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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 17th, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
The amendment to Claims 13-15 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of these claims as was indicated in the previous June 3rd, 2026 Office Action. The related rejections have been withdrawn.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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) in view of US Pub. 2005/0169724 A1 to Sharp et al., hereinafter Sharp.
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), wherein the fuel tank protection frame (15) is configured to attach directly or indirectly to the vehicle (tanks arranged and contained within “tray” 1 which is contained within a vehicle, Figs. 1-2, [0005-0008]), and wherein the fuel tank protection frame (15) extends laterally across from one side of the vehicle to the other side of the vehicle (depicted in Fig. 2); and
one or more energy absorbers (“shock absorbing device” 21, comprising at least one “side element” 24 and “intermediate element” 25, [0044-0046]), 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]).
Dimitrova does not teach that the one or more energy absorbers are mounted on an exterior of each lateral side of the fuel tank protection frame and protecting lateral ends of the gas fuel storage tank such that upon a lateral impact, the one or more energy absorbers contact an impacted object before the fuel tank protection frame contacts the impacted object.
In the same field of endeavor as vehicle fuel tank impact protection equipment, Sharp teaches analogous one or more energy absorbers (“impact assembly” 10, Fig. 4a, [0092]) mounted on an exterior of each lateral side of the fuel tank protection frame (analogous “frame” 101, mounting configuration depicted in Figs. 4a, 10a-b, [0095], and constituent intermediate parts 110, 111, 114, 116, Figs. 9a-c, [0103]) and protecting lateral ends of the gas fuel storage tank (depicted in Figs. 10a-b), such that upon a lateral impact, the one or more energy absorbers (10) contact an impacted object before the fuel tank protection frame (101 and intermediate parts 110, 111, 114, 116) contacts the impacted object (as the frame 101’s constituent intermediate parts are contained entirely within 10 as it is placed on lateral outer sides of the frame, Figs. 9a-c, 10a-b).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the gas fuel storage tank, protection frame, and energy absorbers of Dimitrova with the external energy absorber placement/configuration of Sharp, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would appreciate the enhanced protective capabilities of externally mounted energy absorbing material to mitigate direct energy transfer from the impacted object to the frame/tanks (Sharp – [0092-0093]) versus the mitigation of energy transfer between tanks inside the frame as taught by Dimitrova.
Regarding Claim 2, Dimitrova in view of Sharp further teaches wherein the fuel tank protection frame (Dimitrova – 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 in view of Sharp 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 in view of Sharp further teaches wherein each energy absorber of the one or more energy absorbers (Sharp – 10, analogous to Dimitrova – 21, 24, 25) located on a side of the fuel tank protection frame (Dimitrova – 15) is positioned on that side of the frame (positioning of Sharp – 10 relative to 110, Figs. 9a-c, 10a-b) 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 (Sharp – force mitigation as described in [0092], analogous to Dimitrova – [0042-0045]).
Regarding Claim 7, Dimitrova in view of Sharp further teaches wherein each one of the energy absorbers of the one or more energy absorbers (Sharp – 10, analogous to Dimitrova – 21, 24, 25) located on a side of the fuel tank protection frame (Dimitrova – 15) comprises a crush can (“hollow body” 39 in multiple embodiments, Figs. 8, 11, 12a, 13a, [0054-0056]).
Regarding Claim 9, Dimitrova in view of Sharp further teaches wherein the gas is hydrogen gas (Dimitrova – [0002-0003]).
Regarding Claim 11, Dimitrova in view of Sharp further 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 in view of Sharp further teaches a vehicle (Abstract, [0002]) comprising the energy absorbing system of Claim 1.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimitrova in view of Sharp and in further view of KR 20060061967 A to Ko.
Regarding Claim 5, Dimitrova in view of Sharp 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 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/Sharp 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 Dimitrova/Sharp (39, Figs. 8, 11, 12a, 13a, [0054-0056], in the placement taught by Sharp) 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimitrova in view of Sharp and in further view of US Patent 7,624,753 to Süess et al., hereinafter Süess.
Regarding Claim 10, Dimitrova in view of Sharp 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/Sharp, 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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimitrova in view of Sharp and in further view of US Pub. 2022/0396143 A1 to Zhang et al., hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 13, Dimitrova in view of Sharp 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-duty 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], A tractor-trailer is interpreted to be a “heavy-duty 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-duty 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/Sharp 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/Sharp 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/Sharp 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/Sharp above already teaches wherein the vehicle accessory is a trailer (“trailer” 20, [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 08/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view of Dimitrova have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Sharp, see details above.
Regarding the further §103 obviousness rejections of dependent Claims 5-6, 8, 10, and 13-15 using Ko, Süess, and Zhang, Applicant has not argued against the substance of the teachings of these specific references, only asserting that they cannot be applied to the allegedly allowable Claim 1. Therefore, these rejections are substantially maintained as applied to the new Dimitrova/Sharp combination in the §103 rejection of Claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights