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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 9/24/ 2025:
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-16 are pending
Claims 2, 5-7 are cancelled
Claim 17 is withdrawn
The 103 rejection of Claim 1 set forth in the previous Office Action is altered in light of the amendment and arguments.
The objection to the disclosure due to informalities in the previous Office Action is overcome by Applicant' s amendments to the specification in the response
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.
4. Claim 1 is 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 wall structure" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim cites a composite laminate wall, but does not specifically state a wall structure. Hence, the metes and bounds of this claim are unclear. For examination purposes, the wall structure is considered to be the stacked layers of the composite laminate wall, in addition, to the porous and non-porous layers.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1, 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leavitt et al. (US 20130341235-A1) in view of Piao et al (CN 211694340-U; machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1,
Leavitt teaches a high pressure storage vessel (Paragraph [0001], [0002], hydrogen storage tank), comprising: inner composite structure (annotated Figure 10 Element 260, composite laminate wall); porous layer (annotated Figure 10 Element 230, hydrogen-porous layer); outer polymeric layer (annotated Figure 10 Element 220, hydrogen non-porous layer). Considering the boxed, annotated figure below, the hydrogen non-porous layer is an outermost layer of the wall structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Leavitt does not explicitly teach an output port for venting hydrogen which passes through the composite laminate wall and the hydrogen porous layer from the interior of the tank.
However, Piao teaches a storage tank with an open foam layer provided with multiple groups of exhaust pipe that pass through the closed foam layer and communicate with the connection pipe (Piao: Paragraph [0005]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrogen storage tank disclosed by Leavitt by adding at least one output port/exhaust pipe as disclosed by Piao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid deterioration caused by gas leakage, and to avoid explosion risk caused by gas leakage (Piao: Paragraph [0005]).
PNG
media_image2.png
629
1167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to the recited feature of the hydrogen-porous layer being permanently mechanically deformable, such defines the layer by what it does or capable of doing, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim 1. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Leavitt and Piao teach the claimed structure as stated above, and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed. The instant specification states that the hydrogen porous layer may be an open cell foam layer or a layer of fibrous material (Page 2, lines 3-5); there is no further structure or feature described regarding the ability of the layer to be “permanently deformable”. Leavitt teaches that the porous layer comprises wound fibers (Paragraph 0037), and Piao teaches that layer 2 is figure 1 is open foam layer. These materials exhibit the property of being mechanically deformable.
In addition, with respect to the hydrogen non-porous layer being separable from the hydrogen-porous layer and replaceable separate from the hydrogen-porous layer, such defines the layer by what it does or capable of doing, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim 1. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Leavitt and Piao teach the claimed structure as stated above, and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed under certain conditions. Further MPEP 2144.04, states that making separable is a common practice that is considered routine expedients, and hence simply making the outer layer separable and replaceable without the indication of any limiting conditions is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Leavitt and Piao. The instant specification states that the hydrogen non-porous layer is separable from the hydrogen porous layer and replaceable since it is the outer layer of the tank (Page 4, lines 28-32). This does not provide any further structure regarding the ability of the later to be “separable and replaceable”.
Regarding Claim 3,
Leavitt teaches that the porous layer is of wound fibers in Paragraph [0037] (Figure 7, Element 30, layer of fibrous material). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the porous layer with fibrous material to provide one or more pathways about and across the pressure vessel (Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 4,
Leavitt teaches that polymeric layer (Paragraph [0042], non-porous layer) is of rubber films, vulcanized rubber, thermoset polymer (Paragraph [0042], rubber-based or polymeric layer). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have add a polymeric layer to provide a barrier to resist gas flow beyond porous layer (Paragraph [0041]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Leavitt and Piao in view of He et al (International journal of hydrogen energy 41.35 (2016): 15812–15816).
Leavitt and Piao do teach a hydrogen storage tank that is generally cylindrical. Leavitt and Piao do not teach a hydrogen storage tank comprising impact protecting ribs on the exterior of the tank that extend azimuthally or longitudinally.
However, He teaches longitudinal beams and ribs on hydrogen storage tanks (Figure 3, b and c). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use braces and ribs to increase heave load and heave safety for hydrogen storage tanks.
PNG
media_image3.png
184
563
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable as applied to Claim 8, over Leavitt, Piao, and He in view of Sharp et al (US Patent 5,167,142).
Leavitt, Piao, and He do not teach that the ribs are integral or applied to the non-porous layer (per Claim 8).
However, Sharp teaches a cylindrical shaped wall including the support ribs, and by adding the support ribs to the outer surface (Column 1, Lines 54 – Column 2, Line 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the ribs integral or applied to the exterior to add strength to the tank (Column 1, Line 59).
Claims 11, 12, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Leavitt and Piao, in view of Suzuki et al (US 20030022034-A1).
Regarding Claims 11, 12, 13, and 14, Leavitt and Piao do not teach a measuring system for measuring the flowrate of hydrogen passing through the output port of the hydrogen storage tank, fuel cell/gas turbine, and compressor in conveying system.
However, Suzuki teaches an apparatus for controlling power from fuel cell that consists of hydrogen reservoir (Figure 2, Element 215; hydrogen storage tank) in line with hydrogen flowmeter (Figure 2, Element 213; measuring system for flowrate of hydrogen), compressor (Figure 2, Element 203), and fuel cell stack (Figure 2, Element 201). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the storage tank with flowrate measurement, fuel cell/gas turbine and compressor to ensure proper hydrogen supply.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Leavitt and Piao in view of Brewer G (‘Hydrogen Aircraft Technology’. First edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2017, Chapter 4, ‘Subsonic transport aircraft’).
Leavitt and Piao do not teach an aircraft comprising hydrogen storage tank per Claim 1.
However, Brewer teaches an aircraft comprising a hydrogen fuel tank (Chapter 4, ‘Subsonic transport aircraft’). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the storage tank with an aircraft to supply fuel according to a specified flow/pressure schedule to the engines.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Leavitt, Piao, and Suzuki in view of Brewer G (‘Hydrogen Aircraft Technology’. First edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2017, Chapter 4, ‘Subsonic transport aircraft’).
Leavitt, Piao, and Suzuki do not teach an aircraft comprising apparatus per Claim 12.
However, Brewer teaches hydrogen fuel system comprising tank, fuel transfer piping, and aircraft engine used in aircrafts (Chapter 4, ‘Subsonic transport aircraft’). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the storage tank with an aircraft to supply fuel according to a specified flow/pressure schedule to the engines.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 rejection in this office action based on Leavitt and Piao has been elaborated on towards the amendments of Claim 1.
For Claim 1, applicant argues that Leavitt fails to teach that the hydrogen non-porous layer forms an outermost layer of the wall structure. As seen in the annotated figure in the 103 rejection section, the hydrogen non-porous layer is an outermost layer of the wall structure. The claim is open ended, and does not limit the configuration of the non-porous layer of the hydrogen storage tank. In other words, other layers may be included thereon.
Applicant further argues that would be impossible for the outermost layer of Leavitt to be separable and replaceable. Any layer is separable under certain conditions, and can be replaced. See 103 rejection of Claim 1 above for details.
Applicant argues that Leavitt teaches a material that is not permanently mechanically deformable. The materials used in Leavitt and Piao match the materials in the instant specification for the hydrogen-porous layer. These materials are mechanically deformable under certain conditions. The applicant offers no other structural distinction or feature beyond that as noted in the instant specification.
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 Examiner Suhani Patel, whose telephone number is 571-272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm
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.
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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights