DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 22 Oct 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and the claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 29 July 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-2 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogami et al (US 8573253) in view of Fairlamb (US 4527587) in further view of Tom et al (US 5707424).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogami et al disclose an on-tank valve (10) for fitting to a tank (tank 1; Figure 2) having an outlet (to 22) to permit a gas stored in the tank to be supplied to a consumer of the gas (via supply passage 22) and an inlet (from 21) to permit the tank to be replenished with the gas from a filling station (from 21). The on-tank valve having1:
a valve body (housing 31) defining at least two flow passages (42 as one passage and 41 and 44 together as a second passage) in communication with the tank (Figure 2),
a first passage of the two flow passages (42 from the tank through 61 and 62 and out 22) incorporating a solenoid valve (62; Col 9, lines 17-23) configured to control the flow of gas from the tank to the consumer (Col 9, lines 17-23) and
a second passage of the two flow passages (passage 41 and 44 together) incorporating a manually operable bleed valve (74) configured to enable stored gas be supplied to the consumer while bypassing the solenoid valve (via arrows in Figure 2),
but fails to expressly disclose the inlet and outlet being directly connected to one another and wherein the bleed valve is a combination valve movable manually between two states, stored gas being permitted to flow from the tank to the outlet in a first of the two states of the bleed valve and gas being permitted to flow into the tank from the inlet by way of a non-return valve in a second of the two states of the bleed valve, thereby enabling the tank to be replenished from the filling station without the replenishment gas passing through the solenoid valve.
Fairlamb teaches a gas valve (Figure 2) being a combination valve ((with valve seats at 91 and 60) with movable manually between two states (Figure 2), stored gas being permitted to flow from the tank to the outlet in a first of the two states of the bleed valve (by unseating 91 and mobbing post 88 to unseat the check valve ball 62; Col 5, lines 25-30) and gas being permitted to flow into the tank from the inlet (by using fluid pressure to seat valve 62 as seen in Figure 2 to close the opening and prevent fluid flow past valve 62 as seen in Figure 2) by way of a non-return valve (62) in a second of the two states of the bleed valve (Figure 2), thereby enabling the tank to be replenished from the filling station without the replenishment gas passing through the solenoid valve (by using fluid pressure to seat valve 62 as seen in Figure 2 to close the opening and prevent fluid flow past valve 62 as seen in Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of Ogami et al with the valve as taught by Fairlamb for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the manual valve of Fairlamb used in a gas system for the manual valve of Ogami used in a gas system) to yield predictable results (to control the flow of gas within the system between passages).
Tom et al teach a valve (Figure 3) with an inlet (54) and an outlet (46) with the inlet and outlet being directly connected to one another (via 50 and 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ogami et al, as modified by Fairlamb, with the inlet and outlet as taught by Tom et al for the advantage of connecting the outlet to one or more tanks depending on the needs and capacity of the system, as taught by Tom et al (Col 9, lines 45-56).
Regarding Claim 2, Ogami et al disclose where the first passage (42) comprises a manually operable isolation valve (63) connected in series with the solenoid valve (62; Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Ogami et al disclose where the first passage (42) also incorporates a filter (61).
Regarding Claim 7, Ogami et al disclose where the valve body (housing 31) defines an additional passage (92) connected to a temperature sensor (91; Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Ogami et al disclose where the first passage additionally incorporates a pressure sensor (sensor 81 shown in Figure 2).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogami et al (US 8573253) in view of Fairlamb (US 4527587) in further view of Tom et al (US 5707424) in further view of Takeda et al (US 6691729).
Regarding Claim 3, Ogami et al, as modified by Fairlamb and Tom et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the isolation valve is arranged between the solenoid valve and the tank.
Takeda et al teach an on tank valve (16) with a solenoid valve (4) and an isolation valve (3) where the isolation valve (3) is arranged between the solenoid valve and the tank (Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the isolation valve and solenoid valve so that the isolation valve is arranged between the solenoid valve and the tank since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal arrangement of the valves based on user defined criteria such as providing the isolation valve in a location with best access for a user to manually open or close the valve.
Regarding Claim 5, Ogami et al, as modified by Fairlamb teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the first passage also incorporates an excess flow valve disposed between the solenoid valve and the tank.
Takeda et al teach an on tank valve (16) with an excess flow valve (22) where the first passage (the first passage is disclosed in Ogami et al) also incorporates an excess flow valve (22) disposed between the solenoid valve (4) and the tank (1; Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ogami et al, as modified by Fairlamb with the excess flow valve as taught by Takeda et al for the advantage of preventing gas flow out from the tank in the event of a broken on tank valve, as taught by Takeda et al (Col 8, lines 44-52).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogami et al (US 8573253) in view of Fairlamb (US 4527587) in further view of Tom et al (US 5707424) in further view of Takeda et al (US 6691729) in further view of Yonezawa (US 3981328).
Regarding Claim 4, Ogami et al, as modified by Fairlamb, Tom et al and Takeda et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the isolation valve is a second combination valve movable manually between two states, wherein in a first state of the two states of the isolation valve the tank is isolated and in a second state of the two states of the isolation valve the tank is connected to the solenoid valve by way of a second non-return valve oriented to be permit stored gas to flow from the tank to the solenoid valve.
Yonezawa teaches an on tank valve (Figure 1) with an isolation valve Figure 1 generally) wherein the isolation valve is a combination valve movable manually between two states (Figures 1 and 2), wherein in the first state of the two states the tank is isolated (Figure 1) and in the second state of the two states the tank is connected to the solenoid valve (the solenoid valve disclosed by Ogami et al) by way of a second non-return valve (by 23 shown in Figure 2) oriented to be permit stored gas to flow from the tank to the solenoid valve (Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ogami et al, as modified by Fairlamb, Tom et al and Takeda et al with the system as taught by Yonezawa for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the isolation valve of Yonezawa used in a gas system for the isolation valve of Ogami used in a gas system) to yield predictable results (to control the flow of gas within the system between passages and the tank).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Ogami et al (US 8573253) in view of Fairlamb (US 4527587) in further view of Tom et al (US 5707424) in further view of Lhymn et al (US 9371913).
Regarding Claim 9, Ogami et al, as modified by Fairlamb and Tom et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose a thermally activated pressure relief device connected to the second passage between the tank and the bleed valve.
Lhymn et al teach an on tank valve (15 in Figure 1A) with a first passage (from 16-14) and second passage (from 13-17) with a thermally activated pressure relief device (the PRD, or pressure relief device activated by high temperature as taught in Col 3, line 65-Col 4, line 4), connected to the second passage (Figure 1A) but also fails to expressly disclose where the a thermally activated pressure relief device is connected between the tank and the bleed valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ogami et al, as modified by Fairlamb and Tom et al with the thermally activated pressure relief device as taught by Lhymn et al for the advantage of allowing the venting of the tank gas in the event of fire, as taught by Lhymn et al (Col 3, line 65-Col 4, line 4).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the thermally activated pressure relief device so that the thermally activated pressure relief device is connected to the second passage between the tank and the bleed valve since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal arrangement of the valves based on user defined criteria such as providing the pressure relief device in a location with best access for safely venting the fluid from the tank away from the tank.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the inlet and the outlet are directly connected to one another without any intermediate regulator) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regardless, Tom et al teach a valve (Figure 3) with an inlet (54) and an outlet (46) with the inlet and outlet being directly connected to one another (via 50 and 44) as required by amended Claim 1. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Ogami et al with the teachings as provided by Fairlamb since such a modification to Ogami et al would not serve any purpose, and the Examiner fails to identify where the non-return valve would be located or what purpose it would solve. However, this argument is unpersuasive. As discussed above Ogami et al disclose manually operable bleed valve but fails to disclose where the bleed valve is a combination non-return and bleed valve. Fairlamb teaches a manually operable combination valve with a non-return and bleed valve. Therefore, Fairlamb modifies the bleed valve of Ogami et al to provide a combination non-return valve. This combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of Ogami et al with the valve as taught by Fairlamb for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the manual valve of Fairlamb used in a gas system for the manual valve of Ogami used in a gas system) to yield predictable results (to control the flow of gas within the system between passages). Additionally, the modification would still allow Ogami to function to open the valve to allow flow through 74 when the bleed valve is manually opened along with the non-return valve as shown in Fairlamb. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., to permit connection of the storage tank to a supply with minimal flow obstruction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
1 The transitional term “having” has been interpreted as open terminology (“comprising” further used in at least Claim 9), allowing for the inclusion of other components in addition to those recited. See MPEP 2111.03.