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 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,435. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the presently claimed features are taught by the earlier patented claims.
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) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Andreas (PGPub 2024/0367506).
Regarding claim 9, Andreas teaches a system for mounting fuel storage tanks201 to a vehicle (Figure 1), the system comprising: a first front vertical support 113 comprising a first lower front curved portion 111A coupled to a first rear vertical support 112 comprising a first lower rear curved portion 112, wherein the first lower front curved portion and the first lower rear curved portion are configured to partially surround a fuel tank (para [0058]; “receiving portions 111D are also formed in the two plates, which serve to encircle the five high-pressure storage tanks 201 over an angular range of approximately 180 degrees”); a second front vertical support 113 comprising a second lower front curved portion coupled to a second rear vertical support comprising a second lower rear curved portion, wherein the second lower front curved portion and the second lower rear curved portion are configured to partially surround the fuel tank (two vertical supports 113 are positioned on right and left sides); and a subassembly comprising an upper front lateral member 116 coupled to the first front vertical support and the second front vertical support (see Figure 4).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Andreas teaches the first rear vertical support further comprises a rear middle curved flange (plates with curved openings that fit around the tanks) configured to partially surround the fuel tank.
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.
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) 1-4, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2003-237389 in view of Teubner (WO 2022/148854).
JP’389 teaches a system for mounting fuel storage tanks (fuel containers 3) to a vehicle (Figure 10), the system comprising: a first front outside vertical member (the outer vertical beam of frame 17; see Figure 1) coupled to a first rear outside vertical member (outer vertical beam of frame 19) by a first valve-end fuel tank bracket 61, 63; a second front outside vertical member (second vertical beam of frame 17) coupled to a second rear outside vertical member (second outer beam of frame 19) by a first plug-end fuel tank bracket 61, 63; an upper front lateral member (seen in Figure 1) coupled to the first front outside vertical member and the second front outside vertical member.
JP’389 lacks a subassembly coupled to the first front outside vertical member and the second front outside vertical member, wherein the first front outside vertical member and the first rear outside vertical member are coupled to an outer longitudinal arm of a first lateral bracket.
Teubner teaches a system for mounting fuel tanks 28-34 to a vehicle (semi-tractor 10; Figure 7) including a subassembly (supports 40 for mounting additional units 48; Figure 6) coupled to first front outside vertical member and the second front outside vertical member (two vertical members shown in Figure 6), wherein the first front outside vertical member and the first rear outside vertical member are coupled to an outer longitudinal arm of a first lateral bracket 36 (see Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the JP’389 system with a subassembly and a longitudinal arm of a lateral bracket connecting the outside vertical members, in view of Teubner, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reinforce the tank supporting framework and provide a mounting frame for additional units.
Regarding claim 2, the subassembly 40, taught by Teubner, comprises a main bar 40 having a first bend adjacent a first end of the main bar and a second bend adjacent a second end of the main bar (see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 3, the subassembly taught by Teubner extends along the entire rear frame so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further couple it to a first front vertical support and a second front vertical support (JP’389 shows further front vertical supports positioned laterally inwardly from the outer vertical supports.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the second front outside vertical member and the second rear outside vertical member are coupled to an outer longitudinal arm of a second lateral bracket (both sides are configured with the same structure.
Regarding claims 7-8, JP’389 shows second and third valve-end fuel tank bracket 61, 63, coupled to the first front outside vertical member and the first rear outside vertical member at a vertical position higher than the first valve-end fuel tank bracket; and second and third plug-end fuel tank bracket coupled to the second front outside vertical member and the second rear outside vertical member at a vertical position higher than the first plug-end fuel tank bracket (Figure 1 of JP’389 shows three vertically spaced fuel tank brackets 61, 63, on each side of the tank supporting frame).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’389 and Teubner as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Andreas (PGPub 2024/0367506).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the combination lacks the first front vertical support comprising a lower front curved portion configured to partially surround a fuel tank and a first rear vertical support comprising a rear middle curved flange configured to partially surround a fuel tank.
Andreas teaches a first front vertical support 111A comprising a lower front curved portion (see Figure 4) configured to partially surround a fuel tank and a first rear vertical support 111B comprising a rear middle curved flange configured to partially surround a fuel tank (Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure front and rear vertical supports of the system of the combination with curved flanged, in view of Andreas, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to cradle the tanks mounted to the frame for better support and less rattle.
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2003-237389 in view of Andreas (PGPub 2024/0367506) and Teubner (WO 2022/148854).
Regarding claim 12-14 and 16, JP’389 teaches a system for mounting a fuel tank having all of the claimed features, including a front outside vertical member coupled to a first rear outside vertical member by a first valve-end fuel tank bracket, except that it lacks a lower front curved portion configured to partially surround a fuel tank and a first rear vertical support comprising a rear middle curved flange configured to partially surround a fuel tank and a subassembly coupled to front vertical supports.
Andreas teaches a first front vertical support 111A comprising a lower front curved portion (see Figure 4) configured to partially surround a fuel tank and a first rear vertical support 111B comprising a rear middle curved flange configured to partially surround a fuel tank (Figure 4).
Teubner teaches a system for mounting fuel tanks 28-34 to a vehicle (semi-tractor 10; Figure 7) including a subassembly (supports 40 for mounting additional units 48; Figure 6) coupled to first front outside vertical member and the second front outside vertical member (two vertical members shown in Figure 6), wherein the first front outside vertical member and the first rear outside vertical member are coupled to an outer longitudinal arm of a first lateral bracket 36 (see Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure front and rear vertical supports of the system of JP’389 with a lower front curved portion configured to partially surround a fuel tank and a first rear vertical support comprising a rear middle curved flange configured to partially surround a fuel tank curved , in view of Andreas, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to cradle the tanks mounted to the frame for better support and less rattle. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the JP’389 system with a subassembly and a longitudinal arm of a lateral bracket connecting the outside vertical members, in view of Teubner, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reinforce the tank supporting framework and provide a mounting frame for additional units.
Regarding claim 15, subassembly taught by Teubner comprises a main bar having a first bend adjacent a first end of the main bar and a second bend adjacent a second end of the main bar (see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 17, the first rear vertical support, as taught by Andreas, further comprises a rear middle curved flange configured to partially surround the fuel tank (lower and middle flanges are shown).
Regarding claim 18, JP’389 shows a second valve-end fuel tank bracket 61, 63, coupled to the first front outside vertical member and the first rear outside vertical member at a vertical position higher than the first valve-end fuel tank bracket (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, JP389 shows a second front outside vertical member coupled to a second rear outside vertical member by a first plug-end fuel tank bracket (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, JP’389 shows a second plug-end fuel tank bracket coupled to the second front outside vertical member and the second rear outside vertical member at a vertical position higher than the first plug-end fuel tank bracket (Figure 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hale teaches a gas vessel holder having transverse flanges.
Hornback, Arold, and CN21308238 teach gas vessel carriers on vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights