DETAILED ACTION
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
Claim 83 is rejoined.
Examiner Comment
The applicant is thanked for providing line numbers to the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 62, 65-68, 70-73, 77, 79, 81, 83-85 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claims 62, 65-67, 84, the recitation, “the plurality of rods” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing that which was already previously introduced “rods” and it is unclear what is included by the reintroduction.
In regard to claim 83, it is unclear if these orthogonal rods are the same or other rods as introduced in claim 62,
In regard to claim 85, the recitation, “the connection” lacks proper antecedent basis.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 62, 66, 70, 71, 81, 83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Leary (US 2119438).
In regard to claim 62, O’Leary teaches a storage tank (receptacle, column 1, line 1-5; see whole disclosure; see quadrilateral container), comprising:
an inner vessel (formed by inner wall of 6, hereafter simply 6), wherein the inner vessel (interior of 5) comprises an outer wall (outward surface of 6) that is shaped to form a plurality of recesses (see 47) extending into the inner vessel (6);
an outer vessel (see 1, 5, 9, hereafter 1, 5), wherein the inner vessel (6) is arranged within the outer vessel (9); and
a first support system (see identified structures herein, at least 39), wherein the first support system (39) comprises a plurality of rods (39) connecting the inner vessel (6) to the outer vessel (9), and wherein the plurality of rods (39) are attached to the inner vessel (6) in the recesses (47), and the plurality of rods (39) comprises at least a first rod (see 39 on one wall) and a second rod (see 39 on perpendicular wall), and wherein the first and second rods are orthogonal to each other (see rods 39 of perpendicular walls are orthogonal to each other).
In regard to claim 66, O’Leary teaches that the inner vessel (6) comprises at least one pin (48), and wherein at least one of the plurality of the rods (39) is arranged over (see covers the pin) a pin (48) of the inner vessel (6).
In regard to claim 70, O’Leary teaches that the inner vessel (6) and the outer vessel (1, 5) are non-cylindrical (see they are rectangular vessels).
In regard to claim 71, O’Leary teaches that the outer vessel (1, 5) comprises at least six flat surfaces (right, left, front, back, top, bottom).
In regard to claim 81, O’Leary teaches that the storage tank does not comprise bunding (see figure, no external support).
In regard to claim 83, O’Leary teaches that the first support system (at least 39) comprises an n x m x o array of orthogonal rods (39 of every orthogonal wall) including the rods of claim 62.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 62, 65-68, 70-73, 77, 79-80, 82-83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAllister (US 5011729) in view of Shima (WO 2016/174837).
In regard to claim(s) 62, 77, McAllister teaches a storage tank (container, column 1, line 15-20; see whole disclosure; see quadrilateral container made from the disclosed panels), comprising:
an inner vessel (enclosure formed by inner 30, including 26, 26’, 26”), wherein the inner vessel (enclosure formed by inner 30) comprises an outer wall (outward surface of inner 30, 26, 26’, 26”) that is shaped to form a plurality of recesses (portions of 30 toward interior of container formed by panels where 41 interacts with 30, see Fig. 2, 3, 8, 13; hereafter inward protrusions) extending into the inner vessel (enclosure formed by 30) (see that the identified protrusions extend further into the vessel than concave portions of 30);
an outer vessel (enclosure formed by 22, 23), wherein the inner vessel (enclosure formed by inner 30) is arranged within the outer vessel (enclosure formed by 22, 23); and
a first support system (see identified structures herein, at least 40, 41, 45), wherein the first support system (40, 41, 45) comprises a plurality of rods (45, Fig. 4, 5, 7) connecting the inner vessel (enclosure formed by inner 30) to the outer vessel (enclosure formed by 22, 23), and wherein the plurality of rods (45) are attached to (interpreted as having at least some connection, including via intermediary structures) the inner vessel (enclosure formed by 30) in the recesses (inward protrusions), and the plurality of rods (45) comprises at least a first rod (at least one rod 45 within at least one panel of the six faces of the quadrilateral container, for example the left and right sides of the container) and a second rod (at least one rod in the panels of the top or bottom faces), and wherein the first and second rods are orthogonal to each other (see rods 45 of the left and right panels being orthogonal to the rods in the top and bottom panels).
McAllister teaches that the storage tank is for storing refrigerated materials (column 2, line 30) and teaches that the vacuum insulated panel can be used for transportation and shipping (column 2, line 29). Further, it is well known to transport cryogenic fuels as taught by Shima. Shima teaches it is known to use vacuum insulation panels (see fig. 1, page 4) on a vehicle (Fig. 4A, tanker page 12, or truck or car - page 18-19), comprising: a storage tank for storing a cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen, page 15, LNG tank page 18), the vehicle (tanker or truck or automobile page 18-19) having an engine and a fuel delivery system coupled to the engine (implicit to vehicle description). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the vacuum insulation panels of McAllister in forming a cryogenic liquid container on a vehicle for the purpose of providing the structural benefits of McAllister to vacuum insulation panels in applications of cryogenic liquid storage on a vehicle and thus extending the benefits of McAllister to storage of cryogenic liquid and for the purpose of transporting cryogenic liquid fuels.
In regard to claim 65, McAllister teaches one or more of the plurality of rods (45) of the first support system (40, 41, 45) is a hollow tube (45; column 7, line 25-30).
In regard to claim 66, McAllister teaches at least one of the outer vessel (enclosure of 22, 23) and inner vessel (enclosure of inner 30) comprises at least one pin (40, 41), and wherein at least one the plurality of rods (45) is arranged over a pin (40, 41) of the outer vessel (enclosure of 22, 23) or inner vessel (enclosure of inner 30).
In regard to claim 67, McAllister teaches at least one of the plurality of rods (45) is a tube (column 7, line 25-30) of composite material (column 6, line 59 “composite material”).
In regard to claim 68, McAllister teaches the outer vessel (enclosure of 22, 23) comprises a first plurality of pins (40), the inner vessel (enclosure of inner 30) comprises a second plurality of pins (41), and each of the rods (45) is connected to a pin (one of 40) of the first plurality (40) and a pin (one of 41) of the second plurality (41).
In regard to claim 70, McAllister teaches that the outer and inner vessels (enclosure of 22, 23 and enclosure of inner 30) are non-cylindrical (column 5, line 1-10).
In regard to claim 71, McAllister teaches that the outer vessel (enclosure of 22, 23) comprises at least six flat surfaces (see rectangular containers formed of panels including four sides and top and bottom).
In regard to claim(s) 79, 72, McAllister, as modified above, teaches that the storage tank (tank of McAllister applied to be LNG tank or liquid hydrogen tank) is an operative component of the vehicle (Shima - car, page 18-19) that is operative for purposes additional to fuel delivery or fuel storage (forms a structural portions of automobile) providing the obvious benefit of providing structural support for the vehicle.
In regard to claim(s) 80, 73, McAllister, as modified, teaches that the storage tank (tank of McAllister applied to be LNG tank or liquid hydrogen tank) is a structural wall (hull or floor, ceiling - Shima page 18-19) of the vehicle (tanker, automobile).
In regard to claim 81, McAllister teaches the storage tank (container) does not comprise a bunding (interpreted as an additional exterior support wall; see that the outer wall is the end of the container made of the panels as identified).
In regard to claim 82, McAllister teaches a space (vacuum space 32, column 6, line 55-60) between the inner vessel (enclosure of inner 30) and the outer vessel (enclosure of outer 22, 23).
In regard to claim 83, McAllister teaches that the first support system (at least 40, 41, 45) comprises an n x m x o array of orthogonal rods (see rods of three orthogonal walls, Fig. 15).
Claim(s) 84-85 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the obvious modification of O’Leary (US 2119438).
O’Leary teaches most of the claim limitations, including that at least one of the plurality of the rods (39) is attached to the inner vessel (6) at a steel pin (48) (page 2, line 10-15, column 1). But does not explicitly state that the steel pin (48) is welded to the inner vessel (6). However, O’Leary, teaches the steel pin (48) is suitably sealed (page 2, column 1, line 14) and official notice is taken that welding is a well known way of sealing steel. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to weld the steel pin (48) to seal the vessel (6) to provide sealing in a well understood, cost effective, and robust manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive over the new grounds of rejection above.
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that the structure of McAllister is not a cryogenic storage vessel. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the structure of McAllister is fully capable of performing the function of storing a cryogenic liquid. McAllister is explicitly disclosed as a storage container (column 1, line 13-22) and the actual substance being stored is merely a functional use of the structure. The structure is clearly capable of the functional use and the allegation is wholly unpersuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 9-10) are that the applicant fails to recognize the recesses of McAllister and alleges that the identified support rods are not attached to the recesses. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive, since the recesses of McAllister are explicitly attached to (as they are physically touching and interacting with) the recesses (inward protrusions). Therefore the allegation is wholly unpersuasive.
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 JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
