Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/867,556

FUEL GAS TANK AND FUEL GAS TANK SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 20, 2024
Examiner
BARRY, DAPHNE MARIE
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Robert Bosch GMBH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
541 granted / 718 resolved
+5.3% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
743
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
37.5%
-2.5% vs TC avg
§102
34.0%
-6.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 718 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Status of the Claims Amendment to the Claims was filed on 11/20/2024. Claims 9-11 were newly added. Claims 1-11 are currently pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed on 11/20/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. DE4131392A (“Watanabe”). Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe discloses fuel gas tank (ann. fig. 3) for a fuel gas tank system, having a storage volume (4) which is enclosed by a wall (ann. fig. 3) and can be filled with fuel gas via a tank line (23) with an integrated tank valve (24), and having a temperature sensor (18, temperature indicator) for sensing the temperature in the fuel gas tank (4), wherein the temperature sensor (18) is located outside the storage volume (4) and is thermally connected to the storage volume (4) via a thermal conductor (17) projecting into the storage volume (4). PNG media_image1.png 316 448 media_image1.png Greyscale WATANABE – ANNOTATED FIGURE 3 Regarding Claim 2, Watanabe discloses a section of the thermal conductor (17) projecting into the storage volume (4) has an axial length (L, see ann. fig. 3) which is measured parallel to a longitudinal axis (ann. fig. 3) of the fuel gas tank (4). Regarding Claim 3, Watanabe discloses the tank line (23) ends in a pipe (23) which projects into the storage volume (4) and forms an outlet opening for the fuel gas (“Reference numeral 23 denotes a gas inlet for replenishing cooling gas in the gaseous state in the liquid gas container 4 . Finally, reference numeral 24 denotes a gas supply control valve which is located in the gas inlet 23 .” Machine Translation). Regarding Claim 4, Watanabe discloses the tank line (23), tank valve (24), the temperature sensor (18), and the thermal conductor (17) form a tank unit (stand 3 supports the elements for tank 4) which is inserted into an opening (10) in the wall (ann. fig. 3). Regarding Claim 5, Watanabe discloses the tank unit (stand 3 supports the elements for tank 4) has a section (control device 19) projecting on an outside beyond the wall (ann. fig. 3), wherein the temperature sensor (18) is integrated into the section (control device 19). Regarding Claim 7, Watanabe discloses the wall (ann. fig. 3) is circular in cross-section in at least one end section (see figs. 2, 4, 5, and ann. fig. 3). Regarding Claim 8, Watanabe discloses at least one fuel gas tank (LPG tank, Machine Translation) according to claim 1. Fuel gas tank is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Regarding Claim 9, Watanabe discloses the thermal conductor (17) is aligned parallel to the longitudinal axis (ann. fig. 3). Regarding Claim 10, Watanabe discloses the pipe (23) runs parallel (see ann. fig. 3) to the thermal conductor (17). Regarding Claim 11, Watanabe discloses the opening (10) is located centrally in a front of the wall (ann. fig. 3). 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 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. DE4131392A (“Watanabe”) in view of Sun et al. WO2021213501A1 (“Sun”). Regarding Claim 6, Watanabe discloses the tank unit (stand 3) has a section (13) with a connector (Watanabe is silent with regard to the means to connect the elements) via which the tank unit (stand 3 supports the elements for tank 4) is connected to the opening (10) of the wall (ann. fig. 2). Watanabe discloses the claimed invention, except an external thread to connect elements. Sun teaches an external thread (see fig. 21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used one of the well-known connectors to connect elements, as disclosed by Watanabe, by using threaded connectors, as taught by Sun, for the purpose of using a common connector that can be installed and removed by the user without special equipment. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daphne Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-9966 and fax number is (571) 273-9966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9 AM-6 PM (eastern). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor either Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /DAPHNE M BARRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 25, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595868
ATTACHMENT DEVICE AND ATTACHMENT METHOD OF INFORMATION ACQUISITION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12571278
Well Control Sealing System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565932
CHOKE VALVE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560044
LOCK SEQUENCING SYSTEM FOR A BLOWOUT PREVENTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552207
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INFLATION OF A VEHICLE TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+30.3%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 718 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month