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 Interpretation
Applicant defines the term “substantially quadrilateral shape” in paragraph [18].
”[0018] FIG. 2 is a sectional view taken along line II-II in FIG. 1. FIG. 2 shows the shape of the first section of the main body portion 20. As shown in FIG. 2, the first section has a substantially quadrilateral shape. The substantially quadrilateral shape means a shape having two pairs of planar surfaces facing each other (a pair of surfaces 25a, 25b and a pair of surfaces 26a, 26b) and four angles that connect those four surfaces. It is closer to reality to say that the four angles of the first section are curved in a curved shape than to say that the planar surfaces intersect with each other at a right angle. The planar surfaces facing each other and forming the first section do not necessarily need to be exactly in parallel to each other, and each planar surface may be slightly bowed.”
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the main body portion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which one of the plurality of main body portions is intended? Or, does this intend to mean “each main body portion?”
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the main body portion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "one end of a main body portion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. One of the plurality of main body portions introduced in claim 1? Or, is this another main body portion and the intent is to introduce another type of main body portion?
Re claim 3, the cap 40 is positioned at a terminal end which is not connected to a connecting portion (see Fig. 4). Why is the cap positioned on one end of the connection in series out of the main body portions? The terminal end would be opposed to the end that is connection in series end. Claim 3 is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the main body portion" in line 1. 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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondogiani et al. (US 2017/0030300) (Kondogiani) in view of Hauber (US 2022/0381401).
Kondogiani discloses a pressure vessel 102 as shown in Fig. 1 in which fluid is storable, the pressure vessel comprising: a plurality of main body portions (portions having unbent cylindrical walls of wider diameter) that each forms a space inside; and one or more connecting portions (bent portions) that each provide communication between the main body portions, wherein: the main body portion and the connecting portion are alternately connected in series and the connecting portion is bent. Kondogiani fails to show the main body section shape being substantially quadrilateral shape. Hauber teaches a substantially quadrilateral shape for a main body section and compares the substantially quadrilateral shape to a circular shape in Fig. 15. As stated in paragraph [75], the conformable pressure vessels 100b having the substantially quadrilateral shape wastes considerably less space than the pressure vessels 100a having a section of circular shape. 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 section to be substantially quadrilateral shape to conserve space (waste less space).
Re claim 5, a section of the connecting portion perpendicular to a flow path direction has a circular shape as shown in Fig. 1 of Kondogiani.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondogiani in view of Hauber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moret et al. (US 2024/0151352) (Moret) (cited by applicant).
Re claim 2, the combination fails to disclose a reinforcing member that connects a pair of surfaces facing each other. Moret teaches fibers 204 as best shown in Fig. 2A and 2B which extend transversely in a top to bottom direction to reinforce a pair of opposed, internal, surfaces facing each other and extend longitudinally (from left to right) within the wall material to terminate at the left and right ends of the tank 100. 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 fibers 204 as a reinforcing member that connects a pair of surfaces facing each other to each main body portion to strengthen the main body portions against internal bursting pressure forces.
Re claim 3, the fibers 204 are considered wire rods extending in the longitudinal direction (left to right in Moret’s Fig. 2A and 2B). The one or more wire rods being provided so as to sew up a place between the pair of surfaces as best shown in Fig. 2A and 2B as wire rods (fibers 204) are sewn into the wall material at the top and bottom wall portions. The combination fails to disclose a cap. Moret teaches a cap [either one of coupling 140 (shown in Fig. 1 and 4) and coupling 150 (shown in Fig. 1 and 5)] provided on one end of a main body portion positioned on one end (terminal end). 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 cap to provide for charging and discharging of gas. One end of the wire rod (fiber 204) is fixed, in both ends of the main body portion, to a position far from the cap. The caps (140, 150) are provided on both ends where the wire rod is fixed.
Re claim 4, the main body portion has a depression (depression between holding strips 160 as shown in Fig. 1) and protrusion shape (protruding holding strips 160 as shown in Fig. 1) along a shape of a vehicle body that defines at least a part of a space in which the pressure vessel is accommodated. The “shape of a vehicle body that defines at least a part of a space in which the pressure vessel is accommodated” is a functional limitation stating that the pressure vessel fits within a vehicle space for the pressure vessel. This pressure vessel is intended for holding hydrogen gas as the fuel for a vehicle. Therefore, the functional limitation is met.
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