storage frame 100 that mounts a plurality of pressurized fluid bottles, cylinders or tanks 103 in an upright manner with the longitudinal axis vertical and each of the tanks has a lower mouthpiece as well as an upper mouthpiece. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a second mouthpiece for the other or upper end of the tank to allow for filling or discharge of content from the upper end when the lower tank end is inaccessible.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima in view of Pietrantoni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Houston (US 4964529).
The combination fails to disclose that the support member is made of an elastic material. Houston teaches a tank and tank container enclosing the tank with support member (impact absorbing bottom pad 24 of flexible foam material). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the material of the support member to be flexible foam material to properly absorb impact load so that the tank or the support member doesn’t become damaged from impact forces during transport.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered, a new ground is being made.
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 STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733