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 16 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
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, 6-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka et al (US 10525824) in view of Hervio et al (US 6883536).
Regarding Claim 1, Kataoka et al disclose a gas tank structure (Figure 2; Col 5, line 15). The structure comprising:
a plurality of gas tanks (18) arranged side by side in one direction (Figure 2 in the RH direction) in a state in which adjacent gas tanks are in direct contact with each other (Figure 3 in the RH direction);
a plurality of lid-like members (21A) provided in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of gas tanks (Figures 2-3) and mounted at respective ends of the plurality of gas tanks (Figures 2-3), the plurality of lid-like members each having a communication hole communicating with an inside of a corresponding gas tank (Col 7, lines 4-6) and a through hole communicating with the communication hole and extending in a direction in which the plurality of gas tanks are arranged side by side (to the interior of pipe 21 within 21A);
each of a plurality of connection pipes (21) that connect adjacent lid-like members to each other with one end of each of the plurality of connection pipes inserted into the through hole of one of the plurality of lid-like members and another end of each of the plurality of connection pipes inserted into the through hole of another of the plurality of lid-like members (Figures 2-3; where the connection pipes 21 pass through the lid-like members 21A), wherein:
the adjacent gas tanks are in a state in which they are relatively movable to each other in the one direction in which the plurality of gas tanks are arranged side by side (Col 12, lines 11-17),
but fails to expressly disclose a seal member provided at each of both ends of each of the plurality of connection pipes to seal between each of the plurality of connection pipes and the plurality of lid-like members.
Hervio et al teaches a gas tank structure (Figures 4-5; Col 1, lines 12-15). The structure comprising:
a plurality of gas tanks (20; Figure 1) arranged side by side in one direction in a state in which adjacent gas tanks are in contact with each other (Figure 1);
a plurality of lid-like members (32; Figure 4) provided in one-to-one correspondence with the gas tanks (Figure 4) and mounted at respective ends of the gas tanks (at both the front and back end shown in Figure 3), the lid-like members (32) each having a communication hole (see Annotated Figure A) communicating with an inside of a corresponding gas tank (shown in Figure 3) and a through hole (see Annotated Figure A) communicating with the communication hole and extending in a direction in which the gas tanks are arranged side by side (see Annotated Figure A);
a plurality of connection pipes (42; Figure 4) that connects adjacent lid-like members to each other with one end of the connection pipes inserted into the through hole of one of the lid-like members and another end of the connection pipes inserted into the through hole of another of the lid-like members (Figure 4); and
a seal member (46) provided at each of both ends of the connection pipes (Figure 5) to seal between the connection pipes and the lid-like members (Figure 5).
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 gas tank structure of Kataoka et al with the seal member as taught by Hervio et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a seal member within a connection pipe of a tank structure) to yield predictable results (to seal the connection pipe within the gas tank structure).
Regarding Claim 6, Kataoka et al disclose where one of the plurality of connection pipes is configured to move relative to the one of the plurality of lid-like members without moving relative to an adjacent lid-like member of the plurality of lid-like members (Col 12, lines 11-17),
Regarding Claim 7, Kataoka et al disclose where each of the plurality of connection pipes (21) does not directly overlap the communication hole of each of the adjacent lid- like members into which each of the plurality of connection pipes is inserted (Figure 2; such that fluid would not flow from the tank if the communication hole is blocked).
Regarding Claim 8, Kataoka et al disclose where a connection pipe (21) of the plurality of connection pipes does not directly overlap the communication hole of either of adjacent lid-like members into which the connection pipe is inserted (Figure 2; such that fluid would not flow from the tank if the communication hole is blocked).
Regarding Claim 9, Kataoka et al disclose where each of the plurality of connection pipes (21) does not directly overlap the communication hole in a primary direction in which the communication hole extends (Figure 2; such that fluid would not flow from the tank if the communication hole is blocked), and each of the plurality of connection pipes does not directly overlap the communication hole in a secondary direction in which the communication hole extends (Figure 2; such that fluid would not flow from the tank if the communication hole is blocked), the secondary direction being parallel to the direction in which the plurality of gas tanks are arranged side by side (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Kataoka et al disclose where adjacent lid-like members are configured to not directly contact one another (21A; Figure 2).
Claim(s) 2 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Kataoka et al (US 10525824) in view of Hervio et al (US 6883536).
Regarding Claim 2, Kataoka et al disclose wherein: a gap is provided between adjacent lid-like members (Figure 2, with the gap filled by the connection pipes 21), the gap not being directly overlapped by either adjacent lid-like member in a direction parallel to a direction in which the plurality of connection pipes primarily extend and in a direction away from the inside of the corresponding gas tank (Figure 2; in the RH and FR directions);
But fails to expressly disclose where a connection pipe of the plurality of connection pipes has a flange portion that penetrates into the gap; and the flange portion of the connection pipe does not simultaneously contact both of the adjacent lid-like members.
Hervio et al disclose a gap (at 38a) is provided between adjacent lid-like members (Figures 4-5); and where a connection pipe of the plurality of connection pipes (42) has a flange portion (44) that penetrates into the gap (Figure 5).
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 connection pipe of Kataoka et al with the flange as taught by Hervio et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a flange within a connection pipe of a tank structure) to yield predictable results (to align and connect the connection pipes within the gas tank structure).
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flange of Hervio et al with such that the flange portion of the connection pipe does not simultaneously contact both of the adjacent lid-like members since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). In the instant case, the flange of the connection pipe of Hervio et al would not operate differently with the claimed flange dimensions since the connection pipe of Hervio et al function in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed connection pipe.
Regarding Claim 10, Kataoka et al, as modified by Hervio et al, disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where a diameter of the communication hole of the one of the plurality of lid-like members is smaller than a diameter of the through hole of the one of the plurality of lid-like members.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the diameters with such that a diameter of the communication hole of the one of the plurality of lid-like members is smaller than a diameter of the through hole of the one of the plurality of lid-like members since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). In the instant case, the diameters of the communication hole and the through hole of Kataoka et al would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions since the lid like members of Kataoka et al function in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed lid like members.
Regarding Claim 11, Kataoka et al, as modified by Hervio et al, disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where a diameter of the communication hole of the one of the plurality of lid-like members is smaller than a length of a corresponding connection pipe, the length of the corresponding connection pipe being measured in a direction along which the corresponding connection pipe primarily extends.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the diameters with such that a diameter of the communication hole of the one of the plurality of lid-like members is smaller than a length of a corresponding connection pipe, the length of the corresponding connection pipe being measured in a direction along which the corresponding connection pipe primarily extends since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). In the instant case, the diameters of the communication hole and the connection pipe of Kataoka et al would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions since the connection pipe of Kataoka et al function in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed connection pipe.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Kataoka et al (US 10525824) in view of Hervio et al (US 6883536) in further view of Mohan et al (US 20050134045).
Regarding Claim 3, Kataoka et al, as modified by Hervio et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose a protruding portion, the protruding portion being configured to restrict a position of adjacent connection pipes to be inserted, is provided at a position facing the communication hole of the one of the plurality of lid-like members, and the protruding portion is a part of and protrudes from a portion of an inner peripheral wall of the one of the plurality of lid-like members forming the through hole.
Mohan et al teach a connection pipe (8; see Annotated Figure A) with an inner peripheral wall (see Annotated Figure A) of the lid-like member forming the through hole (with the equivalent structure of Mohan et al identified in Annotated Figure A) with a protruding portion (see Annotated Figure A) that restricts a position of adjacent connection pipes (see Annotated Figure A) to be inserted (see Annotated Figure A) is provided at a position facing the communication hole of the one of the plurality of lid-like members (toward 8), and the protruding portion is a part of and protrudes from a portion of an inner peripheral wall of the one of the plurality of lid-like members forming the through hole (with the equivalent structure of Mohan et al identified in Annotated Figure A).
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 connection pipe of Kataoka et al as modified by Hervio et al with the protruding portion as taught by Mohan et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the protruding portion of the inner peripheral wall of the lid like member) to yield predictable results (to secure and hold the connection pipe within the lid-like member).
Additionally, 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 location of the protruding portion to be provided at a position facing the communication hole since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to secure the connection pipe to center and arrange the connection pipe with the gas tank and it’s communication hole.
PNG
media_image1.png
287
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A - Mohan et al
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mohan fails to discuss “the protruding portion is a part of and protrudes from a portion of an inner peripheral wall of the one of the plurality of lid-like members” as required by the amended Claim 3. As seen above in the Annotated Figure A, the inner peripheral wall is the portion of the wall within which the connection pipe is inserted and the protruding portion protrudes from a portion of the inner peripheral wall. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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