DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
It is noted that upon review, no claim terminology was determined to be of sufficient means plus function nonce/style language so as to invoke 35 USC 112 6th paragraph. Any generic terms appeared to be sufficiently modified by their either prepository terms, modifiers or use in the art to take any generic terms out of potential scope of 112 6th. It is noted that during prosecution the claim language may change and thus there is no final disposition on such interpretation until time as the claims may issue.
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 1-6 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 “connections aligned on the same side…” line 7. It is unclear and/or uncertain (i.e. there appears to be a zone of uncertainty) from a reading of the claim as to what is intended by the term/phrase/idea and how such a term/phrase/idea should be interpreted. In other words, it is not clear what side is being referred to and in addition, there seems to be a lack of antecedent basis along with the lack of objective meaningful reference. In the interest of compact prosecution, the term/phrase will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 further recites “the three or more tanks include two or more first tanks arranged in a first direction intersecting directions of the tank axes” in lines 8-9, where there also is a lack of objective meaningful reference as to how or in what way the intersection occurs, i.e. is there a volume or shape that is intersecting another volume or shape and along what axis or plurality of axes and in reference to what origin, which results in the lack of objective meaningful reference, especially without improper importation of limitations from the written description into the claim language itself;
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the three or more tanks include one or more second tanks offset from the two or more first tanks arranged in the first direction, in a second direction intersecting the directions of the tank axes and the first direction” in lines 10-12 with the same lack of objective meaningful reference rationale applied as to the discussion for the phrase in lines 8-9;
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the first tanks and the second tanks lap each other” but there is a lack of objective meaningful reference as to how or in what way the lap occurs (i.e. do they cross one another structurally, or are merely positioned in some as of yet undefined nested fashion where the outer regions intersect or form a communal wall?)
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Adderley (US 5323953) or, in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Adderley in view of Ojeda Monge (US 12253213) and/or Ponnet (US 6206027);
Claims 5-6 are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Adderley and/or view of Ojeda Monge and/or Ponnet as applied to claims 1-4 as indefinitely understood above.
Adderley discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 6 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
1002
1290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A tank arrangement construction (figure 6 of the embodiment as applied to the discussion throughout) comprising: three or more tanks (603/603’/605 tanks or chambers that separately contain the gas at equal pressure) having connections at one ends (at the ends 602 at least and see figure 4 where the end has a manifold connection in 411, and as applied to the embodiment in figure 6, also there are additional manifold connections at 121/123 figure 1) respectively and capable of storing a fluid; and a manifold (at 411 or manifold passages 121/123 as…) connected to the connections of the three or more tanks so as to allow for fluid communication with the connections, wherein the three or more tanks are arranged such that tank axes thereof are parallel to each other (the centerlines of 603/603’/605 are parallel and run in the longitudinal axial direction) with the connections aligned on the same side (i.e. in the same plane transverse to the central axial direction), wherein the three or more tanks include two or more first tanks (605’s there are at least 3, 605 tanks) arranged in a first direction intersecting directions of the tank axes (and are intersection-ally within planes of the tank axes), wherein the three or more tanks include one or more second tanks (tanks 603/603’) offset (horizontally and vertically) from the two or more first tanks arranged in the first direction, in a second direction intersecting the directions of the tank axes and the first direction (the same lack of meaningful objective reference applies to the previous statement as well), wherein a diameter of each first tank (the term diameter is a measure of reference, and each of the 605.diam’s are geometrically defined by a center with an outer edge that is diametrically circumscribable, and thus the diameter…) is different from a diameter of each second tank (603.diam’s where the second tank diameters are smaller than the first), wherein the two or more first tanks and the one or more second tanks are arranged in a zigzag pattern (at 1002 which is an offset zigzag pattern from centroid to centroid of each tank), and wherein the first tanks and the second tanks lap each other as viewed in the first direction (as shown, for example in the horizontal direction of 1004.)
If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Adderley does not explicitly disclose: three or more cylindrical tanks; Adderley suggests providing cylindrical tanks (Col 1 ln 43-44 where small diameter tube arrays can be provided for available space, as provided in the related art, which does not explicitly disparage or disclaim the solution claimed, where even though the use may be inefficient, it is still implementable); and Ojeda Monge teaches in figure 15: a cylindrical tube shape for the tanks (where one being circular or tubular and the other being polygonal or hexagonal (Col 7 ln 5-15), and all provided for the purpose of accommodating gas tank chambers in a vehicle with limited space (see abstract);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Adderley as taught in Ojeda Monge (and as arguably taught/suggested in Adderley itself) with a cylindrical tube shape for the tanks as taught in Ojeda Monge, where one being circular or tubular and/or as opposed to being polygonal or hexagonal, and all provided for the purpose of accommodating gas tank chambers in a vehicle with limited space.
If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Adderley does not explicitly disclose: a separate manifold structure only at the end of the tanks, Ponnet teaches: providing a separate manifold structure only at the end of the tanks (at 30 and 32 figure 1, and provided for the purpose of for example, a direct connection between each tank and the supply of the manifold, so as to maintain adequate fluid flow.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Ponnet for that of Adderley, providing a separate manifold structure only at the end of the tanks as taught in Ponnet, and provided for the purpose of for example, a direct connection between each tank and the supply of the manifold, so as to maintain adequate fluid flow.
Adderley discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 2: The tank arrangement construction according to claim 1, wherein a first tank and a second tank neighboring to each other lap each other as viewed in the second direction (as shown in the vertical direction of 1006.)
Adderley discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 3: The tank arrangement construction according to claim 1, wherein the manifold (as applied to figure 6, the passages 121/123 of figure 1 act as manifold connection that…) has a bent shape in which the manifold is alternately connected to connections of the first tanks and connections of the second tanks as viewed in the directions of the tank axes (i.e. the passages thereat allow for alternate serries connection between the tanks as shown, the passages providing the mani-fold arrangement in this instance.)
Adderley discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The tank arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the manifold has a shape in which the manifold extends in the first direction with a width (at 1008) so as to cover the connections of the first tanks and the connections of the second tanks as viewed in the directions of the tank axes (the covering of the manifold of 602 as applied from 411 covers the ends of the first and second tanks as disclosed.)
Adderley (figure 6 as applied via figures 1 and 2) discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The tank arrangement construction according to claim 4, wherein the manifold includes, as a flow path through which the fluid can flow (as discussed), a first flow path communicating with the connections of the two or more first tanks; but does not explicitly disclose, although Figure 2E teaches that: a second flow path (bottom tanks at 234) communicating with the connections of the one or more second tanks (provided for the purpose of fluid pressure equalization between the tanks, making for example, a more equistatic tank pressure during use.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide a manifold arrangement for Adderley figure 6 as arguably provided therein, and as taught in figure 2E, with a second flow path across the bottom tanks as taught in figure 2E and communicating with the connections of the one or more second tanks, and as provided for the purpose of fluid pressure equalization between the tanks, making for example, a more equistatic tank pressure during use
Adderley discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 6: The tank arrangement construction according to claim 5, wherein the manifold includes, as a flow path through which the fluid can flow, a third flow path connecting the first flow path and the second flow path (at the end cap manifold of figure 6 at 602, the upper and lower tanks and the intermediate tanks can all be connected together along with the interstitial manifold passages as discussed above.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights