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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 § 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.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai (US 2019/0049067) in view of Lee (US 2018/0172208).
Regarding claims 1 and 12: Sawai discloses a pressure vessel (fig 1, title, abstract) having a fluid-filled space (26, fig 2) therein, the pressure vessel comprising: a metal boss (14C, 20, fig 2, abstract) which comprises a hollow neck part (14, fig 2) extending in an axial direction, a dome part (14B, fig 2) extending from an end of the hollow neck part, and an end part (20, fig 2) extending parallel to the axial direction from the dome part; and a cylindrical plastic liner (16, fig 2, ¶0034) comprising a coupling part (i.e., portion of 16 that contacts 20, fig 2) that is engaged with and coupled to the end part of the metal boss while surrounding the end part of the metal boss.
Sawai discloses that the pressure vessel may include a coating layer formed by helically wound by fibers (50, figs 1 and 2, ¶0048)) for reinforcing coupling between the liner and the metal boss, but does not disclose a winding catching ledge formed on the dome part of the metal boss.
Lee discloses a pressure vessel (title, figs 4, 7A-7C) with a metal boss (200) with a winding catching ledge with step structure (i.e., ‘I’ shaped protrusions of 210b, and/or the vertical end wall of 210b, as shown in annotated figure 4 above, ¶0062) formed on the dome part (i.e., shoulder portion at 210b, fig 4) of the metal boss. Lee further discloses that wherein the winding catching ledge is an upward step (as shown in fig 4), and wherein the winding catching ledge has a ring shape continuous along a circumference of the dome part (“semi-hollow portions 210b…may have a ring shape on the outer circumferential surface of the shoulder 200b” ¶0060).
Lee discloses that the stresses caused by winding fibers (30) on the boss can be reduced by including the winding catching ledge (¶0065). 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 boss of Sawai to include a winding catching ledge with step structure, as taught by Lee, so as to reduce the stresses on the boss.
Lee and Sawai teach winding fibers over the boss and thus the winding catching ledge (see Sawai, figs 1-2, ¶0048: Lee, 30, ¶0045). Sawai discloses “helical winding (¶0048, fig 1)” which the examiner is reasonably interpreting as being “a low angle” since figure 1 depicts the angle theta as being an acute angle with respect to the longitudinal (i.e., long) axis.
Sawai discloses an acute angle theta (fig 1, ¶0048) with respect to the longitudinal axis formed by low-angle winding (i.e., helical winding, fig 1, ¶0048). Sawai does not specifically discloses that the angle is 54 to 55 degrees (claim 12).
However, the claimed range is merely an optimal or workable values that could be found through routine optimization. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the range via routine experimentation because it is well known that the winding angle will affect how the pressure vessel is able to withstand internal stresses. Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have found the claimed range via routine experimentation because the range is a result effective variable that would have been obvious to optimize. Further, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would have only involved changing the angle of the winding machine. The examiner notes that the applicant has not disclosed any criticality to the claimed range.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai and Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Moutray (US 2018/0340653).
Regarding claim 2: Sawai does not disclose wherein the metal boss comprises a screw part (helical screw thread, 128, fig 4, ¶0061) on an outer circumferential surface of the end part, and wherein the coupling part of the liner comprises a screw part on an inner circumferential surface thereof, and the metal boss and the liner are screwed to each other.
Moutray, however, discloses a similar pressure container that includes a boss (116, fig 3) comprises a screw part on an outer circumferential surface of the end part, and wherein the coupling part of the liner (120, fig 4) comprises a screw part (i.e., ridges that correspond to 128, fig 4, ¶0063) on an inner circumferential surface thereof, and the metal boss and the liner are screwed to each other.
The examiner notes that the limitation, “the metal boss and the liner are screwed to each other” is a product by process limitation. The final product of Moutray is materially the same as the claimed final product and thus reads on the limitation.
Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sawai to include a screw part on the boss and liner, as taught by Moutray, because it is a known and useful way of forming a connection between a boss and liner.
Regarding claim 3: the combined teachings of the references disclose all of the claimed limitations. Sawai discloses wherein the metal boss further comprises an O-ring groove (i.e. groove for 38, fig 2, ¶0038) formed at an inner side of the screw part, and is sealed by an O-ring (38, fig 2) between the metal boss and the liner. In combination, a person of ordinary skill in the in the art would recognize that the O-ring groove would be located on the screw part because Sawai discloses that the purposes of the O-ring is to seal the interface between the boss and liner.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai, Lee and Moutray, as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Sonnen (WO 2021/037983, text citations are to the attached English translation)
Regarding claim 4: Sawai, as applied above, does not disclose wherein the coupling part of the liner further comprises a rigid ring configured to press the plastic liner toward the metal boss along an outer circumference of the coupling part.
Sonnen discloses a very similar pressure vessel wherein the coupling part of the liner further comprises a rigid ring (41, fig 3, pp. 5-6) configured to press the plastic liner toward the metal boss along an outer circumference of the coupling part (pp. 5-6). 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 coupling part of Sawai to include a rigid ring configured to press the plastic liner toward the metal boss along an outer circumference of the coupling part, as taught by Sonnen, so as to improve the connection between the liner and connection part.
Regarding claim 5: the combined teachings of Sawai and Sonnen disclose the claimed limitations. Sonnen discloses wherein the rigid ring is disposed above a O-ring groove (i.e., groove for ring 6, fig 3). Note that the claim does not provide for a frame of reference for determining which direction must be considered “above.” The groove is inward from the rigid ring 41 and the examiner is considering the inward/outward direction to read on “above.” This interpretation appears to be consistent with the applicant’s disclosed invention (see applicant’s figure 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Lee does not disclose “one continuous upward step along the circumference of the dome part of the metal boss (p. 5).” And that in contrast Lee merely discloses a waffle pattern and not a “continuous ring-shaped” catching ledge. The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument.
Lee discloses at least three embodiments: 1) where the semi hollow portions 210b have a ring shape forming concentric circles, 2) where the semi hollow portions may be arranged in a radial direction, 3) where the semi hollow portions 310b have ring-shaped portions and radial shaped portions that cross each other to form a “waffle pattern (¶0060).” Embodiments 1 and 3, read on the limitation of “a ring shape continuous along a circumference of the dome part.”
The examiner further noting that claim 1 uses the transition phrase of “comprising” so the existence of radial shaped semi-hollow portion in embodiment 3, does not obviate the fact that the 3rd embodiment also includes a continuous ring.
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