DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/01/26 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 6, 9, 10 and 12 have been amended while all other claims are maintained as previously presented in the application. In light of amendments, objection to claim 12 has been withdrawn. In view of amendment, a new ground(s) of rejections is made under 35 USC § 103 over Milton in view of Van (details below) and claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see ‘Remarks’ filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the argument, the applicant submits to introduce a new limitations “(i) the frame of each vessel mount structure "laterally extends from the strut towards an exterior side of the pressurized fuel storage and provides a neck mount arranged for mounting an axial end of the elongated pressure vessel at a lateral offset from the strut;" and (ii) "the elongated pressure vessel is suspended only at its axial ends and the ring- shaped clearance prevents contact between the strut and the elongated pressure vessel." are fully considered; however, in view of further consideration and in light of amendment are not found persuasive. It has been noted that Milton in view of Van discloses the features as claimed.
Van expressly discloses each vessel mount structure comprises a strut (15) mounted to a respective longitudinal chassis member (fig. 2A) and provided a ring-shaped clearance to allow radial expansion and contraction of the suspended elongated pressure vessels for the tanks and further- the ring- shaped clearance that prevents contact between struts 15 and the elongated pressure vessels, consistent with MPEP §2143.02. Because Milton in view of Van already taught the structural features of Ring-shaped structure, and its clearance that prevents contact between struts (as depicted in fig. 3 of Milton and fig. 1 of Van), the limitations of claim 1 do not distinguish from the current art of record.
Furthermore, based on the teaching of Van and/or that which is known in the art, the further argument regarding claim 1 and the dependent claims are moot because a new ground of rejection under 35 USC § 103 over Milton, in view of Van does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Accordingly, claims 1-12 are rendered obvious and pending in the application. See claim rejection under 35 U.S.C §103 below.
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.
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 no obviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton et al. (US 9499047 B2; hereinafter, “Milton”) in view of Van Der Linden (US Pub. 20170080798 A1; hereinafter, “Van”).
Regarding claim 1; Milton discloses: a truck or tractor semi-trailer combination (figs. 1-4) interconnected via a fifth wheel that provides at least one rotational yaw degree of freedom between a semi-trailer and a cabin of the truck, comprising (Col. 2, lines 4-10 and fig. 1 of Milton describes a truck structure) a pair of longitudinal chassis members (frame rails 20/22; fig. 1), a pressurized fuel storage (fueling system 28) mounted to the pair of longitudinal chassis members (20/22) between a rear end of the cabin (rear end of cabin 16 as depicted in fig. 1) and the semi-trailer (fig. 1),
wherein the pressurized fuel storage (28) comprises opposing vessel mount structures (left 40/right 40; fig. 3) extending from a top side (top side of 20/22 as depicted in fig. 3) of the pair of longitudinal chassis members (frame rails 20/22) and arranged for suspending an elongated pressure vessel (tank 36; figs. 2-3) in a lateral orientation (lateral orientation as depicted in figs. 2-3),
wherein each vessel mount structure (64) comprises a strut (40, fig. 3) mounted to a respective longitudinal chassis member (20/22, fig. 3) and provided with a clearance (fig. 3 shows the clearance) for extending over a circumference (circumference body of vessel 36 as depicted in fig. 3) of the elongated pressure vessel (36),
wherein each vessel mount structure (left 64/right 64) comprises a frame (46) that laterally extends (as depicted in fig. 3, far side when looking at the front) from the strut (40, fig. 3) towards an exterior side (side at 62, fig. 3) of the pressurized fuel storage (28) and provides a neck mount (front and rear mounts 48/50; figs. 2-3) arranged for mounting an axial end (at 48 and at 50, figs. 2-3) of the elongated pressure vessel (36) at a lateral offset (as depicted in fig. 3, neck mount 48 or 50 is positioned at a lateral offset from the strut (40),
wherein the elongated pressure vessel (36) is suspended (see annotated fig. 3 below) only at its axial ends (48/50), and
wherein the struts (left 40/ right 40) are arranged for transferring a suspension force from the neck mounts (48/50) to the pair of longitudinal chassis members (20/22), for thereby constraining a movement of the pressurized fuel storage with respect to the pair of longitudinal chassis members. [Col. 2, lines 26-37 and fig. 2 illustrates that the neck mounts (48/50) mounted on tank supports (46) which mount to the corner brackets (equivalent to struts 40). These, along with cross braces (42) and strut (40) form a frame to which the tanks are mounted. Fig. 3 illustrates the base mounted to the chassis frame rails (20/22); thus, thereby constraining a movement of the pressurized fuel storage with respect to the pair of longitudinal chassis members].
Milton does not appear to explicitly disclose that a strut with a ring-shaped clearance for the tanks and the ring- shaped clearance prevents contact between the strut (38) and the elongated pressure vessel (36); however,
Van in another cab fuel tank housing similar to Milton teaches that each vessel mount structure comprises a strut (15) mounted to a respective longitudinal chassis member (fig. 2A) and provided a ring-shaped clearance (R, see annotated fig. 1 of Van below where it is depicted a ring-shaped clearance and is larger than an outer diameter of the elongated pressure vessel, to allow radial expansion and contraction of the suspended elongated pressure vessels) for the tanks (tanks 10) and the ring- shaped clearance (R, see annotated fig. 1 of Van below) prevents contact between the strut (15, fig. 1) and the elongated pressure vessel (tank10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Milton and to include a strut provided with a ring-shaped clearance for extending over a circumference of the elongated pressure vessel, as taught by Van, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle pressure vessel storage arrangements. Such an arrangement are well known pressure vessel secure means, provided with a ring-shaped clearance for extending over a circumference of the elongated pressure vessel with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously secure multiple pressure vessels by utilizing optimized secure means, as such a modification would allow the storage structure to accommodate multiple pressure vessels withing a smaller surface area of the vehicle, thus provides more surface clearance, empty spaces at the back of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
673
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3 of Milton
PNG
media_image2.png
694
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Van
Regarding claim 2, Milton as modified above further discloses; wherein the opposing vessel mount structures (64, fig. 3) provide further neck mounts (48/50) arranged for mounting axial ends of one or more further elongated pressure vessels (see fig. 3) above the laterally suspended (fig. 3 shows multiple storage tanks are laterally suspended one above another) elongated pressure vessel (36; fig. 3).
wherein the struts (40 or 15 of Van) are arranged for transferring a suspension force from the further neck mounts (48/50) to the pair of longitudinal chassis members. (Col. 2, lines 26-37 and fig. 2 illustrates the neck mounts (48/50) mounted on tank supports (46) which mount to the corner brackets (40). These, along with cross braces (42) and base (38) form a frame to which the tanks are mounted. Fig. 3 illustrates the base mounted to the chassis frame rails (20/22)).
Regarding claim 4, Milton as modified above further discloses that each strut (40/40 or 15/15 of Van) is mounted substantially in plane with the respective longitudinal chassis member. (Figs. 2 and 3 of Milton and also fig. 2A of Van has expressly depicted that each strut 40 of Milton or 15 of Van are mounted substantially in plane with the respective longitudinal chassis member.)
Claims 5-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton in view of Van and further in view of Andreas Jan (WO 2023 001743 A1; hereinafter, “Andreas”).
Regarding claim 5, Milton as modified above discloses the opposing vessel mount structures (64) and the pair of longitudinal chassis members (20/22), but fails to explicitly disclose a fixation mechanism; however,
Andreas in another holding frame for fastening high-pressure storage tanks similar to the modified Milton teaches that a fixation mechanism (mechanism as constituted by base structure 131/132; [0060]) between the opposing vessel mount structures (110; fig. 4) and the pair of longitudinal chassis members (para. 0013; [Paragraphs 64-65 describe mounting flanges 141/142 connecting the vehicle frame rails to the base plates 131/132 which mount clamping elements 112A/112B, which mount the pressure vessels.])
wherein the fixation mechanism comprises opposing brackets (mounting flanges 141/142; fig. 6, paragraph 63-66 teaches that the opposing brackets are interconnected by floor panels 131/132; fig. 6 arranged for mounting the cabin to the pair of longitudinal chassis members) that connect the struts to the pair of longitudinal chassis members (0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Milton to include a fixation mechanism of Andreas, in such that frame comprises a fixation mechanism between the opposing vessel mount structures and the pair of longitudinal chassis members wherein the fixation mechanism comprises opposing brackets that connect the struts to the pair of longitudinal chassis members with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously provide the opposing lower bracket to the frame structure that helps to prevent lower bending moment on the supported frame, reduce shear stress at upper mount and provide more predictable load paths into the support frame.
Regarding claim 6, Milton as modified above further teaches that wherein, in a forward direction (width direction as depicted in fig. 6 equivalent to forward direction) with respect to the pressurized fuel storage, the opposing brackets are interconnected by a cabin bridge (floor panels 131/132; fig. 6) arranged for mounting the cabin to the pair of longitudinal chassis members,
wherein the cabin bridge extends laterally across and above the pair of longitudinal chassis members along a substantially straight line (Fig. 6 and paragraphs 63-66 describe the floor plates as attached to the clamping plates 141/142 and arranged laterally across the top of the vehicle frame rails. Paragraph 42 describes the pressure vessel storage system as mounted to the base structure of the vehicle mounting frame behind the vehicle cabin.)
Regarding claim 10, Milton in view of Van further teaches that the ring-shaped clearance is larger than an outer diameter of the elongated pressure vessel, to allow radial expansion and contraction of the suspended elongated pressure vessel (R, see annotated fig. 1 of Van above and teaching of Van from claim 1 where it is depicted a ring-shaped clearance and is larger than an outer diameter of the elongated pressure vessel, to allow radial expansion and contraction of the suspended elongated pressure vessels).
Regarding claim 11, Milton in view of Van, does not disclose a reinforcement plate. However, Andreas teaches wherein the pressurized fuel storage comprises a reinforcement plate (base structure 101; fig. 6, paragraphs 63-66) that interconnects the opposing vessel mount structures,
wherein the reinforcement plate extends laterally between the struts substantially parallel to the top side of the pair of longitudinal chassis members. (Fig. 6 and paragraphs 63-66 describe the base structure (101), consisting of plates (131/132), as attached to the clamping plates (141/142) and arranged laterally across the top of the vehicle frame rails. Paragraph 42 describes the pressure vessel storage system as mounted to the base structure of the vehicle mounting frame behind the vehicle cabin.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Milton to include a reinforcement plate of Andreas, in such that the reinforcement plate extends laterally between the struts substantially parallel to the top side of the pair of longitudinal chassis members with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously provide the strong and rigid base support to the structure to prevent lower bending moment on the supported frame, reduce shear stress at upper mount and provide more predictable load paths into the support frame.
Regarding claim 12, Milton as modified above further discloses;
• comprising a cross member (crossmember 24; fig. 1, col. 2, lines 4-10) extending laterally between the pair of longitudinal chassis members (20/22) and rearward with respect to the pressurized fuel storage (36),
• wherein the cross member is a sheet metal plate. (Milton as modified above does not disclose how the crossmember is constructed, but the fig. 1 of Milton illustration appears to show a fabricated steel structure of similar construction as the frame rails. Sheet steel crossmember braces are well known in vehicle chassis construction and would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton in view of Van and further in view of Teubner (WO 2022/148854 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Milton in view of Van does not disclose pressurized fuel vessels in an upright orientation. However, vertically oriented pressurized fuel vessels are well known in the art. As an example,
Teubner in another Semitrailer tractor and semitrailer having a tank assembly similar to the modified Milton teaches that wherein the further neck mounts (neck 66) are provided along opposing lateral sides of the pressurized fuel storage and configured to mount a pair of further elongated pressure vessels (tank 28) in an upright orientation. (Paragraph 98 and fig. 12 illustrate vertically oriented, elongated pressure vessels held by neck mounts to the upright struts which are further mounted to the vehicle longitudinal frame members.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the Milton in view of Van to include pressurized fuel vessels in an upright orientation as taught by Teubner, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle mounted pressurized fuel vessels.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton in view of Van and further in view of Mckibben (WO 2021 108429 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Milton in view of Van discloses the pressurized fuel storage system as disclosed above but does not disclose a cooling system. However,
Mckibben discloses a similar pressurized fuel storage system which includes a cooling system. Specifically, Mckibben teaches that the pressurized fuel storage further comprises cooling system mounts (frame rail bracket 1330; fig. 26, paragraph 183) arranged for mounting a cooling system (cooling module 1304; fig. 1D, paragraphs 182-183) for cooling fuel cells of the truck or tractor semi-trailer combination,
wherein the struts are arranged for transferring a suspension force from the cooling system mounts to the pair of longitudinal chassis members. (Mckibben mounts the cooling system beneath the chassis frame rails suspended by the same mounting points as the pressure vessel structure, which is positioned above the chassis rails (see figs. 1D, 21, and 26)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to rearrange the cooling system mounting to place it above the chassis frame rails, since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Milton in view of Van to include a cooling system as taught by Mckibben, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle pressurized fuel storage. As disclosed by Mckibben, it is well known for vehicle pressurized fuel storage to include a cooling system.
Regarding claim 8, Milton as modified above further discloses that the pressurized fuel storage is provided with one or more cowls (side panels 66; fig. 2, paragraph 15) extending between opposing neck mounts, (Milton encloses the pressurized fuel storage structure with side panels which run laterally across the vehicle chassis between the opposing neck mounts.)
wherein each cowl is arranged for guiding intake air alongside suspended elongated pressure vessels towards the cooling system. (It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functional, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78,44USPQ2d, 1429, 1431-.2 (Fed. Cir. 1997); claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 ,15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 9, Milton, in view of Van, does not disclose a fuel cell unit. However, Mckibben teaches that a fuel cell unit (fuel cell module 1304; fig. 26, paragraph 88) including one or more fuel cells operably connected to the pressurized fuel storage, wherein the fuel cell unit is mounted below the pressurized fuel storage and extends between the pair of longitudinal chassis members in a rearward direction at an offset below the top side of the pair of longitudinal chassis members. (Mckibben describes a fuel cell module which mounts beneath the chassis frame rails and extends in a lateral direction, across the vehicle width. This places the fuel cell below the pressurized fuel storage. This also places the fuel cell below the top side of the longitudinal chassis members (frame rails).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Milton to include the teaching of McKibbean and provide a fuel cell unit including one or more fuel cells operably connected to the pressurized fuel storage, wherein the fuel cell unit is mounted below the pressurized fuel storage and extends between the pair of longitudinal chassis members in rearward direction at an offset below the top side of the pair of longitudinal chassis members. Generally, it is considered to be within the ability of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to rearrange known components in whatever arrangement is desired or expedient, as it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170313179 to Todd discloses: a fuel system for a vehicle is provided. The fuel system is configured to couple to a frame rail of the vehicle.
US 20160229286 A1 to Baik discloses: a vehicle fuel system is provided that includes a fuel tank and a manual vent system. The manual vent system includes an emergency valve and an actuator. The manual vent system is configured to cause the emergency valve to open after the actuator has been actuated.
US 20140217107 A1 to Sloan discloses: methods and systems for modular fuel storage and transportation are provided. In an embodiment, a fuel storage system includes one or more fuel containers each supported by a fuel container support assembly.
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 extension fee 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.
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 extension fee 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 NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on 571-272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
