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
Claim 3 stands withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 February 2026.
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 et al. (US 2008/0223735) (Ishikawa).
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.
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.
The Office adds to this discussion, upon reading the fifth embodiment of Ishikawa, paragraphs [178-188], more evidence. In particular, paragraph [182], second sentence, states that the central liner constituting member 203 (the part that corresponds to the cylindrical portion of the liner) is made of a laser absorbing thermoplastic resin. However, this is reverse to the relationship of claim 1 wherein the dome portions are made of a laser absorbing thermoplastic resin. Paragraph [182], third sentence states: “Needless to say, the materials may be reversed, and the liner constituting members 201, 202, 203 may partially have the laser transmitting or absorbing property.” Reversing the materials as mentioned in the third sentence places the materials in the relationship of claim 1 wherein the dome portions are made of a laser absorbing thermoplastic resin (deep color joint portions). The so called “reversal of parts” obviousness rejection is well established as long as performance is as good or better and no parts or functions are being destroyed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to reverse the deep color joint portions such that these deep color joint portions exist only on the dome portions as this is expressly indicated by applicant in paragraph [182], third sentence.
Furthermore, in stating that the liner constituting members 201, 202, 203 may partially have the laser transmitting or absorbing property, indicates that the laser absorbing property does not need to be applied to the entire liner constituting member, that is, only where it is essential, at the joint and only at the surface that is in contact with the other liner constituting member. Therefore, only the contacting surface is the deep color portion of the joint portion and other non-contacting surfaces of the joint or underlying material of the joint beneath the surfaces can be considered to be a base portion of the joint portion integrally formed with the body.
Regarding claim 2: 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).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 2008/0223735) (Ishikawa) in view of Bigelow et al. (US 2007/0178752) (Bigelow).
This rejection incudes all of the discussion and reasoning of the previous 103 rejection and builds upon that rejection with the addition of Bigelow. Bigelow teaches a wire connector cap which has an open end and a color-coded identification band 115 placed at the open end. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add a color-coded identification band for the purpose of (1) identifying the open end with a visual color, (2) identify the device as being of a defined size which corresponds to that color, (3) maintaining the transparency of the remainder of the device not covered by the identification band so that abnormalities can be seen and (4) conserving of coloring material by not coloring the entire device as this would save costs, also.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The grounds of rejection has not been changed. However, the statement of rejection has been particularly changed to note the evidence found in paragraph [182] of Ishikawa. First, the evidence shows that applicant knew and suggested that the deep color joint portions could be reversed. Second, the evidence shows that applicant knew and suggested that the deep color joint portions could be partially applied to the liner constituting members and used only where necessary.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in response to amendments.
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 STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached 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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights