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 .
The amendment filed 5/8/2026 has been entered.
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 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 18 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 1 recites the limitation "the pair of ends of the partitioning member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the claim recites “a partitioning member extending between a pair of ends”, the claim does not specify that the ends are part of the partitioning member, and could for example be interpreted as the ends of another element.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "both ends of the partitioning member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the claim recites “a partitioning member extending between a pair of ends”, the claim does not specify that the ends are part of the partitioning member, and could for example be interpreted as the ends of another element.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a partitioning member". IT is unclear whether this limitation is to refer to “a partition member” of claim 1, or is intended to introduce a new and additional partitioning member. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the partitioning member of claim 1.
Claims 9, 13, 17, and 18 recite the limitation "another end of the container portion". However, no initial “end” of the container portion has yet been recited, such that subsequently referencing “another end” is understood, and therefore it is unclear whether or not an initial “end” of the container portion has been omitted from the claims from which claims 9, 13, 17, and 18 depend.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the pair of ends of the partitioning member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the claim recites “a partitioning member extends between a pair of ends”, the claim does not specify that the ends are part of the partitioning member, and could for example be interpreted as the ends of another element.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub no. 2009/0078706 (Ishitoya et al. hereinafter) in view of Us Patent No. 4,600,033 (Baron hereinafter).
In re claim 3, with reference to Fig. 1, Ishitoya et al. discloses: A hydrogen cartridge tank (1) comprising: a single tank body (1) that stores hydrogen (paragraph 0042); the single tank body includes a container portion (5) that stores hydrogen, and a fusible plug (at 21, paragraph 0076) that is configured to open when a predetermined temperature is reached (art recognized function of a “fusible plug valve” paragraph 0076), so as to release the hydrogen in the container portion through a release port (at 37, open to atmosphere, paragraph 0048).
Please note that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Hence, the functional limitations “that stores hydrogen“ which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
PNG
media_image1.png
401
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ishitoya et al. fails to disclose a case that houses the single tank body, a partitioning member; and the case includes a control member that includes a surface at a position facing the release port, the fusible plug disposed in the partitioning member into a space defined by the partitioning member and the control member.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 4 below, Baron discloses a case (10) for a pressure vessel/tank body, wherein the case houses a single tank body, a partitioning member; and the case includes a control member that includes a surface at a position facing the release port, the fusible plug disposed in the partitioning member into a space (shown below occupied by 27) defined by the partitioning member and the control member (see Figs. 3 and 4 below).
[AltContent: textbox (Due to its curvature, Control Member “faces” release port located along dotted axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Control Member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Partitioning Member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
504
343
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
290
248
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a guard for a gas cylinder such as Baron to the tank of Ishitoya et al. for the purposes of protecting the valve/fusible plug of the tank at least during assembly/transport of the tank.
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Ishitoya et al. in view of Baron disclose the claimed invention including wherein the control member is a handle (at 18, see figs. 3 and 4 above) of the hydrogen cartridge tank.
In re claim 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Ishitoya et al. in view of Baron disclose the claimed invention including wherein the fusible plug is disposed at one end (i.e. 21, as in re claim 3 above) of the container portion and is disposed on a side of the control member (i.e. the inside).
In re claim 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Ishitoya et al. in view of Baron disclose the claimed invention including wherein an opening/closing valve (23), and the opening/closing valve is disposed at another end of the container portion (see Fig. 1 above).
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Ishitoya et al. in view of Baron disclose the claimed invention including wherein an opening/closing valve, and the opening/closing valve is disposed at another end of the container portion (as in re claim 17 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 21 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 2, 8, 10, and 20 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 arguments with respect to claim(s) 5/8/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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 supervisor, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights