DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8: the claim recites, “wherein: a largest thickness of the impact-resistant reinforcing member, measured on an outer surface of the composite layer, is located on the division line I.”
As it is currently written the claim does not make sense because it is not clear how a thickness of the impact-resistant reinforcing member could be measured on the outer surface of the composite layer.
In light of the disclosure, the examiner assumes that the applicant means that the thickness, measured from an outer surface of the composite layer, not on an outer surface of the composite layer. This is how the examiner shall interpret the claim for applying prior art.
Correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hembert (US 2004/0026437).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1: Hembert discloses a high-pressure container (1) including an impact-resistant reinforcing member (10), the high-pressure container comprising: a container body including a cylinder portion (1a) and dome portions (1b) formed at both ends of the cylinder portion (see abstract, “domes”), wherein each of the dome portions is formed with a boss portion (7); a composite layer (5, ¶0030) provided on a surface of the container body; and the impact-resistant reinforcing member (10) covering at least a portion of the composite layer on at least one of the dome portion in the composite layer (see fig 1, ¶0032), wherein the impact-resistant reinforcing member has an inner surface in contact with the composite layer on the container body (see fig 1), wherein the impact-resistant reinforcing member includes a first portion (10b, fig 1, ¶0033) and a second portion (10a, fig 1, ¶0033); wherein: the portion of the composite layer covered by the impact-resistant reinforcing member includes a knuckle point having a smallest thickness (“the filling 11 is thick where it faces the part of the dome 1 b at the end corresponding to the wall 1 a, in which part this dome 1 b has its smallest thickness ¶0033”), and the first portion and the second portion of the impact-resistant reinforcing member are divided by a division line I (i.e., line that passes through 10C, see above annotated figure, ¶0033), as a boundary, defined by a normal line of the knuckle point of the composite layer (“these walls 10 a and 10 b meeting in a rounded region 10 c.”); the first portion and the second portion of the impact-resistant reinforcing member have a thickness that increases toward the division line I (see fig 1, ¶0033).
Regarding claim 2: Hembert discloses the impact-resistant reinforcing member further includes: a through-hole (i.e., central opening in 10b, see figs 1-4) in which the boss portion is disposed; and a cone-shaped first portion (10b, fig 1, ¶0033) extending from an outer periphery of the through-hole along the dome portion and a cylindrical second portion (10a, fig 1, ¶0033) extending from the first portion along the cylinder portion.
Regarding claim 6: the following rejection is based on a different mapping of Hembert. Specifically, the first portion is being mapped as the portion of 10b that is between 10c and the narrow portion marked in the below figure. Otherwise, the above mapping of claim 1 remains the same.
Hembert discloses all of the claimed limitations including that the thickness of each of the first portion and the second portion continuously increases toward the division line I. See the above annotated figure and the below annotated figure.
PNG
media_image2.png
580
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hembert, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 11,346,499 (‘499).
Regarding claim 5: Hembert discloses that the impact-resistant reinforcing member can be formed from any expanded synthetic material (¶0017) but not specifically expanded polypropylene (EPP).
‘499 discloses a container that uses expanded polypropylene (EPP) as an energy dissipating member (col. 3 ll. 5-13). Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the impact-resistant reinforcing member to be EPP because it is a known material that would suitable for the intended purpose of dissipating energy (i.e., impact protection).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hembert, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 7: Hembert discloses that impact-resistant reinforcement member may be fixed to the container by any appropriate means, including “bonding”, but does not explicitly disclose that an adhesive is applied to the inner surface of the impact-resistant reinforcing member.
The examiner is taking Official Notice that using adhesive to attach/bond an element to a tank/container is notoriously well known in the art. Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used an adhesive is applied to the inner surface of the impact-resistant reinforcing member because it is a notoriously well-known and useful way of effectuating a bond.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hembert, as applied to claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image3.png
594
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8: see the above §112 discussion. Hembert, as applied above, appears to disclose wherein: a largest thickness of the impact-resistant reinforcing member, measured from an outer surface of the composite layer, is located on the division line I. As shown in the above annotated figure, the thickest portion appears to be the region that imaginary line would pass through. There is a gap between the projection and the ground which indicates that the rounded portion marked as “thickness” is the thickest part of the impact-resistant reinforcing member.
To the extent one could argue otherwise, making the region that has the imaginary line I and therefore covers the knuckle point the thickest part of the impact-resistant reinforcing member would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Hembert explicitly discloses that the knuckle point should be protected by “the maximum thickness of the filling 11 (¶0038).” Making the region that covers the knuckle point the thickest would only involve making the projection (12, figs 1 and 3) extend less far out. Such a modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it would be a simple change of size/proportions that would involve no inventive step and would not significantly affect how the device functions (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the amended claims are allowable. The examiner disagrees for the reasons given in the above rejections.
The applicant argues that Hembert does not disclose a division line I as recited in claim 1. In support of their argument, the applicant has annotated figure 1 of Hembert show where they believe the knuckle point would be located. They applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Hembert recites the following in paragraphs 0033 and 0038:
At the end corresponding to the wall 1 a, it has a wall 10 a roughly parallel to the axis of the tank 1 and, at the end corresponding to the top of the dome 1 b, it has a wall 10 b perpendicular to this same axis, these walls 10 a and 10 b meeting in a rounded region 10 c. The result of this structure is that the filling 11 is thick where it faces the part of the dome 1 b at the end corresponding to the wall 1 a, in which part this dome 1 b has its smallest thickness.
and
FIG. 3 shows that the rounded wall 10 c and the maximum thickness of the filling 11 facing this wall 10 c perfectly protect the part of the dome 1 b which lies at the end corresponding to the wall 1 a.
These paragraphs disclose that the rounded portion 10c is located at a portion corresponding to a portion of the dome portion 1b that has its smallest thickness. And figure 1 shows that the thickness (11) increases as it approaches the rounded portion 10c. Hembert clearly discloses that the smallest thickness of the dome portion is protected by a thickened region as a “result” of the structure of the rounded portion 10c. Accordingly, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s annotated figure, the examiner acknowledges that it is difficult to determine the where the thinnest portion of the dome is located solely from the figures. In reality, the difference in thickness would be very small and difficult to depict in black and white line drawings. This is why the examiner is also relying on the written specification for determining the location of the thinnest portion. The examiner noting that the claimed division line I is an imaginary line and the annotated drawing is to illustrate the imaginary line.
The applicant argues that new claim 8 is allowable. The examiner disagrees for the reasons given in the above rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4923. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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.
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733