CTNF 18/742,183 CTNF 101157 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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. 07-34-01 Claims 13-15 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. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ heavy vehicle ” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ heavy vehicle ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While Applicant’s Specification makes mention of “ heavy-duty” vehicles, no mention of characteristics such as gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), payload capacity, etc. are made in order to accurately determine what a “heavy vehicle” is, or if “heavy vehicle” and “heavy-duty” vehicles are synonymous . Claim 15 recites the limitation "the vehicle accessory" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the scope of parent Claim 11 is directed to “an energy absorber device for vehicle fuel…”, whereas dependent Claim 15 is ambiguously/improperly directed to a vehicle. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as depending on a rejected parent claim . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 7-8, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by WO 2022/248783 A1 to Dimitrova et al., hereinafter Dimitrova (note related English translation, US Pub. 2024/0262423 A1, is referred to herein for pagination purposes) . Regarding Claim 1, Dimitrova teaches an energy absorbing system for a vehicle fuel gas storage system, the energy absorbing system comprising: a gas fuel storage tank (“gas tanks” 12, Fig. 5, [0042-0044]) configured to provide fuel for a vehicle ( Abstract ) ; a fuel tank protection frame (15, [0042]) enclosing the gas fuel storage tank (Fig. 5) , the frame configured to attach directly or indirectly to the vehicle (tanks arranged and contained within “tray” 1, Figs. 1-2, [0005-0008]) ; and one or more energy absorbers (“shock absorbing device” 21, comprising at least one “side element” 24 and “intermediate element” 25, [0044-0046]) located on either side of the fuel tank protection frame (depicted in Figs. 5-8) , each energy absorber being configured to absorb energy responsive to lateral impact force(s) applied to the vehicle and/or to the fuel tank protection frame ([0004-0005], [0009]) . Regarding Claim 2, Dimitrova further teaches wherein the fuel tank protection frame (15, contained within “tray” 1) is located to the rear of a driver’s cab of the vehicle ([0007] – “…extend in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle.”) , wherein the frame extends laterally across from one side of the vehicle to the other side of the vehicle (depicted in Fig. 2) . Regarding Claim 3, Dimitrova further teaches wherein the lateral impact force(s) include forces generated as a result of the vehicle rolling over or otherwise rotating onto a side of the fuel tank protection frame (similar forces are generated as a result of side impacts, [0004-0005]) . Regarding Claim 4, Dimitrova further teaches wherein each energy absorber of the one or more energy absorbers (21, 24, 25) located on a side of the fuel tank protection frame (15) is positioned on that side of the frame (positioning of elements depicted in Figs. 5-7) and wherein, responsive to either or both a force being generated by a lateral collision of the vehicle or the fuel tank protection frame with another object and a force generated as a result from the vehicle rolling towards or onto its side, that energy absorber absorbs energy from the force(s) generated ([0042-0045]) . Regarding Claim 7, Dimitrova further teaches wherein each one of the energy absorbers of the one or more energy absorbers (21, 24, 25) located on a side of the fuel tank protection frame (15) comprises a crush can (“hollow body” 39 in multiple embodiments, Figs. 8, 11, 12a, 13a, [0054-0056]) . Regarding Claim 9, Dimitrova further teaches wherein the gas is hydrogen gas ([0002-0003]) . Regarding Claim 11, Dimitrova already teaches an energy absorber device configured for use in the energy absorbing system (21, 24, 25) for vehicle fuel liquefied gas storage system or hydrogen gas storage system of Claim 1 ([0002-0003]) , wherein the energy absorber comprises an air-bag or a crush can (39, Figs. 8, 11, 12a, 13a, [0054-0056]) . Regarding Claim 12, Dimitrova further teaches a vehicle ( Abstract , [0002]) comprising the energy absorbing system of Claim 1 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimitrova in view of KR 20060061967 A to Ko . Regarding Claim 5, Dimitrova already teaches the energy absorbing system of Claim 1, but does not teach that each one of the energy absorbers located on a side of the fuel tank protection frame (15) comprises an air-bag. In the same field of endeavor of protecting vehicle fuel storage tanks from impact damage, Ko teaches an analogous fuel tank protection frame (“rear bottom surface of the vehicle body” 1, Figs. 1-2, Tech Solution – Para. 3) with energy absorbers located on the side of the fuel tank protection frame comprising an air-bag (“airbag” 11, installed at the rear end of the fuel tank 10, Figs. 1-2, Tech Solution – Paras. 4-6) . It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the energy absorbing system of Dimitrova with the fuel tank protection airbag of Ko yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would have recognized that the impact protection utility of standard passenger vehicle airbags could be applied to other sensitive vehicle components such as fuel tanks to reduce the possibility of hazardous fuel leakage and deflagration/explosion (in the case of hydrogen tanks) during a collision, greatly improving safety ( Ko – Tech Problem ) . Regarding Claim 6, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) regarding duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to duplicate the airbag of Ko, mounting it on opposing sides of the fuel tank protection frame, or optionally anywhere else on the frame in any number as a result of routine design choice, recognizing that the placement and number of the airbags directly correlates to the protection capacity of the energy absorbing system. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(A), Smith v. Nichols , 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874), and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). Note applicant has not discussed the criticality of the number or placement of the energy absorbers on the fuel tank protection frame. Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Dimitrova and Ko above already teaches that the energy absorbers located on each side of the fuel tank may comprise an airbag ( Ko – 11) or any configuration of the deformable crush cans of Dimitrov (39, Figs. 8, 11, 12a, 13a, [0054-0056]) as necessitated through routine experimentation and design constraints. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(A) and similar rationale as applied to the rejection of Claim 6 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimitrova in view of US Patent 7,624,753 to Süess et al., hereinafter Süess . Regarding Claim 10, Dimitrov already teaches the energy absorbing system of Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the gas stored in the storage tanks is natural gas, specifically liquefied natural gas. In the same field of endeavor of pressurized vehicle fuel tank storage, Süess teaches a container for transporting gas storage tanks in a vehicle (“vehicle 20”, “fuel storage system” 24, comprising “storage tanks” 42 and 44, Figs. 1 and 3, Para. (9)) wherein the fuel is natural gas in liquefied form (Para. (4)) . It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the liquid natural gas tanks of Süess with the energy absorbing gas storage system of Dimitrova , yielding predictable results. Liquefied natural gas (LNG or sometimes liquefied petroleum gas, LPG) tanks used as fuel storage are well-known in the art, and a skilled artisan would recognize that the storage system of Dimitrova may optionally accommodate LNG tanks. Note that the Applicant has not recited any structural difference between hydrogen and LNG tanks, or how the claimed invention would itself structurally change to accommodate such structural differences . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimitrova in view of US Pub. 2022/0396143 A1 to Zhang et al., hereinafter Zhang . Regarding Claim 13, Dimitrova above already teaches a vehicle ( Abstract , [0002]) comprising the energy absorbing system of Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the vehicle is a heavy vehicle. In the same field of endeavor of pressurized vehicle fuel tank storage, Zhang teaches a gas storage system for use with a tractor-trailer (10 and 20, Figs. 1-2, [0003-0004], additionally see §112(b) rejection of Claim 13. A tractor-trailer is interpreted to be a “heavy vehicle”.) . Zhang further teaches wherein the gas fuel tank protection frame (in Zhang – “enclosed rack” 30, analogous to Dimitrova – 15) is located between the cab (“tractor” 10) and a vehicle accessory (“trailer” 20) attached to the heavy vehicle (configuration of elements depicted in Fig. 1, [0004]) . Zhang further explicitly teaches wherein the vehicle accessory is a trailer (“trailer” 20, [0004]) . It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the energy absorbing system of Dimitrova with the vehicle of Zhang , yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize the ability to simply substitute the system of Dimitrova into the analogous frame of Zhang onto the tractor-trailer, recognizing the need for increasing impact protection for dangerous vehicle components such as pressurized fuel tanks ( Zhang – [0005, 0008-0010]) . Regarding Claim 14, Zhang as modified into Dimitrova above already teaches wherein the gas fuel tank protection frame (in Zhang – “enclosed rack” 30, analogous to Dimitrova – 15) is located between the cab (“tractor” 10) and a vehicle accessory (“trailer” 20) attached to the heavy vehicle (configuration of elements depicted in Fig. 1, [0004]) . Regarding Claim 15, Zhang as modified into Dimitrova above already teaches wherein the vehicle accessory is a trailer (“trailer” 20, [0004]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : US Pub. 2017/0080798 A1 to Van Der Linden discloses a tractor-trailer combination (200, 205, [0025]) with an accompanying gap (1000) where a frame for the storage of pressurized fuel tanks (in the region of enclosure comprising 130) is disposed (Fig. 2B) . Additional protective measures against impact damage are contemplated, such as foam, fibrous material, a honeycomb structure, etc. ([0029]) . JP 2006069359 A to Yamagata discloses a fuel tank (400) with an external body (70) , which is further fully encased by an air bag (10) capable of inflating in response to an impact, reducing impact forces on the tank ( Abstract ) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 Eastern. 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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. /Mitchell James Price/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/742,183 Page 2 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/742,183 Page 3 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/742,183 Page 4 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/742,183 Page 5 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/742,183 Page 6 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/742,183 Page 7 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/742,183 Page 8 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/742,183 Page 9 Art Unit: 3611
Prosecution Insights