DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 6/8/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the most current abstract (filed 6/5/2024) appears to not relate to the present invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: seeming different letters/numbers to reference the same “division line” (I, 1, etc.). Appropriate correction 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).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“largest thickness” of impact member)][AltContent: textbox (“smallest thickness” of knuckle point)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Knuckle Point” (Must be a surface: “…an outer surface of the knuckle point” in claim 1))][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (t)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (I)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
462
663
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 perpendicular to a tangent line t of an outer surface of the knuckle point of the composite layer (“these walls 10 a and 10 b meeting in a rounded region 10 c.”); wherein 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), and 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 (see Fig, .
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 (to Joubert Des Ouches et al, ‘499 hereinafter).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 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. See Fig. 1 above, where the “knuckle point” must be interpreted as a surface according Applicant’s own claim language in claim 1. Since the “knuckle point” region includes the smallest thickness of the knuckle point region, as well includes a region through which division line I passes, Hembert meets the claim language including the above amendments. Accordingly, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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, 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights