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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement of 11/17/2023 was received and reviewed.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 1, the recitation “wherein mounting bracket” would be more consistent if it recited “wherein the mounting bracket”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-7 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 6, recites “a propeller shaft of the vehicle body frame”; this feature is indefinite because propeller shafts are part of the transmission of a vehicle not the vehicle body frame. Appropriate clarification or arguments explain why “a propeller shaft of the vehicle body frame” is an accurate and appropriate recitation of the features of applicants invention.
Claim 7 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 6.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Diehl, US 2008/0023957.
Claim 1, Diehl discloses a vehicle storage tank mounting device (See at least Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a storage tank mounting frame (tank assembly 10, upper frame members, lever 18, upper bars 20) configured to be mounted at a rear position of a vehicle body frame (automobile frame 12, Figs. 1, 2, [0013], “FIGS. 1-3 illustrate one embodiment of the tank assembly 10 installed in the rear of the automobile to a vehicle structure such as an automobile frame 12.”);
a mounting bracket mounted on the storage tank mounting frame (side bars 22 and bottom bars 20 define brackets for retaining the tank 14); and
a liquified petroleum gas (LPG) storage tank (tank 14) mounted on the mounting bracket and disposed in a space below the storage tank mounting frame to be protected from collision (as shown in Fig. 1 the tank 16 is mounted below the frame components 18, 20).
Claim 2, Diehl discloses the storage tank mounting frame comprises: at least two first mounting frame parts (catch elements 32 and 40 serve as mounting frame parts for securing the tank from to the longitudinal frame members of the vehicle) configured to connect longitudinal frame parts to each other the longitudinal frame parts being disposed on opposite sides of the vehicle body frame (as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 the frame 12 extends longitudinally and the tank assembly attaches to the frame, in part, via catch elements 32 and 40), and disposed on a left side and a right side of the vehicle body frame (see Fig. 3 for the positions, left and right, of the catch elements 32 and 40 which attach to the frame 12 of the vehicle); and at least two second mounting frame parts (bars 20 and the catch elements 32 and 40 are attached to each other to form the upper portion of the tank housing 16) configured to connect the first mounting frame parts to each other and disposed on a front side and a rear side of the first mounting frame parts (the upper bars 20 define the front and rear of the tank housing 16 and are front and rear of catch elements 32 and 40).
Claim 6, Diehl discloses the LPG storage tank mounted on the mounting bracket is configured to be disposed at a rear position of a rear axle of the vehicle body frame to avoid interference with a propeller shaft of the vehicle body frame (see [0013], the tank assembly 10 is at the rear of vehicle and would avoid the prop shaft and ).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi US2005/0258630.
Claim 1, Choi discloses a vehicle storage tank mounting device (fuel tank mounting assembly, Figs. 1-3b) comprising:
a storage tank mounting frame (guide plates 40 attached to floor panel 10 of the vehicle) configured to be mounted at a rear position of a vehicle body frame, ([0015], [0016]);
a mounting bracket mounted on the storage tank mounting frame (guides 42 and links 50 define mounting brackets for securing the tank to the frame); and
a liquified petroleum gas (LPG) storage tank mounted (20) on the mounting bracket and disposed in a space below the storage tank mounting frame to be protected from collision (see abstract and Figs. 1-3b).
Choi is silent regarding the type of fuel contained in fuel tank 20 however LPG is a well-known fuel type and it would have been obvious, to those of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention, that the fuel tank mounting assembly taught by Diehl could be applied to any of a variety of fuel types known for powering vehicles including LPG.
Claim 13, Choi discloses a vehicle (see Abstract and Figs.) comprising:
a vehicle body frame (see Abstract); and
a mounting device for a liquified petroleum gas (LPG) storage tank (20), wherein the mounting device includes a storage tank mounting frame (40) mounted at a rear position of the vehicle body frame ([0015], [0016]), a plurality of mounting brackets mounted on the storage tank mounting frame (42, 50), and the LPG storage tank mounted on the plurality of mounting brackets (as shown the tank 20 is attached to the bracket assembly 42, 50 which connects to the frame 40 and body frame/floor) and disposed in a space below the storage tank mounting frame to be protected from collision (see the position below in Figs. 1-3b and protection from collision shown in Fig. 3b).
Choi is silent regarding the type of fuel contained in fuel tank 20 however LPG is a well-known fuel type and it would have been obvious, to those of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention, that the fuel tank mounting assembly taught by Diehl could be applied to any of a variety of fuel types known for powering vehicles including LPG.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diehl in view of Kim et al. (KR 20100019617).
Claim 7, Diehl discloses at least one fuel tank [0013], however Diehl does not explicitly disclose wherein the LPG storage tank is a doughnut-shaped circular storage tank having a predetermined height. However, Kim disclose an LPG bombe for compact cars to improve convenience. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention that the compact shape of the LPG bombe disclosed by Kim could be used in the tank assembly taught by Diehl at least because doing so would only require routine skill to build a frame structure to retain the bombe shaped fuel tank and it would yield the predictable results of providing a means for storing fuel in the assembly already taught by Diehl.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diehl in view of Takashi et al. (JP H09109769).
Claim 8, Diehl discloses the vehicle storage tank mounting device is mounted to a vehicle including the vehicle body frame (automobile frame 12, Figs. 1, 2, [0013]). Diehl does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle body frame has a step-and-protection frame mounted at a rear end thereof, and wherein the step-and-protection frame is configured to protect a lower portion of the LPG storage tank from rear collision. However, Takashi directed towards underfloor storage device and cylinder discloses a rear vehicle assembly including a vehicle body frame (3, 4) has a step-and-protection frame mounted at a rear end thereof (23 along with 26L and 26R define a step and protect structure, see Fig. 1, 2 ), and wherein the step-and-protection frame is configured to protect a lower portion of the LPG storage tank from rear collision (the bumpers 26L,R and wall structure 23 are structured to protect the tank from rearend collision).
Claim 9, Takashi discloses what Diehl lacks, specifically the step-and- protection frame comprises: a pair of support frames formed to extend downward to a middle portion in a height direction of the LPG storage tank from the rear end of the vehicle body frame to a predetermined position so as to cover the lower portion of the LPG storage tank; and a step frame configured to connect lower ends of the support frames to each other (Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate the back end of a truck having a flat bed/storage space and in Fig. 2 illustrates frame members on the left and right extending downward to attach to the bumper structure 26L,R the position of the bumper substantially covers the middle and lower sections of the tank in the vertical direction).
Claim 10, Diehl discloses a distance from a rear end of the LPG storage tank to the rear end of the vehicle body frame and a distance from the rear end of the LPG storage tank to a rear end of the support frame are set to a predetermined set distance or more to prevent impact with a rear colliding body from being transmitted to the LPG storage tank and to prevent the rear colliding body from contacting the LPG storage tank (claim 10 is directed towards a design objective, predetermined set distances, that prevent impact to the fuel tank; there appears to be no additional structure than what was previously claimed. The objective disclosed in Diehl is to protect the fuel tank during a collision from the rear, consequently the distances of the tank, and frame relative to the rear surface of the vehicle are determined to prevent impact to the tank.).
Claim 11, Takashi discloses what Diehl lacks, specifically wherein the vehicle storage tank mounting device is mounted to a vehicle including the vehicle body frame, wherein the vehicle body frame has a loading deck mounted thereon, and wherein the loading deck has a guard frame disposed at a rear end thereof that extends downward to protect an upper portion of the LPG storage tank from a rear collision (Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate the back end of a truck having a flat bed/storage space and in Fig. 2 illustrates frame members on the left and right extending downward to attach to the bumper structure 26L,R the position of the bumper substantially covers the middle and lower sections of the tank in the vertical direction).
Claim 12, Takashi discloses what Diehl lacks, specifically wherein the guard frame extends downward to a predetermined position to cover a rear end of the vehicle body frame and protect the upper portion of the LPG storage tank (see upper frame 3, lower frame 4, and bumpers 26L/R in Figs. 1 and 2, these feature define guard frame elements to protect the upper and lower portions of the fuel tank).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art discloses the structural features recited in claims 3-5. Absence hindsight reasoning, there is no reason to modify the prior art set forth to include the features recited in claims 3-5.
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.
KR 102566575 B1, FIXING DEVICE FOR TOROIDAL BOMBE WITH LOAD DIVERGENCE FUNCTION;
US 20220402355 A1, Mounting Structure For Fuel Storage Device Of Vehicle;
LU 101416 B1, VEHICLE REAR STRUCTURE;
KR 20200065396 A, Donut Bombe Structure;
US 20120080466 A1, IMPACT ELEMENTS FOR A MOUNTING SYSTEM FOR A PRESSURE VESSEL;
US 20120025509 A1, FUEL TANK MOUNTING STRUCTURE FOR VEHICLE;
US 20060033322 A1, Modular Fuel Storage System For A Vehicle;
US 20060032532 A1, Container For Gas Storage Tanks In A Vehicle;
GB 2160834 A, FUEL TANK MOUNTING FOR A VEHICLE;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB S. SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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. 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.
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655