Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/600,368

Tank for a pressurised fluid and associated manufacturing method

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 08, 2024
Examiner
TENTONI, LEO B
Art Unit
1742
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Raigi
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1134 granted / 1386 resolved
+16.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1413
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
48.3%
+8.3% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1386 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. 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) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0309903 A1) in combination with Stanley (U.S. Patent No. 3,156,284 A), Criel (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0361703 A1) and Enders (U.S. Patent No. 5,538,680 A). Regarding claim 1, Otsubo (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0017], [0018], [0022] and [0023]; Figures 1 and 2) teaches a process of fixing a base with at least one element of a liner of a tank for pressurized fluid (see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [0023] (ferrule 111 (i.e., base) is integrated with liner 120 of tank 100) of Otsubo), including (1) the liner forming a cavity intended to contain the pressurized fluid and at least one base (see Figures 1 and 2 (liner 120 forms a cavity for pressurized fluid in tank 100) of Otsubo), (2) the base including a first portion forming a longitudinal passage from the inside of the liner towards the outside of the liner (Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs [0022] and [0023] (ferrule 111 (i.e., base) has first portion 111a having a longitudinal passage) of Otsubo), (3) a second portion of transverse dimensions greater than the transverse dimension of the first portion (see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [0023] (ferrule 111 (i.e., base) has a second portion 111b of greater transverse dimension) of Otsubo), (4) the second portion of the base being positioned integrally in the cavity formed by the liner (see Figures 1 and 2 (second portion 111b of ferrule 111 (i.e., base) positioned in the cavity) of Otsubo), (5) the liner including at least one opening of dimensions corresponding substantially to the transverse dimensions of the first portion of the base (see Figures 1 and 2 (liner 120 including at least one opening for ferrule 111 (i.e., base)) of Otsubo), (6) the first portion of the base passing through the opening and being intended to accommodate a regulator (see Figures 1 and 2 (first portion 111a passing through the at least one opening) of Otsubo), including (b) introducing the base into a mold, the dimensions of the mold being adapted to the manufacture of at least one element on the liner including the opening (see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [0023] (ferrule 111 (i.e., base) is installed in a mold for blow molding) of Otsubo); (c) closing the mold, the axis being positioned through a slot in the mold intended to form the opening for the liner (see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [0023] (ferrule 111 (i.e., base) is installed in a mold for blow molding) of Otsubo); and (d) forming at least one element of the liner by rotational molding or by extrusion blow molding of a polymer onto the walls of the mold, the polymer being heated so as to be malleable (see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [0023] (ferrule 111 (i.e., base) is installed in a mold for blow molding) of Otsubo). Otsubo does not teach (a) fixing the base on an axis driven longitudinally by a cylinder (Otsubo teaches (Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [0017] (ferrule 111 is installed in one dome part, ferrule 112 is installed in another dome part)), (e) longitudinally moving the base by the cylinder so as to compress the polymer of the liner element between the mold and the second portion of the base, the step of moving the axis being carried out when the polymer is still highly malleable or sticky, or (f) cooling the polymer so as to secure the second portion of the base to the polymer. Stanley (see the entire document, in particular, col. 1, lines 8-24; col. 5, lines 31-52; Figures 2, 3 and 6) teaches a process (see col. 1, lines 8-12 (hydraulically operating a ferrule setting tool, to set a ferrule on a tube) of Stanley), including fixing the base on an axis driven longitudinally by a cylinder (see Figures 2, 3 and 6; col. 5, lines 31-52 (hydraulic pump 27 moves piston 42 and mandrel 50 to engage and set ferrule 16 on tube 11) of Stanley), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fix the base on an axis driven longitudinally by a cylinder in the process of Otsubo in view of Stanley in order to properly seat a ferrule in a tube and prevent deformation of the tube (see col. 1, lines 13-24 of Stanley). Criel (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0012], [0039], [0042] and [0097]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0039] (method for manufacturing a container (having a lining) for a tank) of Criel), including longitudinally moving the base by the cylinder so as to compress the polymer of the liner element between the mold and the second portion of the base, the step of moving the axis being carried out when the polymer is still highly malleable or sticky (see paragraphs [0042] (blow molding) and [0097] (over-molding a metal component with a plastic) of Criel), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to longitudinally move the base by the cylinder so as to compress the polymer of the liner element between the mold and the second portion of the base, the step of moving the axis being carried out when the polymer is still highly malleable or sticky in the process of Otsubo in view of Criel in order to prevent leakage from the tank (see paragraph [0012] of Criel). Enders (see the entire document, in particular, col. 2, line 66 to col. 3, line 1; col. 3, lines 45-49; col. 5, lines 17-26 and 38-45; col. 8, lines 48-52) teaches a process (see col. 2, line 66 to col. 3, line1 (method fro securing a boss to a thermoplastic liner of a pressure vessel) of Enders), including cooling the polymer so as to secure the second portion of the base to the polymer (see col. 3, lines 45-49 (thermoplastic material is blow-molded into a liner); col. 5, lines 17-26 (blow-molded thermoplastic material hardens when cooled); col. 8, lines 48-52 (stud 32 (which is part of liner 12) cools and hardens) of Enders), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool the polymer so as to secure the second portion of the base to the polymer in the process of Otsubo in view of Enders in order to form a liner. Regarding claim 2, see Figure 1 (liner 120 includes a main tubular portion and two hemispherical domes) of Otsubo. Regarding claim 3, see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [0018] (CFRP reinforcing layer 130) of Otsubo. Regarding claim 6, see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [0017] (resin liner 120 may be made of nylon) of Otsubo. Regarding claim 7, see paragraph [0097] (metal component contains microgrooves) of Criel. Regarding claim 8, see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [0017] (ferrules 111, 112 are sleeves typically made of metal) of Otsubo. Regarding claim 9, see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [0017] (ferrule 111 is installed in one dome part, ferrule 112 is installed in another dome part) of Otsubo, and col. 5, lines 38-45 (one or more orifices may be located in liner 12 to permit connection to nozzles, valves, gauges, tubes and similar fixtures) of Enders. Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0309903 A1) in combination with Stanley (U.S. Patent No. 3,156,284 A), Criel (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0361703 A1) and Enders (U.S. Patent No. 5,538,680 A) as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-9 above, and further in view of Rasche et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,230,922 B1). Regarding claim 4, Otsubo (in combination with Stanley, Criel and Enders) does not teach (1) a tank including a clamping ring positioned around the first portion of the base and intended to clamp the liner between the reinforcing shell and the base. Rasche et al (see the entire document, in particular, col. 1, lines 8-9 and 45-46; col. 4, lines 22-25 and 48-51; Figures 1 and 4) teaches a process (see col. 1, lines 8-9 (making a composite pressure vessel including a liner) of Rasche et al), including a tank having a clamping ring positioned around the first portion of the base and intended to clamp the liner between the reinforcing shell and the base (see Figures 1 and 4; col. 4, lines 22-25 (clamping ring 10 is screwed into neck piece 4 that accommodates a valve); col. 4, lines 48-51 (by screwing in clamping ring 10, neck 13 of liner 2 is pressed into threaded contour 19 of neck piece 4) of Rasche et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a clamping ring positioned around the first portion of the base and intended to clamp the liner between the reinforcing shell and the base in the process of Otsubo (in combination with Stanley, Criel and Enders) in view of Rasche et al in order to provide critical sealing of the neck region (see col. 1, lines 45-46 of Rasche et al). Regarding claim 5, see Figures 1 and 4; col. 4, lines 22-25 (clamping ring 10 is screwed into neck piece 4 that accommodates a valve); col. 4, lines 48-51 (by screwing in clamping ring 10, neck 13 of liner 2 is pressed into threaded contour 19 of neck piece 4) of Rasche et al. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F. 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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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. LEO B. TENTONI Primary Examiner Art Unit 1742 /LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 08, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603206
COMPOSITE COMPONENT AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599464
PRODUCTION OF DENTAL FLOSS FROM WOOD FIBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601177
DECORATIVE CONCRETE WITH UNIFORM SURFACE AND METHOD OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595594
BULKED CONTINUOUS CARPET FILAMENT MANUFACTURING FROM POLYTRIMETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592620
ROTOR CORE MOLDING METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MOLDING A ROTOR CORE OF AN ELECTRIC MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+9.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1386 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