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 .
Election/Restrictions
The applicant’s response dated 02/18/2026 to the restriction requirement is acknowledged. The applicant has elected, without traverse, Species A (fig 5) which corresponds to claims 1-2. Accordingly claim 3 is withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2: The term “thin film” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin film” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how thin the film must be to read on the claim. Correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 2008/0223735).
Regarding claim 1: Ishikawa discloses a hydrogen tank (title, abstract, fig 11) comprising: a liner (11, fig 11) including a cylindrical portion (203, fig 11) and dome portions (201 and 202, fig 11), the dome portions being disposed at both ends of the cylindrical portion (fig 11), respectively, the dome portions each having a body (i.e., main body portions) and a joint portion (223 and 213, figs 11 and 12), the joint portion being joined to the cylindrical portion (figs 11 and 12), wherein the joint portion includes a laser absorbing portion (¶0182, fig 12) for laser welding.
For the embodiment of figure 11, Ishikawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the joint portion includes a deep color portion, and the body has a translucency higher than the joint portion.
For the embodiment of figures 1 and 2, Ishikawa discloses a very similar hydrogen tank (fig 1) with a liner (11, fig 1) with two portions (22 and 21, figs 1 and 2) that are joined at a joint (fig 2). Portion 22 includes a body portion (i.e., the main body portion) and a joint portion (44, fig 2); wherein the joint portion includes a deep color portion (i.e., black, ¶¶0125-0126), and the body may have a translucency higher than the joint portion (as disclosed in ¶0129).
Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the embodiment of figure 11 wherein the joint portion includes a deep color portion, and the body has a translucency higher than the joint portion, as taught by Ishikawa for the embodiment of figure 1, because it is a known and effective way of forming a tank liner with joints sealed by laser welding.
Regarding claim 2: see the above §112 discussion. Ishikawa discloses wherein a thin film portion (i.e., carbon black, ¶¶0126, 0128) is provided along a circumference of the joint portion, the thin film portion being the deep color portion (¶0126) extending annularly, and the thin film portion is in contact with and joined to the cylindrical portion (fig2 2 and 12).
The examiner noting that the specification does not provide an explicit definition for what they consider to be a “thin film” but the specification does disclose that the deep color portion is formed by a black pigment added to the resin (¶0031). Ishikawa also teaches that the deep color portion is created by adding a black pigment to the resin (¶0126). Accordingly, the examiner considers the black pigment of Ishikawa to read on the limitation in as much as the applicant has support for the limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4923. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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.
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733