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
Claims 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19, 21, 23-25, 27-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/12/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "to fuel" in last line. This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear if applicant is referring to the previously mentioned “fuel”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "at least one conduit … each conduit". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear if there is more than one conduit. For examination purposes it will be interpret as “at least one conduit … the at least one conduit”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an inner volume of the fuel tank" in 2nd to last line. This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear if applicant is referring to the previously mentioned “an inner volume”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least one conduits". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "each conduit". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear if there is more than one conduit. For examination purposes it will be interpret as “the at least one conduit”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "each conduit". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear if there is more than one conduit. For examination purposes it will be interpret as “the at least one conduit”.
Claims 4, 8-10 are rejected because dependent from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allgeier (US 20100089070), hereinafter referred to as Allgeier.
Re claim 1, Allgeier teaches a fuel tank assembly (see Fig 2) comprising:
a fuel tank (1) having an inner volume (volume of 1) defined by the fuel tank, the fuel tank configured to couple to, and fluidly communicate fuel to, a fuel system (e.g. 25; ¶ 43, “The energy converter 25 may for instance be a motor”) of a motor vehicle (e.g. ¶ 15, “A mobile application would for instance be the implementation of the reservoir in a vehicle”); and
at least one conduit (conduit of 24; see Fig 2) coupled to said fuel tank (see Fig 2), wherein an inlet (the inlet at 1 of the conduit of 24) of each conduit is configured to fluidly communicate with and receive heat transfer fluid (e.g. ¶ 42, “coolant lines 11”) from a heat source (25; the examiner notes that the motor is considered a heat source) of the motor vehicle and an outlet (the outlet at 1 of the conduit of 24) of each conduit is configured to fluidly communicate with and send the heat transfer fluid to the heat source (see Fig 2);
wherein the at least one conduit is in thermal communication with an inner volume of the fuel tank for transferring heat from the heat transfer fluid to fuel within the fuel tank (e.g. ¶ 34, “heat exchanger is distributed uniformly in the interior of the fluid reservoir, for instance by means of suitably laid pipelines or the like, so that a predominantly uniform heat absorption and redispensing of heat are possible”; the examiner notes that the same applies to the embodiment of Fig 2).
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgeier, in view of Toh et al. (US 20040251007), hereinafter referred to as Toh.
Re claim 4, Allgeier teaches the fuel tank assembly of claim 1. Allgeier does not teach the limitation of wherein the at least one conduit extends into the inner volume of the fuel tank, and wherein the inlet and outlet extend through a mounting flange of the fuel tank, and wherein the inlet and outlet are supported by the mounting flange.
However, Toh teaches a pressure vessel comprising at least one conduit (e.g. 19) extending into an inner volume (e.g. 2) of a fuel tank (e.g. 111), and wherein an inlet and outlet (see Fig 2 117a-b) extend through a mounting flange (e.g. 117; which includes flange 122, thus is considered that 117 is mounted onto a flange of the fuel tank) of the fuel tank, and wherein the inlet and outlet are supported by the mounting flange (see Fig 9).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Allgeier and integrated wherein the at least one conduit extends into the inner volume of the fuel tank, and wherein the inlet and outlet extend through a mounting flange of the fuel tank, and wherein the inlet and outlet are supported by the mounting flange, as taught by Toh, in order to more securely attach the heat exchanger inside the tank.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgeier, in view of Kubo et al. (US 20060180235), hereinafter referred to as Kubo.
Re claim 8, Allgeier teaches the fuel tank assembly of claim 1. Allgeier does not teach the limitation of comprising at least one reservoir coupled to the fuel tank, each of the at least one reservoir in fluid communication with a corresponding conduit of the at least one conduits, wherein the reservoir is in thermal communication with the inner volume of the fuel tank.
However, Kubo teaches a fuel tank assembly at least one reservoir (upper 31 from Fig 2) coupled to the fuel tank (see Fig 1 where the tanks 31 are couple to each other; furthermore, see Fig 2 where it shows they are fluidly/thermally coupled to each other), each of the at least one reservoir in fluid communication with a corresponding conduit (see respective conduit for heat exchanger 36b) of the at least one conduits (36), wherein the reservoir is in thermal communication with an inner volume of a fuel tank (31 downstream of the reservoir) (see Fig 2).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Allgeier and integrated at least one reservoir coupled to the fuel tank, each of the at least one reservoir in fluid communication with a corresponding conduit of the at least one conduits, wherein the reservoir is in thermal communication with the inner volume of the fuel tank, as taught by Kubo, in order to more efficiently cool the radiator (see Kubo ¶ 11).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgeier, in view of Tarossi (US Pat No. 3,848,559), hereinafter referred to as Tarossi.
Re claim 9, Allgeier teaches the fuel tank assembly of claim 1. Allgeier does not teach the limitation of wherein each conduit comprises an expansion loop.
However, Kubo teaches a fuel vessel comprising at least one conduit (54) comprises an expansion loop (C4-lns 25-30, “Expansion loops 54, which may be optional, are provided along with the length of the pipes to allow for contraction of the pipes on cooling”) (see Fig 3).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Allgeier and integrated wherein each conduit comprises an expansion loop, as taught by Kubo, in order to allow for the expansion and contraction (see Tarossi C4-lns 25-30).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgeier, in view of Karlsson (US 20160281931), hereinafter referred to as Karlsson.
Re claim 10, Allgeier teaches the fuel tank assembly of claim 1. Allgeier does not teach the limitation of comprising a first valve positioned to control flow through the inlet of each conduit, and a second valve positioned to control flow through the outlet of each conduit.
However, Karlsson teaches a fuel tank assembly (Fig 5) comprising a first valve (507) positioned to control flow through an inlet of a conduit (conduit of 508 coupled to 507 and 509), and a second valve (509) positioned to control flow through an outlet of the conduit (see Fig 5).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Allgeier and integrated a first valve positioned to control flow through the inlet of each conduit, and a second valve positioned to control flow through the outlet of each conduit, as taught by Kubo, in order to control the flow of the heating medium through said closed loop, essentially determining the heating power used to heat the stored gas fuel (see Karlsson ¶ 38).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 11/25/2025
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763