DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 Oct 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 -18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 17, line 10 “coupled to outlets” should likely read “coupled to the outlets”.
In Claim 17, line 13 “coupled to outlets” should likely read “coupled to the outlets”.
In Claim 18, line 3 “the one ore more” should likely read “the one or more”.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-15 are 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 12 recites the limitation “an interior thereof” in line 4. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what interior is being referred to. For purposes of examination “an interior thereof” will be interpreted as referring to “an interior of the impact absorbing portion” from line 1 of Claim 12.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barbat et al (US 20170036626).
Regarding Claim 1, Barbat et al disclose a fluid storage apparatus (Figure 3). The apparatus comprising:
a storage part (10 generally) configured to store a fluid in an interior thereof (¶ 10), extending along a first direction (see Annotated Figure A), and including one or more storage tanks (14) arranged along a second direction being one direction crossing the first direction (see Annotated Figure A); and
an impact absorbing part (16; Figure 3) configured to cover at least a portion of the one or more storage tanks (Figure 3), wherein the impact absorbing part (16) is configured such that a volume thereof becomes larger in a reference condition (with lower volume shown in Figure 1 and larger volume shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Barbat et al disclose when a direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction is defined as a third direction (into the page as seen with Annotated Figure A), and wherein an imaginary plane including centers of the one or more storage tanks and being perpendicular to the third direction is defined as a reference plane (generally along the plane of the first and second directions as seen in the orientation of Annotated Figure A), wherein an area in which the impact absorbing part covers any one of the one or more storage tanks, is located in any one of the third direction of the reference plane or an opposite direction thereto (in at least a portion of it being both above and under as seen in Figures 3-4), and wherein an area in which the impact absorbing part covers another of the one or more storage tank being adjacent to the any one of the one or more storage tanks is located in the other one of the third direction of the reference plane or the opposite direction thereto (in at least a portion of it being both above and under as seen in Figures 3-4 in another portion of the one storage tank shown in Figures 3-4).
Regarding Claim 3, Barbat et al disclose where the impact absorbing part (16) includes:
an impact absorbing portion at least partially covering the one or more storage tanks (30; Figures 3-4); and
an expanded portion (32) connected to the impact absorbing portion in at least one of the second direction and an opposite direction thereto (Figure 4; where the expanded portion comprises at least a portion of the second direction as shown in Annotated Figure A), and configured to change the volume of the impact absorbing portion in the reference condition (via inflator 26; ¶ 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
1207
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A – Barbat et al
Regarding Claim 16, Barbat et al disclose where a length of the impact absorbing part along the first direction (at the back side as seen in the orientation of Annotated Figure A) is less than a length of the one or more storage tanks along the first direction (at the back side as seen in the orientation of Annotated Figure A).
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbat et al (US 20170036626) in view of Sutherland et al (US 3778084).
Regarding Claim 4, Barbet et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the impact absorbing part further includes: a first reaction capsule disposed in an interior of the expanded portion, and in which a first reactant is disposed in an interior of the first reaction capsule; and a second reactant configured to generate a reference gas while reacting with the first reactant, and wherein the reference gas is configured to be introduced into the impact absorbing portion to increase the volume of the impact absorbing portion.
Sutherland et al teaches an impact absorbing part (Figure 8) with a first reaction capsule (48) disposed in an interior of the expanded portion (within 24), and in which a first reactant is disposed (46; Col 4, lines 40-54) in an interior of the first reaction capsule (46; Col 4, lines 40-54); and
a second reactant (44) configured to generate a reference gas (Col 4, lines 40-54) while reacting with the first reactant (Col 4, lines 40-54), and wherein the reference gas is configured to be introduced into the impact absorbing portion to increase the volume of the impact absorbing portion (into 20).
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 impact absorbing part of Barbet et al with the reaction capsule as taught by Sutherland et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a reaction capsule to form a gas to inflate an inflatable impact absorbing part with the impact absorbing part of Barbet et al) to yield predictable results (to produce gas to inflate an impact absorbing part).
Regarding Claim 5, Sutherland et al teach where the impact absorbing part (Figure 3) further includes: a damaging portion (32) disposed in an interior of the expanded portion (within 24), and configured to damage the first reaction capsule in the reference condition (Col 3 line 66 – Col 4, line 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Barbet et al disclose a protective part (the vehicle structure shown in Figures 1-2) disposed adjacent to a side of the one or more storage tanks in at least one of the second direction and an opposite direction thereto (see Annotated Figure A and Figures 1-2), and the expanded portion (32) is disposed in an interior of the protective part (Figure 1; above and inside protective part).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbat et al (US 20170036626) in view of Ragonnet (US 2011347).
Regarding Claim 17, Barbat et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the one or more storage tanks include outlets on sides thereof in the first direction and a direction opposite thereto, and wherein the storage part further includes: a manifold coupled to outlets of the one or more storage tanks in the first direction, and an interior of which is communicated to interiors of the one or more storage tanks; a bracket coupled to outlets of the one or more storage tanks in a direction opposite to the first direction, the bracket being configured to allow expansion of the one or more storage tanks in the direction opposite to the first direction, and an interior of the bracket is communicated with the interiors of the one or more storage tanks; and a thermally activated pressure relief device connected to at least one of the manifold and the bracket.
Ragonnet teaches one or more storage tanks (20; Figure 3) where the one or more storage tanks include outlets on sides thereof in the first direction and a direction opposite thereto (22 and 23 in Figure 3), and wherein the storage part further includes: a manifold (41 generally comprised of the components fluidically from 23 to 50 of Figure 3) coupled to outlets of the one or more storage tanks in the first direction (Figure 3), and an interior of which is communicated to interiors of the one or more storage tanks (via 23); a bracket (9) coupled to outlets of the one or more storage tanks in a direction opposite to the first direction (to 22 of Figure 3), the bracket being configured to allow expansion of the one or more storage tanks in the direction opposite to the first direction (via the connection at 26 and 27), and an interior of the bracket is communicated with the interiors of the one or more storage tanks (via 22 which extends interior to the bracket 9); and a thermally activated pressure relief device (29) connected to at least one of the manifold and the bracket (to the bracket via 26 and 27).
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 one or more storage tanks of Barbet et al with the one or more storage tanks as taught by Ragonnet for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a tank bracket and manifold within a tank system) to yield predictable results (to secure multiple tanks to each other and to a vehicle).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 and 18-20 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.
Claims 12-15 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.
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
Prosecution Insights