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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 40-54 in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged.
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 44-46 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.
Claims 44, 45 and 46 each recite the limitation "the rupture element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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(s) 40 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Girouard et al. (US-20210140553-A1).
Girouard discloses:
40. A pressure vessel (Fig. 1) for storing fuel in a motor vehicle, comprising: a pressure relief device (200) for pressure relief of the pressure vessel, the pressure relief device comprising a thermally activatable pressure relief device (pars. 0012, 0013); and wherein the pressure relief device is directly fluidly connected to an internal volume of the pressure vessel via a pressure relief line (Fig. 1, par. 0009).
43.The pressure vessel of claim 40, wherein the pressure relief device comprises an overpressure safety valve (208), and wherein the overpressure safety valve is directly fluidly connected to the internal volume of the pressure vessel (Figs. 1, 2).
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) 41, 44-46, 50 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girouard et al. (US-20210140553-A1) in view of Eihusen (US-5848604-A).
Regarding claim 41, Girouard discloses all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach a rupture element, wherein the pressure relief device and the rupture element are in directly fluid communication with the internal volume of the pressure vessel.
Eihusen teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a pressure vessel with a rupture element in direct fluid communication with an internal volume (col. 1, lines 16-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the vessel with a rupture element, in order to improve the safety of the device and such a modification would be the use of a known relief means on a pressure vessel.
Regarding claims 44-46 and 50, the modified pressure vessel of Girouard teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above wherein the pressure vessel has first and second sides and ends, and the pressure relief line has line ends (Girouard, Fig. 1), but fails to teach the specific component locations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the components at specific locations in order to adapt for different storage environments and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 54, the modified pressure vessel of Girouard teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above, but fails to specifically teach that the triggering pressure of the overpressure discharge valve is lower than a triggering pressure of the rupture element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the components with different triggering pressures in order to provide the vessel with a safety feature since having the same pressure would not provide additional safety features.
Claim(s) 42, 47, 51 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girouard et al. (US-20210140553-A1) in view of Kircher et al (US-20150028039-A1).
Regarding claim 42, Girouard teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above and an overpressure discharge valve (208); and wherein the pressure relief device and the overpressure discharge valve are directly fluidly connected to the internal volume of the pressure vessel (Figs. 1, 2), but fails to teach a fuel converter downstream of the overpressure discharge valve.
Kircher teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a pressure vessel with a fuel converter (par. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the vessel with a fuel converter downstream of the overpressure discharge valve, so that the vessel could be used for powering a device.
Regarding claim 47, the modified pressure vessel of Girouard teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach an inner vessel within an outer vessel, wherein an evacuated space is arranged at least in regions between the inner vessel and the outer vessel, the inner vessel forming the internal volume storing fuel.
Kircher teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a pressure vessel with an inner vessel (10) within an outer vessel (11), wherein an evacuated space (12) is arranged at least in regions between the inner vessel and the outer vessel, the inner vessel forming the internal volume storing fuel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the pressure vessel with the wall structure taught by Kircher, in order to insulate the vessel contents.
Regarding claims 51 and 52, the modified pressure vessel of Girouard teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above wherein the pressure relief line extends over a shell region of the pressure vessel and herein the pressure relief line extends over a shell region of the outer vessel (Girouard, Figs. 1, 2).
Claim(s) 48 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girouard et al. (US-20210140553-A1) in view of Kircher et al (US-20150028039-A1) as applied above and further in view of Eihusen (US-5848604-A).
Regarding claims 48 and 49, Girouard discloses all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach a first and second rupture element on the outer vessel and within a wall of the outer vessel.
Eihusen teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a pressure vessel with a rupture element (col. 1, lines 16-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the vessel with a rupture element, in order to improve the safety of the device and such a modification would be the use of a known relief means on a pressure vessel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured multiple rupture elements at specific locations in order to adapt for different storage environments and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and since it has been held that duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girouard et al. (US-20210140553-A1) in view of Selles (US-20100051134-A1).
Regarding claim 53, Girouard teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above and an overpressure discharge valve (208) directly fluidly connected to the internal volume of the pressure vessel (Figs. 1, 2), but fails to teach an overpressure safety valve directly fluidly connected to the internal volume of the pressure vessel; and wherein a triggering pressure of the overpressure discharge valve is lower than a triggering pressure of the overpressure safety valve.
Sellers teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a pressure vessel with multiple overpressure valves with different triggering pressures (pars. 0005)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the vessel with multiple overpressure valves, in order to improve the safety of the device and such a modification would be the use of a known relief means on a pressure vessel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights