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
Claims 3-4 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 14 May 2026.
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.
The language in lines 2-3 is indefinite by stating “selected from the group trapezoidal groove, U-shaped groove, and tapered hole in the transverse direction.” It is believed that applicant is intending to present a Markush group which should state “selected from the group consisting of a, b and c.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the group trapezoidal groove" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahieu et al. (US 2021/0102665) (Mahieu) in view of Parker (US 2024/0027026) and Peise et al. (US 5248316) (Peise).
Mahieu discloses several embodiments and these embodiments will be combined.
Mahieu discloses a pressure cylinder (pressure vessel) made of thin-walled metal vessel (metal liner 2 as stated in last line of paragraph [45]) with a composite shell 3 and a neck (boss connector 6) with an external and/or internal thread (see internal thread shown in Fig. 6a-d and stated in paragraph [53], line 2), wherein the neck 6 is attached to the thin-walled vessel 2 with a hermetic seal and containing a flange {any embodiment that discloses a tapered groove (tapered grooves on the flange of the boss in Fig. 4, 5, 6c, 6d, 10a and 10b)] which is fitted circumferentially with a pair of tapered grooves (the tapered grooves are any grooves formed by and adjacent to a rib element 9 which has been sharpened to a sharp edge, see Fig. 4, 5, 6c, 6d, 10a and 10b) on its outer surface whose adjacent sides meet on an annular ridge (the rib element which has been sharpened to a sharp edge). Mahieu, in the embodiments of Fig. 4, 5, 6c, 6d, 10a and 10b, fails to disclose (1) stainless steel metal, (2) attaching the neck to the remainder of the vessel with specifically a circular welded seam and (3) locking teeth.
Parker teaches stainless steel metal materials in paragraph [40], line 2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the material to be stainless steel to prevent corrosion.
Peise teaches dome 4 with welded-on neck 5, see Fig. 1 and column 2, line 8. The welded joint is circular or circumferentially extending. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the vessel to neck connection to be a circular welded seam to provide a strong seam which withstands stress without leaks.
Mahieu, in the embodiment of Fig. 7, teaches an annular ridge 9 on which there are locking teeth (locking teeth projecting radially outwardly and between the peripheral indentations 41) in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the neck and composite fibers are placed in inter-tooth spaces (“some fibers will fill in the indentations and act as stops against rotational movement of the boss connector” as stated in paragraph [71], lines 4-9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add the locking teeth to prevent rotation between the composite layer 3 and the neck 6.
Re claim 2, the inter-tooth spaces have a trapezoidal groove shape as shown in Fig. 7.
Conclusion
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