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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 20 November 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation of claim 1 that “the gas remaining amount measurement module is without any display” fails to comply with the written description requirement. The original disclosure makes no mention of a screen or display other than that of a monitor PC or tablet, let alone the explicit exclusion of a screen or display in the gas remaining amount measurement module. The figures cannot be relied upon for original disclosure of a negative limitation as the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. See MPEP 2173.05(i).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps (US 3181589) further in view of Spencer (US 20160265724) and Lease (US 10082416).
Claim 1: Phelps discloses a portable gas storage container having a flat upper surface and a flat lower surface, and being vertically stackable; wherein the portable gas storage container comprises: a shock-absorbent material 72 (casing) with a flat upper surface and a flat lower surface and being vertically stackable; a vessel 2 (gas container) installed in the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing); wherein the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing) need not be in direct contact with the vessel 2 (gas container) over its entire surface resulting in a space between the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing) and the vessel 2 (gas container); wherein the portable gas storage container is approximately cubic in shape (see annotated fig. 1 below, C. 2 L. 1-3, and C. 3 L. 59-61).
Phelps does not disclose a gas remaining amount measurement module installed in the space between the casing and the gas container, the gas remaining amount measurement module comprising a pressure sensor coupled to the gas container, a central processing unit connected to the pressure sensor, and a wireless communication module connected to the central processing unit, wherein the gas remaining amount measurement module is without any display, or wherein the gas remaining amount measurement module is installed in the space between the casing and the gas container so as not to be visible from outside of the portable gas storage container.
Spencer teaches a spherical vessel used as an energy source for indoor or outdoor cooking and which has sensors to monitor temperature, pressure, and location (GPS) of the vessel, wherein the sensors are coupled to the vessel by means of a port that couples the interior volume of the vessel with the external environment (see P. 0022-0023 and 0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vessel 2 (gas container) to have a port with sensors to monitor temperature, pressure (gas pressure sensor), and location (GPS), as taught by Spencer, in order to allow a user to determine the status of the contents.
When locating the port with sensors on the vessel 2 (gas container) there are three identified, predictable solutions. A first being in the upper recess of section 74, a second being in the lower recess of section 76, and the third being in the space between the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing) and the vessel 2 (gas container). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have located the port with sensors in the space between the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing) and the vessel 2 (gas container), as it would have been obvious to try the third identified predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success in order to protect the port with sensors from impacts and weather.
Lease teaches a holding tank 28 with an electronic gauge assembly 12 having a display 45, an electronic assembly 56 including a pressure sensor 178 connected to the holding tank 28, a processor 174 (central processing unit) connected to the pressure sensor 178, and a transceiver 50 (wireless communication module) cooperating with the processor 174 (central processing unit) (see fig. 1 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the port with sensors to include a processor 174 (central processing unit) cooperating with the sensor for monitoring pressure (gas pressure sensor) and a transceiver 50 (wireless communication module) cooperating with the processor 174 (central processing unit), as taught by Lease, in order to permit a user to retrieve information about the vessel 2 (gas container) remotely.
The port with sensors, processor 174 (central processing unit), and transceiver 50 (wireless communication module) together read on the gas remaining amount measurement module which is positioned within the space. As can be seen from figure 11, the space and therefore the gas remaining amount measurement module formed by the port with sensors, processor 174 (central processing unit), and transceiver 50 (wireless communication module) is not visible from the outside of the portable gas storage container at least when the portable gas storage container is on the ground or base 78 with the flaps visible in figure 11 in a closed position.
PNG
media_image1.png
586
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: The combination discloses the valve means 10 (gas outlet) being provided on at least one side surface (see fig. 1 & 11).
Claim 3: The combination discloses the at least one side surface having a recess, and the valve means 10 (gas outlet) is provided in the recess (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 4: The combination discloses the portable gas storage container further comprising a curved spring handle 62 (grip) (see fig. 12).
Claim 5: The combination discloses wherein the port with sensors, processor 174 (central processing unit), and transceiver 50 (wireless communication module) (gas remaining amount measurement module) further comprises a sensor to monitor temperature (temperature sensor) connected to the processor 174 (central processing unit) (see P. 0047 ‘724).
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein the port with sensors, processor 174 (central processing unit), and transceiver 50 (wireless communication module) (gas remaining amount measurement module) further comprises a sensor to monitor location (GPS) (GPS communication module) cooperating with the processor 174 (central processing unit) (see P. 0047 ‘724).
Claim 7: The combination discloses the claimed invention except for a porous material in the gas container.
Spencer teaches a spherical vessel used as an energy source for indoor or outdoor cooking and which has a porous adsorbent (porous material) that substantially fills the interior vessel volume, where the porous adsorbent (porous material) is selected from the group consisting of an activated carbon absorbent, a zeolite absorbent, and metal organic framework absorbent (see P. 0021-0023, 0008, 0018, & 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vessel 2 (gas container) to have a porous adsorbent (porous material) that substantially fills its interior volume, in the form of a metal organic framework absorbent, as taught by Spencer, in order to hold a greater quantity of pressurized gas and to be more safe as the vessel 2 (gas container) will be able to hold liquified gas at a lower pressure.
Claim 8: The combination discloses the porous adsorbent (porous material) being a metal organic framework absorbent (see P. 0021-0023, 0008, 0018, & 0050 ‘724).
Claim 11: The combination discloses wherein the vessel 2 (gas container) is approximately spherical in shape (see C. 2 L. 1-3 and fig. 1).
Claim 12: The combination discloses wherein a single vessel 2 (gas container) is installed in the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing) (see fig. 1).
Claim 13: The combination discloses wherein a material used for the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing) can be expanded polystyrene and a material used for the single vessel 2 (gas container) can be steel which are different from each other (see C. 3 L. 48-52 and C. 2 L. 1-3).
Claim 15: The combination discloses the porous adsorbent (porous material consisting essentially of a porous gas-adsorption material) being positioned within the vessel 2 (gas container), wherein the interior volume of the vessel 2 (gas container) is filled with the porous adsorbent (porous material) except for a minimal free volume space in the vessel 2 (gas container), resulting in a fill rate less than 100% which overlaps with the claimed filling rate range of 60-99% such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
The type of porous material of the porous material in the gas storage container of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously satisfies
∆
1
M
/
δ
1
M
≥
1.5 at 298 K for at least one kind of gas, in which
∆
1
M
= G1M - G0.1M and
δ
1
M
= g1M - g0.1M, and G1M is a content of the gas at 1MPa when the porous material is contained in the gas container, G0.1M is a content of the gas at 0.1MPa when the porous material is contained in the gas container, g1M is a content of the gas at 1MPa when the porous material is not contained in the gas container, and g0.1M is a content of the gas at 0.1MPa when the porous material is not contained in the gas container as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical gas storage container to the claimed gas storage container, where the shape of the prior art vessel 2 (gas container) is spherical which is one of the disclosed shaped of the inventions gas container, where the fill rate is less than 100% which overlaps with the disclosed filling rate range of 60-99, and as material of the prior art combination porous material of a porous metal organic framework absorbent is one of the disclosed materials of the inventions porous material. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the gas storage container of the combination will not satisfy
∆
1
M
/
δ
1
M
≥
1.5 at 298 K for at least one kind of gas. Otherwise a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112 & 2113
Claim 16: The combination results in the interior volume of the vessel 2 (gas container) being filled with the porous adsorbent (porous material) except for a minimal free volume space in the vessel 2 (gas container), resulting in a fill rate less than 100% which overlaps with the claimed filling rate range of 60-99% such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 17: The type of porous material and filling rate F of the porous material in the gas storage container of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously satisfies the conditions of claim 15 when the gas is selected from the group consisting of nitrogen, oxygen, air, carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, natural gas, helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical gas storage container to the claimed gas storage container, where the shape of the prior art vessel 2 (gas container) is spherical which is one of the disclosed shaped of the inventions gas container, where the fill rate is less than 100% which overlaps with the disclosed filling rate range of 60-99, and as material of the prior art combination porous material of a porous metal organic framework absorbent is one of the disclosed materials of the inventions porous material. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the gas storage container of the combination will not satisfy
∆
1
M
/
δ
1
M
≥
1.5 at 298 K for any gas selected from the group of nitrogen, oxygen, air, carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, natural gas, helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon. Otherwise a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112 & 2113
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps (US 3181589), Spencer (US 20160265724), and Lease (US 10082416) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nottingham (US 20020195471).
Claim 14: The combination does not disclose wherein the casing has rounded edges and corners.
Nottingham teaches a container 50 having corners 78 which are rounded for increased strength which may be required when the filled containers 50 are compressed during stacking (see fig. 1A and P. 0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have rounded the corners and edges of the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing), as taught by Nottingham, in order to increase the strength of the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing) and to lower the stress concentrations at the edges and corners.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps (US 3181589), Spencer (US 20160265724), and Lease (US 10082416) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Latimer (US 20180346314).
Claims 4 & 10: The combination does not disclose a grip that is an integrally-formed grip that spans a length of the casing of the portable gas storage container.
Latimer teaches a liquid container 200 having a first side handle 278 (integrally-formed grip) that spans a length of the liquid container 200 and extending across a concave portion 590 (see fig. 2A, 5, and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing) to have a concave portion 590 and a first side handle 278 (integrally-formed grip) spanning a length of the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing), as taught by Latimer, in order to provide an integrated means to grip and move the gas storage container which cannot be separated or lost.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps (US 3181589), Spencer (US 20160265724), and Lease (US 10082416) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Latimer (US 20180346314).
Claim 18: The combination does not disclose a grip that is an integrally-formed grip that spans a length of the casing of the portable gas storage container.
Latimer teaches a liquid container 200 having a first side handle 278 (integrally-formed grip) that spans a length of the liquid container 200 and extending across a concave portion 590 (see fig. 2A, 5, and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing) to have a concave portion 590 and a first side handle 278 (integrally-formed grip) spanning a length of the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing), as taught by Latimer, in order to provide an integrated means to grip and move the gas storage container which cannot be separated or lost.
Claim 20: The combination discloses wherein the port with sensors, processor 174 (central processing unit), and transceiver 50 (wireless communication module) (gas remaining amount measurement module) further comprises a sensor to monitor temperature (temperature sensor) connected to the processor 174 (central processing unit) (see P. 0047 ‘724).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps (US 3181589), Spencer (US 20160265724), and Lease (US 10082416) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Dinouard (US 5984132).
Claim 9: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein the gas outlet is entirely contained within the recess such that the gas outlet does not protrude beyond the periphery of an outer surface of the casing of the portable gas storage container.
Dinouard teaches a gas container installed in a casing and a gas outlet extending from the gas container positioned in a first casing recess in an exterior surface of the casing, wherein the gas outlet is entirely contained within the first casing recess such that the gas outlet does not protrude beyond the periphery of an outer surface of the casing (see annotated fig. 3 below and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the portable gas storage container of Phelps such that the valve means 10 (gas outlet) was entirely contained within the recess such that the valve means 10 (gas outlet) did not protrude beyond the periphery of the outer surface of the shock-absorbent material 72 (casing), as taught by Dinouard, in order to better protect the valve means 10 (gas outlet) from damage and impacts.
PNG
media_image2.png
432
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps (US 3181589), Spencer (US 20160265724), Lease (US 10082416), and Latimer (US 20180346314) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Dinouard (US 5984132).
Claim 19: See claim 9 above.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraphs 2-7 of office action dated 20 August 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 20 November 2025.
The specification objections in paragraphs 8-11 of office action dated 20 August 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 20 November 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 12-17 of office action dated 20 August 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 20 November 2025.
Examiner reminds applicant that all changes to the drawings shall be explained, in detail, in either the drawing amendment or remarks section of the amendment paper as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.121. As applicant has failed to do so, Examiner herewith requires a marked-up copy of any further amended drawing figures including annotations indicating the changes made.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Spencer appears to have disclosed “a port that connects the interior vessel volume with the external environment” and since the vessel of Spencer lacks any casing, such a port would apparently be “visible from outside” of the vessel (portable gas storage container), the Examiner responds that this argument is a piecemeal analysis of the references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971)
In response to applicant’s argument that it would be hindsight to assume that the port be easily located between the casing and the gas container (so not to be in visual display from the outside) “to protect the port with sensors from impacts and weather,” as neither Phelps nor Spencer has disclosed, taught, or suggested such idea and that neither Spencer nor Lease suggests the module being “installed in the space between the casing and the gas container so as not to be visible from outside (of the portable gas storage container)”, the Examiner replies that “[T]he rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it can be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law”. MPEP 2144 I.
In response to applicant’s argument that Lease appears to have disclosed a liquid level gauge with integral electronic display as suggested by the title (LIQUID LEVEL GAUGE WITH INTEGRAL ELECTRONIC DISPLAY) and claim 1 of Lease where the essential part of the claimed invention is to have an integral electronic display for showing the status of the tank, which is contrary to the presently claimed invention, in which the module is installed “so as not to be visible from outside (of the portable gas storage container)”, the Examiner replies that this argument is a piecemeal analysis of the references. Lease discloses that a user 40 is able to receive and view information on a display 45 associated with a smart device 46 via wireless communications (see fig. 1 and C. 3 L. 60-67). In the rejection at hand, Lease is relied upon for teaching an electronic assembly 56 including a pressure sensor 178 connected to the holding tank 28, a processor 174 (central processing unit) connected to the pressure sensor 178, and a transceiver 50 (wireless communication module) cooperating with the processor 174 (central processing unit) (see fig. 1 and 6) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have modified the port with sensors to include a processor 174 (central processing unit) cooperating with the sensor for monitoring pressure (gas pressure sensor) and a transceiver 50 (wireless communication module) cooperating with the processor 174 (central processing unit) in order to permit a user to retrieve information about the vessel 2 (gas container) remotely. Lease is not relied upon for any teaching of a display as part of the gas remaining amount measurement module, and no display is included in the gas remaining amount measurement module of the combination of references.
In response to applicant’s argument that neither Spencer nor Lease suggests the module “is without display”, the Examiner replies that this argument is a piecemeal analysis of the references. Further, Spencer does not appear to suggest any display. Additionally, the combination of references does not introduce any display or modify the primary reference to include any display as part of the gas remaining amount measurement module.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736