Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/598,079

PRESSURE CONTAINER AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 07, 2024
Examiner
PARKER, LAURA EBERT
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
110 granted / 190 resolved
-12.1% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
242
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.3%
+0.3% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 190 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 In the amendment filed September 4, 2025, claim 1 was amended and new claims 4-7 were presented. Claims 1-7 are pending, with claim 3 withdrawn. The amendments to the specification are entered in view of Applicant’s remarks that they do not constitute new matter (Remarks at pp. 7-8). The examiner independently confirmed the “translation error” via Google Translate. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of the claims over Volkmer have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In particular, Inubushi is relied upon to teach the absorbing as claimed. 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. Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2020/0347992 to Volkmer et al. (hereinafter, “Volkmer”) in view of U.S. Pub. 2015/0144085 to Inubushi et al. (hereinafter, “Inubushi”). Regarding claim 1, Volkmer discloses a pressure container (gas cylinder assembly 100, Figs. 2-5) comprising: a storage member (enclosure 120, Fig. 4) extending in an axial direction (see Figs. 2-3) and capable of releasing gas (enclosure 120 is capable of releasing gas via neck 142, see Figs. 2, 5); a cap (neck 142, Figs. 2, 5) placed at an end portion (end portion 210, Figs. 2, 5) in the axial direction of the storage member (see Fig. 2); a reinforcing layer (reinforcement structure 110, Figs. 4-5) covering outer circumferential surfaces (outer surface 127, Fig. 4) of the storage member (enclosure 120) and the cap (neck 142, see Fig. 5); and a gas barrier layer (permeation barrier layer 134, Figs. 4-5) interposed between the outer circumferential surfaces (outer surface 127) and an inner circumferential surface of the reinforcing layer (innermost surface of reinforcement structure 110, see Fig. 4), formed in a film shape (see Figs. 4-5), and having gas barrier properties (paras. [0052]-[0055]) and heat-shrinkable properties (para. [0055] discloses the barrier layer 134 may be EVOH or PVDC, which have heat-shrinkable properties, see e.g. Applicant’s specification at paras. [0032]-[0033]). Volkmer does not expressly disclose the storage member is capable of absorbing gas. Inubushi teaches a similar pressure container comprising a storage member extending in an axial direction (see Fig. 3). Inubushi teaches that the pressure container may be used to store different gaseous fuels (para. [0015]). Inubushi teaches the storage member comprises an absorbent material that includes a porous metal complex (para. [0086]). Inubushi teaches the absorbent material is in the form of consolidated powder in the form of pellets (para. [0100]). Inubushi teaches the storage member may include a crosslinking agent or binder that includes a silicone-based material, epoxy-based material, or amine-based material (para. [0101]). Inubushi further teaches that an absorbent material in the storage member has excellent durability and stability and provides “superior storage performance” (paras. [0016]-[0018]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the pressure container of Volkmer to add a porous metal complex in the form of pellets and having a cross-linking agent or binder to the storage member such that it is capable of absorbing gas as taught by Inubushi for the purpose of providing good durability, stability, and storage performance, as recognized by Inubushi (paras. [0016]-[0018]). Regarding claim 4, Volkmer as modified by Inubushi already includes the storage member comprises at least one of a porous carbon material, a porous metal complex, zeolite, a hydrogen storage alloy, or a metal hydride (Inubushi, porous metal complex, paras. [0086]). Regarding claim 5, Volkmer as modified by Inubushi already includes the storage member is formed of consolidated powder in the form of pellets (Inubushi, para. [0100]). Regarding claim 6, Volkmer as modified by Inubushi already includes the storage member is formed by crosslinking powder of the storage member (Inubushi, para. [0100]) by a crosslinking agent (Inubushi, para. [0101]), and the crosslinking agent is formed of at least one of a silicone-based material, an epoxy- based material, or an amine-based material (Inubushi, para. [0101]). Regarding claim 7, Volkmer as modified by Inubushi already includes the storage member is formed by crosslinking powder of the storage member (Inubushi, para. [0100]) by binding the powder of the storage member material by a binder (Inubushi, para. [0101]), and the binder is formed of at least one of a silicone-based material, an epoxy-based material, or an amine-based material (Inubushi, para. [0101]). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volkmer in view of Inubushi as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. 2019/0128475 to Roland et al. (hereinafter, “Roland”). Regarding claim 2, Volkmer as modified above does not expressly disclose a water repellent layer placed outward of the gas barrier layer. Roland teaches a similar pressure container (pressure vessel 100, Fig. 1) comprising a storage member (lining 110, para. [0021]), a cap (140, Fig. 1), and a reinforcing layer (overwrap 120, para. [0021]). Roland teaches a water repellent layer placed on an outer surface (elastomeric polymer coating 130, para. [0022]). Roland teaches that the water repellent layer mitigates damage from ballistic or blast assault, dampens effects of mechanical impact, and slows ingress of external fluids to reduce corrosion (para. [0025]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the pressure container of Volkmer/Inubushi to add a water repellent layer to an outer surface of the container as taught by Roland for the purpose of mitigating damage, dampening effects of mechanical impact, and reducing corrosion from external fluids, as recognized by Roland (para. [0025]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pub. 2015/0048095 to Sanders discloses filling a pressure tank with adsorbent materials such as nano-carbon or polymeric pellets for the purpose of allowing a compressed gas to be stored at a lower pressure (see e.g., para. [0072]). U.S. Pub. 2013/0115536 to Barton discloses a pressure tank comprising a hydrogen storage alloy formed with a binder (see paras. [0055]-[0056]). U.S. Pub. 2002/0073617 to Ovshinsky et al. a pressure tank comprising a hydrogen storage alloy. 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 LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm 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 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. /LAURA E. PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 04, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 09, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 09, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582251
COFFEE MUG HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12486947
Tank, In Particular For A Liquid Hydrogen Reservoir, Provided With Internal Rails For Putting An Equipment Module In Place
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12480624
GAS STORAGE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12453439
KNOCK BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Patent 12435840
PRESSURE VESSEL CAPABLE OF RELEASING PRESSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 07, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+33.7%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 190 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month