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 .
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 1-5 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. Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “the fixation member being sheet-like” is indefinite because it is unclear if the fixation member is a sheet or not. The examiner raises a question, what applicant meant with “sheet-like”. Claims 2-5 inherit the same issue because of its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blair (WO 96/23721).
Blair discloses a pressure vessel (10) that contains compressed fluid (see abstract), the pressure vessel comprising a plurality of tank cells (12), each of the tank cells extending along a first/longitudinal direction (30) and disposed along a second/width direction perpendicular to the first direction (see figure 3), each of the tank cells containing compressed fluid (see page 9 lines 32-34); and a fixation member (14) wound around a periphery of the tank cells and capable to integrally bind the tank cells (see figure 3), the fixation member being sheet-like, wherein a gap (58 and 60) extending along the first direction is provided between two of the tank cells adjacent to each other and the fixation member (see figure 4); a reinforcement member (24) is provided on an inner surface of the fixation member, the reinforcement member extending in the gap in the first direction and protruding toward the two adjacent tank cells (see figure 3 and page 10 lines 11-16); and a surface (defined by surface of the reinforcement member pointed by reference numeral 24 in figure 3) of the reinforcement member is positioned away from each of surfaces of the two adjacent tank cells.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair (WO 96/23721) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao (WO 2016057024).
Blair further discloses the tank cells include two end tank cells (16 and 18), and an inner tank cell (20) disposed between the two end tank cells; and a dimension of the inner tank cell in the second/width direction appears to be between 0.4 times to 0.6 times a dimension of the inner tank cell in a third/height direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (see figures 3 and 7). Blair does not explicitly disclose a dimension of the inner tank cell in the second/width direction is 0.4 times to 0.6 times a dimension of the inner tank cell in a third/height direction. However, Zhao discloses a pressure vessel assembly comprising a middle cell (35) having a dimension in which a size in a width direction is half the size of the cell in a height direction, wherein end cells (25 and 30) shows the same height as the middle cell (see figure 2, [0043], [0045] and [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the middle cell having the required dimension as taught by Zhao for proper assembling positioning and geometry arrangement between the cells of the vessel.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair (WO 96/23721) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Croteau (US 10,221,999).
Blair further discloses each of the tank cells includes a connector (62) at one end portion in the first direction on each tank cell (see page 12 lines 11-12 and figure 3), wherein the connectors are used for attaching a valve (22) (see figure 3 and page 9 lines 27-29). Blair does not disclose the connectors of the two adjacent tank cells are offset in opposite directions from each other in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction. However, Croteau discloses a pressure vessel assembly (20) comprising plurality of lobes/cells (25, 30 and 35) closed by an end cap (100) including connectors (155a,b in combination with 160), wherein connectors of the two adjacent tank cells are offset in opposite directions from each other in a third/vertical direction perpendicular to a first/longitudinal direction and a second/width direction (see figure 6). Croteau discloses the connectors are connected to each other by a tube (165), wherein the connectors arranged in opposite direction provide strain relief of potential growth of the pressure vessel due to pressurization of the pressure vessel and/or exposure to temperature extremes relative to ambient (see column 6 lines 61-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blair having the connectors arranged in opposite directions as taught by Croteau to provide strain relief of potential growth of the pressure vessel due to pressurization of the pressure vessel.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair (WO 96/23721) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao (WO 2017/091224).
Blair further discloses the fixation member is composed of carbon fiber reinforced plastics. Blair discloses the fixation member is formed from carbon fiber bound/reinforced with thermoplastic (see page 10 lines 31-34). Blair does not disclose the material used for the reinforcement member. However, Zhao discloses a pressure vessel assembly (20) comprising pressure vessels (22, 24, and 26) and reinforcement members (92) disposed between surfaces of the pressure vessels (see figure 5), wherein the reinforcement members are made of carbon fibers including a resin/plastic, such as epoxy, for binding the fibers (see [0039] and [0045]). Zhao discloses the uses of hybrid continuous and short fibers in the reinforce material minimize the vessel assembly weight (see [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reinforcement member being made from carbon fiber reinforced plastic as taught by Zhao top minimize the pressure vessel assembly weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights