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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9 Jan 2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 20 Nov 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4 remain pending in the application, of which Claims 2-4 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 26 August 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amends Claim 1 to incorporate the subject matter of Claim 5. Claim 5 was previously indicated as allowable in the Non-Final Rejection of 26 August 2025. However, upon consideration of the IDS dated 9 Jan 2026, Claim 1 is rejected as discussed below.
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.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanoya et al (US 20070257043) in view of Ojeda Monge (US 20220260207).
Regarding Claim 1, Kanoya et al disclose a hydrogen tank structure (0 generally in Figure 1). The structure comprising a hydrogen tank (14), and an elongated manifold (sleeve 50 and all components contained within as shown in Figure 1) connected to one end of the hydrogen tank (at 26 as shown in Figures 1-2), wherein the manifold (sleeve 50 and all components contained within as shown in Figure 1) includes:
a hydrogen gas channel (together 16 as well as the portions of channels 18 and 20 within the manifold at 50) extending along a longitudinal direction of the manifold inside the manifold (Figure 1 with the longitudinal direction to the right and left as seen in the orientation of Figure 1) and communicating with the interior of the hydrogen tank (Figure 2; ¶ 36 at the joint region 30); and
a heat insulating portion (18 and 24 near channel 20) provided near the hydrogen gas channel (near the portion of the channel at 20 as seen in Figure 3), wherein the heat insulating portion is a gas circulation path communicating with the hydrogen gas channel and configured to circulate hydrogen gas inside the manifold (¶ 50 by moving the hydrogen through the cooler 22),
But fails to expressly disclose where the hydrogen tank is a plurality of hydrogen tanks arranged in parallel, where the manifold is connected to one end of each of the plurality of hydrogen tanks, the hydrogen gas channel communicating with interiors of the plurality of hydrogen tanks,
Ojeda Monge disclose a hydrogen tank structure (Figures 1-5; ¶ 1). The structure comprising a plurality of hydrogen tanks (1) arranged in parallel (Figure 5; ¶ 15), and an elongated manifold (3; Figure 2) connected to one end of each of the hydrogen tanks (Figure 2), wherein the manifold (3) includes: a hydrogen gas channel (10 in at least Figure 5) extending along a longitudinal direction of the manifold inside the manifold (Figure 5 where the longitudinal direction is interpreted as from right to left as seen in the orientation of Figure 6) and communicating with interiors of the hydrogen tanks (Figure 5); and a heat insulating portion (5; Figure 1; ¶ 29) provided near the hydrogen gas channel (Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrogen tank structure of Kanoya et al to include a plurality of tanks as taught by Ojeda Monge since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to increase the overall capacity of the hydrogen tank system, be able to provide smaller, more easily transported or repaired tanks, or to provide backup tanks in the event of the failure of the primary tank.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753