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 17 Sept 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 17 June 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, directed to the rejection of Claims 5 and 6 and new Claim 16 incorporating the limitations of Claims 5 and 6, filed 17 Sept 2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Watanabe et al (US 5869746).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2 Sept 2025 and 21 July 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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, 3, 7 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20180066305A; with refences taken from the Examiner provided English Machine Translation) in view of Teel (US 5603360).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses an operation manifold (10 generally in Figures 1-6) for a pressurized-fluid storage and distribution assembly for a vehicle (¶s 2 and 34), the operation manifold comprising:
a body (10),
an electrically operated valve (14; ¶ 23),
a manual valve (12; ¶ 25),
a fluid distribution line (from 36-30 in Figure 1) for distributing a fluid stored in the tank (¶ 26), the fluid distribution line (from 36-30) being formed in the body (Figure 4) and being configured to be in fluidic communication with the tank via the electrically operated valve (14) and the manual valve (12; Figure 1), the fluid distribution line (from 36-30 in Figure 1) comprising a first check valve (70) designed to prevent the fluid from flowing in a first direction towards the tank (from 30 to 36) and to allow fluid to flow in a second direction (from 36 to 30), opposite to the first direction (Figure 1),
a tanks filling line (from 30-32; Figure 1), formed in the body (Figure 4) and configured to be in fluidic communication with the tank (100 in Figure 1), the tanks filling line (from 30-32; Figure 1) comprising a second check valve (the “filling device” of Figure 1) designed to allow fluid to flow in the first direction towards the tank (from 30 to 32) and to prevent the fluid from flowing in an opposite direction (from the tank 100 to 30 shown in Figure 1), wherein the manual valve (12) is also used to provide fluidic communication between the tanks filling line and the tank (Figure 1 where when the manual valve 12 is closed the line 32 is closed) such that the fluid distribution line and the tank filling line share the manual valve (Figure 1 on path 30),
where the fluid distribution line (from 36-30 in Figure 1) for distributing the fluid stored in the tanks comprises a distribution opening opening into an end region of the body of the operation manifold (to 16 shown in Figure 4),
but fails to expressly disclose the assembly comprising a plurality of pressurized-fluid tanks,
having a plurality of communication openings, each communication opening of the plurality of communication openings being configured to be in fluidic communication with a tank of the plurality of pressurized fluid tanks,
wherein at least a part of the fluid distribution line and at least a part of the tank filling line are distinct upstream of the manual valve following the first direction, and
wherein the tanks filling line comprising a supply opening, distinct from the distribution opening, opening into the end region of the operation manifold.
Teel teaches an operation manifold (see Annotated Figure A) for a pressurized-fluid storage and distribution assembly (Figure 1 within tanks 6), the assembly comprising a plurality of pressurized-fluid tanks (6; Figure 1),
having a plurality of communication openings (15; Figure 1), each communication opening of the plurality of communication openings being configured to be in fluidic communication with a tank (Figure 1),
and a manual valve (30; provided on each tank 6) wherein at least a part of the fluid distribution line (23 from 35 to 5 in Figure 1) and at least a part of the tank filling line (22 from 31 to 35) are distinct upstream of the manual valve following the first direction (where the first direction is from the supply via 31 to the tank and the lines are district shown in Figure 1), and
wherein the tanks filling line (22 from 31 to 35) comprising a supply opening (5), distinct from the distribution opening (5 from 32 in Figure 1), opening into the end region (to the right as seen in the orientation of Figure 1) of the operation manifold (Annotated Figure A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the assembly of Lee to provide for a plurality of pressurized-fluid tanks, having a plurality of communication openings as taught by Teel, since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide additional capacity to the system by providing a plurality of tanks to contain the fluid.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the assembly of Lee to provide for wherein at least a part of the fluid distribution line and at least a part of the tank filling line are distinct upstream of the manual valve following the first direction as taught by Teel. Doing so would allow for installation and replacement of the fluid tanks within the system without depressurizing the system.
Last, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the assembly of Lee to provide for wherein the tanks filling line comprising a supply opening, distinct from the distribution opening, opening into the end region of the operation manifold as taught by Teel. Doing so would be to provide the ability to connect both the filling line and discharge line to the operation manifold at the same time, to save time and/or decrease wear on parts over manually switching between the supply and discharge lines.
PNG
media_image1.png
386
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
Regarding Claim 3, Lee discloses further comprising a second line (to 42) for discharging the fluid stored in the plurality of pressurized fluid tanks (¶ 27), formed in the body of the operation manifold (Figure 4) and designed to bring an inside of the tanks into fluidic communication with an outside (¶ 27), the second line for discharging fluid stored in the plurality of pressurized fluid tanks comprising a first thermo-controlled pressure relief device (42) designed to allow or prevent fluidic communication between the inside of the plurality of pressurized fluid tanks and the outside (¶ 27).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee discloses at least one particle filter (56 in Figure 1) located upstream or downstream of the manual valve (of 12 in Figure 1 where the filter is upstream of the manual valve when filling and downstream of the manual valve when emptying).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses a pressurized-fluid storage and distribution assembly (Figure 1) for a vehicle (¶s 2 and 27), and Lee, as modified by Teel, teach the operation manifold according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses a motor vehicle (¶s 2 and 27), and Lee, as modified by Teel, teach the pressurized-fluid storage and distribution assembly according to claim 11 (as discussed above).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee discloses a method of distributing pressurized fluid for a vehicle (Figure 1; ¶s 2 and 27) and Lee, as modified by Teel, teach the operation manifold according to claim 1 (as discussed above). Lee further discloses the method comprising the following steps:
a) the manual valve (12) being opened, opening the electrically operated valve (14), and
b) distributing fluid from the tanks to a fluid consuming member via the distribution line (Figure 6 to 16).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee discloses a method of filling pressurized-fluid tank (Figure 1) and Lee, as modified by Teel, teach the operation manifold according to claim 1 (as discussed above, including where Teel teaches an operation manifold (6 generally) for a pressurized-fluid storage and distribution assembly (1 generally), the assembly comprising a plurality of pressurized-fluid tanks (2, 3, 4; ¶ 2)). Lee further discloses the method comprising the following steps:
a) the manual valve being opened (12), closing the electrically operated valve (14), and
b) supplying the tanks with fluid from a supply source of this fluid via the filling line (Figure 5 to 18).
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20180066305A; with refences taken from the Examiner provided English Machine Translation) in view of Teel (US 5603360) in further view of Petit et al (US 2017/0023180).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses a first line for discharging the fluid stored in the plurality of pressurized fluid tanks (to 40), formed in the body of the operation manifold (10 in Figure 4) and designed to bring an inside of the tanks into fluidic communication with an outside (via 44), the first line for discharging fluid stored in the tanks comprising a discharge valve (40) designed to allow or prevent fluidic communication between the inside of the plurality of pressurized tanks and the outside (¶ 28), but fails to expressly disclose where the discharge valve is manual.
Petit et al teaches a first line (see Annotated Figure B) for discharging fluid (to the vent shown in Figure 2) comprising a manual discharge valve (seen in Annotated Figure B, the valve is shown schematically as a normally closed manually operated 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 discharge valve of Lee with the manual discharge valve as taught by Petit et al for the advantage of allowing operation of the valve and venting of the system, even in the event of power loss.
PNG
media_image2.png
298
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B
Regarding Claim 15, Lee discloses a method of discharging fluid stored in pressurized-fluid tanks (Figure 1; ¶s 2 and 27) and Lee, as modified by Teel and Petit et al, teach the operation manifold according to claim 2 (as discussed above). Lee further discloses the method comprising the following steps:
a) closing the manual valve (12), and b) opening the manual discharge valve (40; here Petit et al teach the discharge valve being manual).
Claim(s) 4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Lee (KR20180066305A; with refences taken from the Examiner provided English Machine Translation) in view of Teel (US 5603360).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose a third line for discharging fluid stored in the tanks, formed in the body of the operation manifold and designed to bring the inside of the tanks into fluidic communication with the outside, the third line for discharging fluid stored in the tanks comprising a second thermo-controlled pressure relief device designed to allow or prevent fluidic communication between the inside of the tanks and the outside.
Since Lee discloses a second line (to 42) for discharging fluid stored in the tanks (¶ 27), formed in the body of the operation manifold (Figure 4) and designed to bring the inside of the tanks into fluidic communication with the outside (¶ 27), the second line for discharging fluid stored in the tanks comprising a first thermo-controlled pressure relief device (42) designed to allow or prevent fluidic communication between the inside of the tanks and the outside (¶ 27), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the operation manifold to include a third line for discharging fluid stored in the tanks, formed in the body of the operation manifold and designed to bring the inside of the tanks into fluidic communication with the outside, the third line for discharging fluid stored in the tanks comprising a second thermo-controlled pressure relief device designed to allow or prevent fluidic communication between the inside of the tanks and the outside since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide additional means to vent fluid into the system in the event that the other vent means is inoperable or clogged, or to vent fluid at two different temperatures or in two different directions.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee discloses where the fluid distribution line (from 36-30 in Figure 1) comprises a flow-limiting valve (the “EFV” or excess flow valve of Figure 1), but fails to expressly disclose where the flow-limiting valve is arranged between the electrically operated valve and the manual valve.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the arrangement of valves in the fluid distribution line so that the flow-limiting valve is arranged between the electrically operated valve and the manual 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 space constraints or improved access by the user.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses where the body of the operation manifold is integral (10 in Figures 4-6) but fails to expressly disclose where the operation manifold is made of a material configured to be used in pressurized gas circulation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the operation manifold of Lee to be made from a material configured to be used in pressurized gas circulation since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20180066305A; with refences taken from the Examiner provided English Machine Translation) in view of Teel (US 5603360) in further view of Watanabe et al (US 5869746).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee, as modified by Teel, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach a temperature sensor housed inside the body of the operation manifold for measuring a temperature of the fluid present in the operation manifold.
Watanabe et al teach a temperature sensor (35) housed inside the body of an operation manifold (13; Figure 4) for measuring a temperature of the fluid present in the operation manifold (Col 4, lines 61-65).
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 Lee, as modified by Teel, with the temperature sensor as taught by Watanabe et al for the advantage of detecting the temperature within the passage of the manifold, as taught by Watanabe et al (Col 4, lines 61-65).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee, as modified by Teel, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach a pressure sensor housed inside the body of the operation manifold for measuring a pressure inside the operation manifold.
Watanabe et al teach a pressure sensor (34) housed inside the body of the operation manifold (13; Figure 4) for measuring a pressure inside the operation manifold (Col 4, lines 61-65).
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 Lee, as modified by Teel, with the pressure sensor as taught by Watanabe et al for the advantage of detecting the pressure within the passage of the manifold, as taught by Watanabe et al (Col 4, lines 61-65).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee discloses an operation manifold (10 generally in Figures 1-6) for a pressurized-fluid storage and distribution assembly for a vehicle (¶s 2 and 34), the operation manifold comprising:
a body (10),
an electrically operated valve (14; ¶ 23),
a manual valve (12; ¶ 25),
a fluid distribution line (from 36-30 in Figure 1) for distributing a fluid stored in the tank (¶ 26), the fluid distribution line (from 36-30) being formed in the body (Figure 4) and being configured to be in fluidic communication with the tank via the electrically operated valve (14) and the manual valve (12; Figure 1), the fluid distribution line (from 36-30 in Figure 1) comprising a first check valve (70) designed to prevent the fluid from flowing in a first direction towards the tank (from 30 to 36) and to allow fluid to flow in a second direction (from 36 to 30), opposite to the first direction (Figure 1),
a tanks filling line (from 30-32; Figure 1), formed in the body (Figure 4) and configured to be in fluidic communication with the plurality of pressurized fluid tanks (100 in Figure 1), the tanks filling line (from 30-32; Figure 1) comprising a second check valve (the “filling device” of Figure 1) designed to allow fluid to flow in the first direction towards the tank (from 30 to 32) and to prevent the fluid from flowing in an opposite direction (from the tank 100 to 30 shown in Figure 1), wherein the manual valve (12) is also used to provide fluidic communication between the tanks filling line and the plurality of pressurized fluid tanks (Figure 1 where when the manual valve 12 is closed the line 32 is closed) such that the fluid distribution line and the tank filling line share the manual valve (Figure 1 on path 30),
but fails to expressly disclose the assembly comprising a plurality of pressurized-fluid tanks,
having a plurality of communication openings, each communication opening of the plurality of communication openings being configured to be in fluidic communication with a tank of the plurality of pressurized fluid tanks, and
wherein the operation manifold further comprises at least one of: a temperature sensor housed inside the body of the operation manifold for measuring a temperature of the fluid present in the operation manifold, and a pressure sensor housed inside the body of the operation manifold for measuring a pressure inside the operation manifold.
Teel teaches an operation manifold (see Annotated Figure A) for a pressurized-fluid storage and distribution assembly (Figure 1 within tanks 6), the assembly comprising a plurality of pressurized-fluid tanks (6; Figure 1),
having a plurality of communication openings (15; Figure 1), each communication opening of the plurality of communication openings being configured to be in fluidic communication with a tank (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the assembly of Lee to provide for a plurality of pressurized-fluid tanks, having a plurality of communication openings as taught by Teel, since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide additional capacity to the system by providing a plurality of tanks to contain the fluid.
Watanabe et al teach a temperature sensor (35) housed inside the body of an operation manifold (13; Figure 4) for measuring a temperature of the fluid present in the operation manifold (Col 4, lines 61-65) and a pressure sensor (34) housed inside the body of the operation manifold (13; Figure 4) for measuring a pressure inside the operation manifold (Col 4, lines 61-65).
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 Lee, as modified by Teel, with the temperature sensor and/or pressure sensor as taught by Watanabe et al for the advantage of detecting the temperature and pressure within the passage of the manifold, as taught by Watanabe et al (Col 4, lines 61-65).
Conclusion
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