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 Species II (claims 1-4 and 6-26) in the reply filed on 31 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 5 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 31 July 2026.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP section 2117 covers Markush Claims which effectively lists alternative useable members with a claim. Applicant’s wording is significantly different from what is considered normal for a Markush group. Normally, a Markush group would state “selected from the group consisting of A, B and C.” Additionally, and normal and optional, is the phrase “and a combination thereof.” For example, a phrase stating “selected from the group consisting of A, B, C and a combination thereof” would be interpreted as any of A, B and C by themselves or any two in combination or all three combined. However, applicant’s claim language (particularly, claims 6 and 8) in no uncertain terms doesn’t list the elements in the alternative and is not a Markush claim.
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 6-10 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 6 is not a Markush claim.
Claim 6 list a combination of elements to define the accessory. It is awkward to end the list with “and a combination thereof” because all of the elements listed are clearly being claimed as a combination wherein every element in the list must be present. The “and a combination thereof” is more indicative of a Markush group but a Markush group is not being claimed. There is confusion. Does the combination include an element not listed? Claim 6 is indefinite.
Claim 8 is not a Markush claim.
Claim 8 list a combination of elements to define the first resin-Impregnated fiber-reinforced tow. It is awkward to end the list with “and a combination thereof” because all of the elements listed are clearly being claimed as a combination wherein every element in the list must be present. The “and a combination thereof” is more indicative of a Markush group but a Markush group is not being claimed. There is confusion. Does the combination include an element not listed? Claim 8 is indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the accessory attachment surface" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Most likely, applicant intended to state “the accessory attachment structure.”
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the accessory attachment surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Most likely, applicant intended to state “the accessory attachment structure.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 12, 18-19 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Frenz et al. (US 2025/0264189) (Frenz).
Frenz discloses a pressure vessel (see Fig. 1) comprising: a pressure vessel body defining interior for containing a pressurized fluid, the pressure vessel body including a liner 3 and at least a first layer (reinforcement layer 6) that surrounds the liner, the first layer including a fiber-reinforced polymer (“fiber-reinforced plastic, preferably of CFRP”; CFRP interpreted as carbon fiber-reinforced plastic); and an accessory attachment structure (boss 4 as shown in Fig. 2) coupled to the pressure vessel body, the accessory attachment structure including an accessory connection portion (portion extending the entire axial length of boss 4 and having internal threads 11 and 12) and an anchor portion (radially outwardly extending portion of boss 4), the anchor portion being secured between the liner and the first layer with the first layer overlapping the anchor portion, the accessory connection portion projecting outwardly (in an axial direction and towards the left side of Fig. 2) from the anchor portion at least partially through the first layer (through opening in first layer at left side of Fig. 2).
Re claim 2, the pressure vessel further comprising an accessory (sleeve 7, the sleeve acts as a bracket) attached to the accessory connection portion.
Re claim 3, the accessory is detachably attached to the accessory connection portion by a detachable mechanical connection (screw threads 12), the detachable mechanical connection including a first mechanical connection interface integrated with the accessory connection portion (internal threads 12 on boss 4) and a second mechanical connection interface (external threads on sleeve 7) integrated with the accessory, wherein the first and second mechanical connection interfaces are configured to be detachably connected together.
Re claim 4, the first mechanical connection interface includes first threads, and the second mechanical connection interface includes second threads configured to mate with the first threads.
Re claim 7, the first layer is formed by a first resin-impregnated fiber-reinforced tow (see paragraph [10], line 13, “liner is wrapped with fiber tapes of fiber rovings”), the first resin-impregnated fiber-reinforced tow being wrapped around the liner and over the anchor portion of the accessory attachment surface (see Fig. 2 wherein position of reinforcement layer 6 is positioned over the anchor portion of boss 4).
Re claims 12 and 26, the accessory connection portion of the accessory attachment structure includes a first mechanical connection interface (threads 12) adapted for (functional language, the structure is adapted for connecting an accessory) making a detachable connection with a second mechanical connection interface integrated with an accessory.
Re claim 18, the pressure vessel body is elongate along a pressure vessel axis (see Fig. 1) and extends along the pressure vessel axis from a first end to a second end, wherein the pressure vessel body includes a cylindrical main body that extends between the first and second ends (see Fig. 1), wherein the first end includes a neck (first end neck (boss 4’) as shown in Fig. 1) defining a tank port and the second end (near boss 4) has a rounded dome shape (see Fig. 1), and wherein the accessory attachment structure is anchored to the pressure vessel body at the second end of the pressure vessel body (see Fig. 2 where accessory attachment structure (boss 4) is anchored to vessel body).
Re claim 19, the anchor portion of the accessory attachment structure is centered with respect to the pressure vessel axis (shown in Fig. 2 as Fig. 2 is a one-half representation of boss 4 which is circular or cylindrical in 3-D shape).
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi et al. (US 2012/0325832) (Takeuchi).
Takeuchi discloses a pressure vessel (see Fig. 1) comprising: a pressure vessel body defining interior for containing a pressurized fluid, the pressure vessel body including a liner (inner shell 10) and at least a first layer (outer shell 20) that surrounds the liner, the first layer including a fiber-reinforced polymer (see last three lines of paragraph [58];“CFRP (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic), and formed, for example, by a filament winding process”); and an accessory attachment structure (mouthpiece 40 as shown in Fig. 8) coupled to the pressure vessel body, the accessory attachment structure including an accessory connection portion (portion extending the entire axial length and generally designated as tubular portion 40b) and an anchor portion (radially outwardly extending portion and generally designated as flange portion 40a), the anchor portion being secured between the liner and the first layer with the first layer overlapping the anchor portion, the accessory connection portion projecting outwardly (in an axial direction and upwards in Fig. 8) from the anchor portion at least partially through the first layer (through opening in first layer 20 as shown in Fig. 8).
Re claim 11, the pressure vessel is rated to accommodate an internal fluid pressure of at least 1000 pounds per square inch (see paragraph [67], lines 14-15; “a maximum expected operating pressure (MEOP) of 32 MPa”; (32 MPa = 4641 psi).
Re claim 13, the accessory connection portion of the accessory attachment structure extends along an accessory connection axis (longitudinal, vertical axis in Fig. 8), wherein the anchor portion of the accessory attachment structure is located at a base end (flange portion 40a located at bottom end of mouthpiece 40 as oriented in Fig. 8) of the accessory connection portion and projects radially outwardly from the accessory connection portion (tubular portion 40b).
Re claim 16, the anchor portion of the accessory attachment structure has a thickness measured in an orientation along the accessory connection axis of the accessory connection portion of the accessory attachment structure (see Fig. 8), and wherein the anchor portion is tapered (see Fig. 8) such that the thickness reduces as the anchor portion extends radially away from the accessory connection axis of the accessory connection portion.
Re claim 17, the anchor portion has a concave surface curved from a minor diameter at the accessory connection portion to a major outer diameter of the anchor portion (see bottom side of flange portion 40a or inner surface of flange portion 40a in Fig. 8).
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(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi.
The anchor portion 40a has a cross-dimension (maximum diameter (OD) of portion 40a as shown in Fig. 8) that is at least larger as a corresponding cross-dimension (inner diameter (ID) of portion 40b) of the accessory connection portion 40b. The Takeuchi drawings are not to scale and there is no text stating the degree to which one dimension is larger or smaller than another. Official notice is taken that a person having ordinary skill would have understood that the gas passage and inner diameter of portion 40b could be decreased in size to slow the movement and flow rate of gas such that a lower limit is substantially small in comparison to other inner diameters wherein a greater flow rate is desired. Official notice is taken that a person having ordinary skill would have understood that the OD of portion 40a could be increased to a maximum OD or width as wide as the liner’s maximum OD or width to provide as much structural support to both the liner and the first layer than other flange portions wherein the liner and first layer are self-supporting and do not need structural support from the flange portion. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the anchor portion 40a with a cross-dimension (maximum diameter (OD) of portion 40a as shown in Fig. 8) that is at least 1.5 times as larger as a corresponding cross-dimension (inner diameter (ID) of portion 40b) of the accessory connection portion 40b in the interest of having a low flow rate and a wide flange that properly supports the liner and first layer to prevent bursting.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Frenz.
Takeuchi fails to disclose the shape. Frenz teaches a circular shape as shown in Fig. 3. 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 shape of the accessory attachment structure to be circular to conform to a circular hole.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frenz in view of Hakamata et al. (US 2024/0263741) (Hakamata).
Frenz discloses that the first resin-impregnated fiber-reinforced tow includes carbon fibers, but not fiberglass or aramid fibers. Hakamata teaches glass fibers (fiberglass) and aramid fiber in the last three lines of paragraph [25]. 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 fiberglass and aramid fibers to strengthen the carbon fiber reinforced tow.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frenz in view of Kato et al. (US 2023/0375132) (Kato).
Frenz fails to disclose the second layer. Kato teaches a second layer formed by a second resin-impregnated fiber-reinforced tow and the second layer tow wrapped over the first layer and over the anchor portion, see Fig. 4 and the explanation of layers L11, L12 and Fig. 6 and the explanation of layers L21, L22. 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 second layer to strengthen the pressure vessel to prevent bursting.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frenz in view of Kato as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hakamata.
Frenz discloses that the first resin-impregnated fiber-reinforced tow includes carbon fibers, but not fiberglass or aramid fibers. The second layer having a second resin-impregnated fiber-reinforced tow having carbon fibers. Hakamata teaches glass fibers (fiberglass) and aramid fiber in the last three lines of paragraph [25]. 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 fiberglass to strengthen the carbon fiber reinforced tow. The resulting first and second layer tows both have carbon fibers and fiberglass.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frenz in view of Weber (US 2010/0258573).
Frenz discloses the first layer is formed by a first resin-impregnated fiber-reinforced tow, the first resin-impregnated fiber-reinforced tow being wrapped around the first and second ends of the pressure vessel body, wherein the first resin-impregnated fiber-reinforced tow extends over the liner and over the anchor portion of the accessory attachment surface such that the anchor portion is secured between the liner and the first resin-impregnated fiber-reinforced tow. Frenz fails to disclose that the wrap is in a longitudinal orientation. Weber teaches that the fiber reinforced wrap is in a longitudinal orientation as stated in paragraph [10], lines 17-21. 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 direction of wrap to be a longitudinal orientation to prevent longitudinal tension forces from destroying the pressure vessel.
Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frenz in view of Weber as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Takeuchi.
Re claim 21, Frenz discloses that he accessory connection portion of the accessory attachment structure extends along a connection portion axis that aligns with the pressure vessel axis, and the accessory connection portion extends radially outwardly from the accessory connection portion. Frenz fails to disclose that the anchor portion of the accessory attachment structure is located at a base end of the accessory connection portion. Takeuchi teaches that the anchor portion of the accessory attachment structure is located at a base end of the accessory connection portion. 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 location of the anchor portion to the base end of the connection portion to provide more stability for a flush surface contact with the liner with no undulations to undermine liner stability.
Re claim 22, the anchor portion of Frenz is circular outer shape.
Re claim 23, the anchor portion of the accessory attachment structure has a thickness measured in an orientation along the accessory connection axis of the accessory connection portion of the accessory attachment structure (see Fig. 2 of Frenz), and wherein the anchor portion is tapered (see Fig. 2 of Frenz) such that the thickness reduces as the anchor portion extends radially away from the accessory connection axis of the accessory connection portion.
Re claim 24, the anchor portion has a concave surface curved from a minor cross dimension (OD at connection portion of Frenz, see Fig. 2) at the accessory connection portion to a major cross dimension (inner diameter of the anchor portion, see Fig. 2 of Frenz), wherein the concave surface faces away from the liner (where edge of layer 6 contacts OD at connection portion as shown in Fig. 2 of Frenz).
Re claim 25, the major cross-dimension of the anchor portion has a dimension that is smaller than an outer diameter of the cylindrical main body of the pressure vessel body. Frenz’s drawings are not to scale and no dimensional data is discussed within the text of Frenz to show the 5-30 percent as large limitation. Official notice is taken that a person having ordinary skill would have understood that the anchor portion as the largest portion of the accessory attachment structure could be made small in comparison to the pressure vessel such that the OD of the anchor portion is within the range of 5 -30 % as large as the OD of the cylindrical main body to minimize the cost and weight of the accessory attachment structure wherein the anchor portion is not needed to provide as much support to self-supporting liner and first layer laminate. The accessory attachment portion is made from expensive metals, for example, titanium. 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 major cross-dimension of the anchor portion has a dimension that is 5-30% as large as an outer diameter of the cylindrical main body of the pressure vessel body in order to minimize cost and weight of the accessory attachment structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 6 reads as follows:
6. The pressure vessel of claim 2, wherein the accessory includes a bracket, a lanyard, a laser device, a container, a streamer, a molded base, a strap, a radio-frequency identification (RFID) device, a light, and a combination thereof.
The accessory of claim 6 includes nine elements as follows:
Bracket
Lanyard
Laser device
Container
Streamer
Molded base
Strap
RFID device
Light
The prior art discloses all of these nine elements. Knaub (US 2024/0418327) discloses a bracket 24 mounted as an accessory on a pressure vessel. Billington et al. (US 4099551) discloses a lanyard 102 which is also a strap and a streamer mounted as an accessory on a pressure vessel. McNicholas (US 2022/0180733) discloses a laser and light in paragraph [66] as optical sensors when attached as an accessory on a pressure vessel. Yamamoto (US 2025/0377076) discloses a container mounted as an accessory on a pressure vessel. Kanach (US 2008/0023483) discloses a molded base mounted on a pressure vessel. Huang et al. (US 10837814) discloses an RFID device 30 mounted on a cap 20 which is attached as an accessory on a pressure vessel.
It would not have been obvious to provide an accessory having nine different elements and combine a multitude of diverse references (seven different references) having diverse teachings to reject claim 6.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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