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 .
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. The following limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the limitations recite a function and a generic placeholder (“member”) without reciting sufficient structure for performing the function: “an injection member” and “a changing member.”
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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 11,079,068 to Jayaraman et al. (Jayaraman).
Regarding claim 13, Jayaraman discloses a hydrogen tank (the tank of Figs. 1 and 2A-C which can store hydrogen [see col. 5, line 21]) comprising: a tank body (formed by composite 1); a boss (col. 7, line 65) connected to at least one end of the tank body and having a skirt (see label in figure below) extending radially with respect to an axial direction of the tank body; and a nozzle (formed by nozzle adapter 3 and nozzle 8 having spacer 9) installed inside the tank body via the boss and configured to spray hydrogen gas at a predetermined angle with respect to the axial direction of the tank body (see Fig. 3 and col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, line 15), wherein the nozzle includes: a connector (3) coupled to the boss; an extension portion (labeled in the figure below) extending from the connector parallel to the axial direction of the tank body; and a changing member (9) provided at an end portion of the extension portion.
[AltContent: textbox (Diffuser plate)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (rod)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Gradually increasing diameter)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Skirt of the boss)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Extension portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
618
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Jayaraman further discloses the extension portion has an orifice formed therein (the central opening through the extension portion), and wherein the orifice has an inner diameter gradually increasing toward an inside of the tank body (labeled above).
Regarding claim 15, Jayaraman further discloses the changing member includes: a rod (labeled above) formed to be inserted into the orifice; and a diffuser plate (labeled above; the labeled portion serves to aid in diffusing the fluid and therefore can be considered a diffuser plate) fixedly coupled to an end portion of the rod (Figs. 2A-C), wherein a spray flow path is defined between an external surface of the rod and an internal surface of the orifice (see Fig. 3).
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.
Claims 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2010/0155404 to Friedlmeier et al. (Friedlmeier) in view of Jayaraman and US Patent Application Publication 2019/0346083 to Shubbar et al. (Shubbar).
Regarding claim 1, Friedlmeier discloses a hydrogen tank (10; [0031]) comprising: a tank body (the body forming tank 10); a boss (the boss at the left end of the tank as shown in Fig. 4) connected to at least one end of the tank body (Fig. 4); and a nozzle (filler neck 32 having nozzle cap 42; see Figs. 4 and 7) installed inside the tank body via the boss (see Figs. 4 and 7) and configured to spray hydrogen gas at a predetermined angle with respect to the axial direction of the tank body (Figs. 4 and 7), wherein the nozzle includes: an extension portion (the portion labeled at “30” in Fig. 7 forms an extension portion) extending parallel to the axial direction of the tank body (Figs. 4 and 7); an inclined portion (nozzle cap 42 having angled channel 44) connected to an end portion of the extension portion and inclined with respect to the axial direction of the tank body (see Figs. 4 and 7). Friedlmeier does not disclose the boss having a skirt extending radially with respect to an axial direction of the tank body and the nozzle having a connector coupled to the boss, and an injection member provided at an end portion of the inclined portion. Jayaraman teaches a hydrogen tank (1) having a boss (col. 7, line 65) having a skirt extending radially with respect to the axial direction of the tank (see labeled figure above) and a nozzle (formed by 3, 8, 9) having a connector (3) coupled to the boss. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a boss having a skirt and an associated connector as taught by Jayaraman in the tank of Friedlmeier for securing the nozzle to the tank. Shubbar teaches a gas tank (abstract) which includes an injection member (diffuser 22) located at the end of an injection passage for distributing the flow of gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an injection member as taught by Shubbar at the end of the inclined portion for aiding in distributing the gas in the desired direction(s).
Regarding claim 6, Friedlmeier further discloses the hydrogen tank is positionable such that the axial direction of the tank body is horizontal, and the inclined portion is inclined toward an upper portion of the tank body (the position of the tank and inclined portion as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Friedlmeier does not disclose a marking portion that is mounted on an external surface of the tank body and is configured to distinguish between a top and a bottom of the hydrogen tank. However, Applicant is given Official Notice that indicia distinguishing between a top and a bottom of a container is well known in the art (for example, indicia such as “Top ↑” or “This Side Up” commonly found of boxes, bottles, and other containers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included indicia distinguishing between a top and a bottom of the tank as is well known in the art for aiding a user in properly positioning the tank.
Regarding claim 8, Shubbar further teaches the injection member includes: a plate (wall 27) connected to an end portion of the channel (see Fig. 6) and having a through-hole formed therein (passage through the wall so gas can flow between channel 3 and outlets 221); and a diffusion guide extending from an edge of the plate and formed to spread out in a direction away from the plate (see Fig. 7) to reduce static and turbulence in the gas flow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further configured the injection member to include a plate, a through-hole and a diffusion guide as taught by Shubbar in the system of Friedlmeier to reduce static and turbulence in the gas flow.
Regarding claim 9, Friedlmeier as modified by Jayaraman and Shubbar discloses the hydrogen tank of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the diffusion guide is inclined so that an internal surface of the diffusion guide has a third inclination angle with respect to a surface of the plate (when the diffusing guide is added as set forth above, it creates an additional angle with respect to the surface of the plate), and but does not disclose the third inclination angle has a range of 120-140°. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the third angle in a range of 120-140°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claims 10-11, Shubbar further teaches the injection member includes: a connecting body (body 22) connected to an end portion of the channel; a main hole formed in an axial direction inside the connecting body (the passage between the channel 3 and the outlets 221); and a plurality of branch holes (221) formed to be branched off and inclined from the main hole inside the connecting body, wherein the plurality of branch holes are arranged at equal intervals in a circumferential direction of the connecting body (see Figs. 2 and 6-7). These limitations are already present in the combination of Friedlmeier, Jayaraman, and Shubbar as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 12 and 16-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited documents do not disclose the configurations set forth in claims 2, 12, 16 and 18. The examiner finds no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the cited documents to include such configurations, absent the teachings of Applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, the cited documents do not disclose the invention of claims 2-5, 12, and 16-18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLAS A ARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M- F, 8AM - 3PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/NICOLAS A ARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 January 5, 2026