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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the or each neck mount” and “the or each support arm” in line 5, should read “the at least neck mount” and “the support arm”, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the neck mount” in last line, should read “the at least neck mount”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the neck mount” in line 2, should read “the at least neck mount”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the respective support arm and/or neck mount” in line 1-2, should read “the support arm and/or the at least one neck mount”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at least one neck mount” in line 2 and “the respective neck mount” in last line, should read “the at least neck mount”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 14-15 is 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " the one or more support arms" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " the one or more support arms" in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Godard (US 2022/0266685 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Godard teaches a truck (Para [0002]), comprising a vessel mount structure (1) extending from a chassis of the truck (Para [0023]), the vessel mount structure provides at least one neck mount (7) that is mounted to an axial end of an elongated pressure vessel for thereby suspending the elongated pressure vessel to the chassis (Fig 1), wherein the vessel mount structure comprises a support arm (S1) extending laterally from the or each neck mount towards the chassis (Fig 2 Annotated), wherein the or each support arm is coupled to the respective neck mount by a coupling arrangement (8), said coupling arrangement deformable in the lateral direction towards the vehicle, for guiding a movement of the respective neck mount relative to the support arm along a predefined trajectory (Para [0030]- [0031]), wherein an end stop (E1) is provided on the chassis and spaced from the elongated pressure vessel (Fig 1 Annotated), and arranged for abutting a cylindrical body section of the elongated pressure vessel, in case of an impact on the elongated pressure vessel (when 8 breaks due accident or crash, 3 will abut E1 by gravity, Para [0030]- [0031] and Fig 1 Annotated).
Regarding claim 2, Godard teaches that the coupling arrangement comprises one or more guide members, each guide member having a first end attached to the support arm and a second end attached to the respective neck mount (Fig 2 Annotated).
Regarding claim 5, Godard teaches that the coupling arrangement is arranged for guiding the neck mounts along the predefined trajectory over a stroke that is larger than a spacing between the elongated pressure vessel and the end stop (Para [0030]- [0031] and Fig 1 Annotated).
Regarding claim 6, Godard teaches that the coupling arrangement provides a collapse structure that is collapsible in the lateral direction, wherein the collapse structure is arranged for collapsing when an impact force on the elongated pressure vessel exceeds a collapse threshold (Para [0030]- [0031] and Fig 1 Annotated).
Regarding claim 7, the coupling arrangement comprises plastically deformable hinges (Para [0030]- [0031] and Fig 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
750
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Godard teaches that the coupling arrangement together with the respective support arm and/or neck mount are formed from a single part (Fig 2 Annotated).
Regarding claim 11, Godard teaches that the end stop comprises a contact surface that is normal (horizontal) to the predefined trajectory (vertical due to weight of the reservoir 3, Annotated Fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Godard teaches that the contact surface is concave and has a radius of curvature that is equal to or larger than a radius of curvature of the cylindrical body section (Annotated Fig 1).
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godard (US 2022/0266685 A1) in view of Zimmerman et al. (US 2017/0101003 A2 ) hereinafter, Zimmerman.
Regarding claim 15, Godard teaches the truck of claim 1. However, Godard does not teach that the chassis comprises a pair of cross beams that extend laterally between a pair of longitudinal chassis members, and wherein at least one of the one or more support arms connects to the chassis at or near the pair of cross beams.
Zimmerman teaches that the chassis comprises a pair of cross beams (C1) that extend laterally between a pair of longitudinal chassis members (L1), and wherein at least one of the one or more support arms connects to the chassis at or near the pair of cross beams (Fig 1A Annotated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Godard’s truck, in view of Zimmerman, with support arm connects to the chassis at or near the pair of cross beams, for more stable and secure connection.
PNG
media_image3.png
547
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 9-10, 12, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 3 recites that the coupling arrangement comprises a pair of guide members, each guide member extending separately from the other guide member between the neck mount and the support arm, for thereby forming a four-bar mechanism.
Claim 9 recites that wherein a buckle element extends laterally between at least one neck mount and the chassis, wherein the buckle element is arranged for buckling in response to the respective neck mount moving towards the chassis along the predefined trajectory.
Claim 12 recites that the contact surface is provided on a tab that extends from the chassis along a vertical direction in a cantilevered fashion.
Claim 14 recites that the coupling arrangement comprises a second rectangular tube extending between the first rectangular tube and the neck mount in a vertical direction perpendicular to the lateral direction, and wherein the second rectangular tube is collapsible in the lateral direction by a cut-out locally weakening the second rectangular tube.
Since the prior art (e.g. Godard) teaches mounting structure that lack said features, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter.
For illustration purposes, Fig 4 of the examined disclosure shows the mounting structure, which is different than the mounting structure taught by the prior art of record (Fig. 1 of Godard and Fig. 1A of Zimmerman, etc.)
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO-892 form teach trucks with a vessel mount structure of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAM SHABARA whose telephone number is (571)272-5495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/HOSAM SHABARA/Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights