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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species I and species II (claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11-20) in the reply filed on 9 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that species I and II should be examined together since they share the same features, as discussed by applicant in the response filed 12/9/2025 (pages 2-3). This is found persuasive. Therefore, species I and II will be reviewed together for the features common between them, as explained by applicant.
Furthermore, since applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement between species III-X, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Therefore, claims 3 and 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, the applicant states “the connection tube interconnects one end portions of the storage tubes”. It appears “portions” should be “portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croteau et al. (US 20160290564), in view of Shimada et al. (JP 4317798).
Regarding claim 1, Croteau teaches a gas storage vessel (figure 9, reference 20) for storing gas (paragraph 21) comprising: a plurality of storage tubes (figure 9, reference 25, 30, 35) formed as bodies (figure 9, reference 25, 30, 35) to form accommodation spaces for storing the gas therein (figure 9: internal space occupied by the fluid/gas); and at least one connection tube (figure 9, reference 100) to form a connection space therein (figure 9) and coupled to the storage tubes to have a shared space where the accommodation spaces and the connection space intersect (figure 9, near reference 120).
Croteau does not explicitly teach the plurality of storage tubes formed as tubular bodies or at least one connection tube formed as a tubular body. However, Shimada does teach the plurality of storage tubes (figure 10, reference 2) formed as tubular bodies (figure 10, reference 2) and at least one connection tube formed as a tubular body (figure 8, reference 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the vessel of Croteau to include the plurality of storage tubes formed as tubular bodies or at least one connection tube formed as a tubular body, as disclosed by Shimada, because having the tubes in the form of tubular bodies is a change in shape of the tubes. To modify the vessel tubes with tubular shapes as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of the tubes and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 2, Croteau, in view of Shimada, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Croteau teaches the connection tube interconnects one end portions of the storage tubes (figure 9, reference 100).
Regarding claim 4, Croteau, in view of Shimada, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Croteau teaches axial lines of the storage tubes and the connection tube are arranged in a same plane (figure 9, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
429
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Croteau, in view of Shimada, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 4, as shown above. Furthermore, Croteau teaches axial lines of the storage tubes and the connection tube are arranged in a same plan the axial lines of the storage tubes and the connection tube are orthogonal (figure 9, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 4).
Regarding claim 11, Croteau, in view of Shimada, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, modified Croteau teaches axial lines of the storage tubes are arranged within a curved plane, and the connection tube is contoured along the curved plane to be coupled to the storage tubes (figure 9, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 4: when combining the storage and connection tubes of Croteau with the tubular shapes of Shimada, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 12, Croteau, in view of Shimada, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Shimada teaches an inlet port (figure 1 and 2, reference 7a) provided on the storage tubes or the connection tube to allow the gas to be injected into the accommodation spaces or the connection space (figure 7).
Regarding claim 13, Croteau, in view of Shimada, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 12, as shown above. Furthermore, Shimada teaches the inlet port is provided at a central portion in a width direction of the connection tube (figure 1 and 2, reference 7a).
Regarding claim 14, Croteau, in view of Shimada, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 12, as shown above. Furthermore, Shimada teaches the inlet port comprises a neck portion (figure 1 and 2, reference 7) protruding in a linear shape at one end portion of the connection tube (figure 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, Croteau, in view of Shimada, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 14, as shown above. Furthermore, Shimada teaches the neck portion protrudes outward along an axial line of the connection space (figure 1 and 2, reference 7).
Regarding claim 17, Croteau, in view of Shimada, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 14, as shown above. Furthermore, Shimada teaches the neck portion comprises a valve for regulating an amount of the gas injected (paragraph 53 of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 18, Croteau, in view of Shimada, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Croteau teaches a boundary portion where the storage tubes and the connection tube are mutually coupled has shapes symmetric to the axial lines of the storage tubes and the connection tube (figure 9, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 4 and figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, Croteau, in view of Shimada, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Shimada teaches shapes of the tubular bodies comprises at least one of circular, elliptical, rectangular, or hexagonal shapes (figure 9 and 10, reference 2).
Regarding claim 20, Croteau, in view of Shimada, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Croteau teaches the coupling comprises at least one of welding, fusing, mechanical fastening, or brazing (paragraph 29).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croteau et al. (US 20160290564), in view of Shimada et al. (JP 4317798), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kuczek et al. (US 11,047,529).
Regarding claim 16, Croteau, in view of Shimada, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 14, as shown above. Furthermore, Shimada teaches the neck portion protrudes along an axial line of the connection space (figure 1 and 2, reference 7).
Croteau, in view of Shimada, do not explicitly teach the neck portion protrudes inward. However, Kuczek does teach the neck portion (figure 6, reference 94) protrudes inward (figure 6: the neck of 94 protrudes inwards towards the inside of the vessel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the vessel of modified Croteau, to include the neck portion protruding inward, as disclosed by Kuczek, because having an inward protruding neck allows for the valve to be placed within the vessel and separated from the internal walls of the vessel which would decrease the likelihood of wearing of the internal liner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhao et al (US 11,525,545) discloses a vessel with a plurality of storage tubes.
Newhouse (US 10,465,848) discloses a vessel with a plurality of storage tubes.
Richards et al. (US 20090050635) discloses a vessel with a plurality of storage tubes which are interconnected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights