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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/6/2026 has been entered.
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 67 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 67 recites "a first access pipe of said one or more access pipes has a different diameter than a second access pipe of said one or more access pipes” which is considered indefinite as the claims have not positively recited there is a first or second access pipe so it is unclear if this limitation is reciting such that they are present or only applies when they are present. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the one or more access pipes is considered be further limited to containing two access pipes configured as claimed.
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.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not 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 not 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 function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) 77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silver et al. (US Patent No. 4496073), hereinafter referred to as Silver
With respect to claim 77, Silver (Figure 6A) teaches a cryogenic storage tank (the overall invention is a cryogenic storage tank, Column 3, line 15) comprising an outer tank (external shell 24, Column 8, line 21), a cylindrical inner tank (internal storage tank 20 which is a cylinder, Column 8, lines 15-20),
first and second support means (ring 32, 22a, tubular support section, and ring 30 as well as the other set of 30, 22b and 32 work as a support structure, Column 8, lines 6-14, where the first set is the first support means, and the second set is the second support means),
wherein the first and second support means are attached at opposing ends of the inner vessel (as seen in Figure 6A, the two components 32 are at opposing ends of the vessel).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 59-63, 71, 73-76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver and further in view of Yang (US PG Pub 20080053993), hereinafter referred to as Yang.
With respect to claim 59, Silver teaches a storage system (Figure 6a), the storage system comprising: an outer vessel (external shell 24, Column 8, line 21), an inner vessel arranged within the outer shell (internal storage tank, 20, Column 8, line 20),
a support structure connecting the inner vessel to the outer vessel (ring 32, 22a, tubular support section, and ring 30 as well as the other set of 30, 22b and 32 work as a support structure, Column 8, lines 6-14),
wherein the support structure comprises a first collar (the first combination of 32, 22a, 30 act as a support structure) and a second collar (the second combination of 32, 22b, 30 act as the second collar),
wherein the first and second collars are attached to opposing ends of the inner vessel and extend from the inner vessel along a longitudinal direction of the inner vessel (as seen in the figure, the attachment points of the rings 32 that are part of the collars is at opposing ends of the vessel and from the attachment points the collars extend along the vessel),
wherein at least one of the first or second collar surrounds at least a portion of the inner vessel (the cold ring surrounds the inner vessel at least in part as in 3b with the ring 30 shown in the figure, as the general configurations are the same, column 8, lines 4-5, so this would be both cold rings 32).
Silver does not teach the first collar has a surface with a plurality of openings arranged in a repeating pattern.
Yang (Figure 7) teaches the outer surface of a support member between walls (anchor member 131 paragraph 56) is provided with a series of repeating openings (a plurality of zig-zag through holes in the body of the anchor member are provided to extend a transfer path of the cold energy, paragraph 78).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a plurality of zig-zagging through-holes with a similar frequency as shown in Yang through on the outer surface of the attachment rings and support tube of the first collar of Silver based on the teachings of Yang in order to extend the transfer path of cold energy which would further prevent heat ingress to the inside of the inner vessel.
With respect to claim 60, Silver does not teach wherein the plurality of openings comprise a first row of openings and a second row of openings, and wherein the openings of the first row are offset from the openings of the second row (as modified with the zig-zagging pattern there are two rows).
With respect to claim 61, Silver teaches wherein the first collar as an outer surface (the surface walls of the ring).
With respect to claim 62, Silver does not teach wherein the repeating pattern of openings extends over more than 50% of the outer surface of the collar.
Silver as modified shows having the openings along some of the outer surface of the collar, but do not teach them extending over more than 50% of the outer surface of the collar.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have modified Silver so the openings extend over more 50% of the outer surface of the collar since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Silver et al. would not operate differently with the openings extending over the claimed outer surface of the collar since the use of openings as shown by Silver as modified would function approximately the same as the claimed openings. appropriately having the claimed diameter. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that there are multiple percentages of operation that the invention can be operating including 20-40%, and more than 50% (paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 63, Silver as modified teaches one or more access pipes for input or extraction of cryogenically stored liquids or gases (although not shown, the necessary piping for delivery of cryogenic fluid into and from within the storage tank is present, Column 5, lines 64- Column 6, line 3).
With respect to claim 71, Silver as modified does not teach wherein the second collar has at least one surface with a plurality of openings in a repeating pattern.
Yang (Figure 7) teaches the outer surface of a support member between walls (anchor member 131 paragraph 56) is provided with a series of repeating openings (a plurality of zig-zag through holes in the body of the anchor member are provided to extend a transfer path of the cold energy, paragraph 78).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a plurality of zig-zagging through-holes through on the outer surface of the other cold attachment rings, hot attachment rings and support tube of Silver based on the teachings of Yang in order to extend the transfer path of cold energy which would further prevent heat ingress to the inside of the inner vessel.
With respect to claim 73, Silver does not teach wherein at least one collar of the support structure has a frusto-conical shape.
Yang teaches that an anchor member which acts as a support between an inner and outer wall has a frustoconical body (paragraph 76).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill art at the time the invention was filed for the body of one of the cold attachment ring of Silver to have had a frusto-conical shape (the top has a smaller width than the bottom with a truncated tip) since it has been shown that combining prior rat elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using a frusto-conical shape would as would be common knowledge in the art decrease the heat transfer contact points on one side of the shape compared to the other which would decrease the overall heat transfer between the inner and outer vessels. Thus there is a frusto-conical shape in one of the collars.
With respect to claim 74, Silver as modified teaches wherein at least one surface of the support structure has a folded layout (the support structure goes from the cold ring 2 to the support section 22a to the hot ring 30, Column 8, lines 6-10, which forms a total outer surface starting where the ring contacts the inner vessel, and passes then along a side of 22a and then up the outer ring 30, which outer surface can be considered folded as it has turns within it).
With respect to claim 75, Silver as modified teaches wherein one or more of the inner and outer vessels has a non-cylindrical shape (Silver teaches while the cylinders are shown having a circular cross-action, the internal storage tank can have a general ellipsoidal cross-section, Column 8, lines 19-20).
With respect to claim 76, Silver as modified teaches the repeating pattern of openings comprises at least 5 rows of openings (the zigzags in Silver form a series of repeated patterns of around the collar which can be considered to be there are at least 5 rows formed by each pair of zig-zagging openings).
Claim(s) 64-65, 68-69, 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver/Yang and further in view of Lowry (US Patent No. 5956957), hereinafter referred to as Lowry.
With respect to claim 64, Silver as modified does not teach wherein at least one of said access pipes is attached to at least one of the first or second collar of the support structure.
Lowry teaches that an intermediate wall (80) which surrounds an inner vessel can be wrapped with tubing (84) connected to the boil-off tubing form the tank which intercepts heat flowing to the tank of liquid (Column 5, lines 20-34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had a boil-off tubing from the tank (an access pipe) wrapped around a support tube (and thus attached to) of Silver based on the teaching of Lowry in order to intercept heat flowing to the tank from outside the vessel.
With respect to claim 65, Silver as modified does not teach wherein at least one of said access pipes is wrapped around at least one of the first collar or the second collar of the support structure.
Lowry teaches that an intermediate wall (80) which surrounds an inner vessel can be wrapped with tubing (84) connected to the boil-off tubing form the tank which intercepts heat flowing to the tank of liquid (Column 5, lines 20-34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had a boil-off tubing from the tank (an access pipe) wrapped around a support tube of Silver based on the teaching of Lowry in order to intercept heat flowing to the tank from outside the vessel.
With respect to claims 68-69, Lowry teaches further comprising an intermediate layer interposed between the inner and outer vessels of the system, wherein the intermediate layer is a mechanically solid support structure, wherein the intermediate layer is a mechanically solid support structure.
Lowry teaches that thermal shield (80) can be placed inside an outer overall tank (cryostat 40) surrounds an inner vessel can be wrapped with tubing (84) connected to the boil-off tubing from the tank which intercepts heat flowing to the tank of liquid (Column 5, lines 20-34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a thermal shield between the inner and outer tank of Silver as modified which has boil-off gas tubing wrapped around it based on the teaching of Lowry in order to intercept heat flowing to the inner tank. A thermal shield is a mechanically solid structure is provided thermal support.
With respect to claim 70, Silver as modified teaches the storage system further comprising: an intermediate layer interposed between the inner and outer vessels of the system, wherein at least one access pipe is wrapped around the intermediate layer.
Lowry teaches that thermal shield (80) can be placed inside an outer overall tank (cryostat 40) surrounds an inner vessel can be wrapped with tubing (84) connected to the boil-off tubing from the tank which intercepts heat flowing to the tank of liquid (Column 5, lines 20-34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a thermal shield between the inner and outer tank of Silver as modified which has boil-off gas tubing wrapped around it based on the teaching of Lowry in order to intercept heat flowing to the inner tank.
In a different interpretation of claim 59 with respect to claim 79.
Claim(s) 59-63, 71, 73-76, 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver and further in view of Yang (US PG Pub 20080053993), hereinafter referred to as Yang.
With respect to claim 59, Silver teaches a storage system (Figure 6a), the storage system comprising: an outer vessel (external shell 24, Column 8, line 21), an inner vessel arranged within the outer shell (internal storage tank, 20, Column 8, line 20),
a support structure connecting the inner vessel to the outer vessel (ring 32, 22a, tubular support section, and ring 30 as well as the other set of 30, 22b and 32 work as a support structure, Column 8, lines 6-14),
wherein the support structure comprises a first collar (the first combination of 32, 22a, 30 act as a support structure) and a second collar (the second combination of 32, 22b, 30 act as the second collar),
Silver (with respect to the interpretation of claim 79) does not teach wherein the first and second collars are attached to opposing ends of the inner vessel and extend from the inner vessel along a longitudinal direction of the inner vessel,
Silver teaches that the specific location of the cold or hot attachment rings is not required and that the hot attachment rings can be (as seen in figure 5) attached to the rounded cap (26) at the end of the outer vessel and the cold attachment rings can be attached to the rounded cap (28) of the internal tank (Column 9, lines 5-21).
Therefore it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the two cold attachment rings (32) of Figure 6A of Silver to have been attached to the end caps on each side of the internal storage tank and the hot attachment rings (30) to have been attached to the end caps of the external shell (which would have the tubes 22a/22b passing between them) as it has been held that a rearrangement of parts is obvious when the arrangement would not have modified the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (MPEP 2144.04 VI C) whereby putting the rings attached to the respective end caps would not change the operation provided by the support system, only change the location it is in. This would place each cold attachment ring along rounded cap of each side (end) of the inner storage vessel with the tube extending to the hot attachment ring placed somewhere along the rounded cap of the outer storage vessel, which means that at least some part of the overall collar structure would extend away from the round cap and thus along the longitudinal axis. As it is known to place them on the respective caps, where to place them would be within the obviousness of the rearrangement of parts as long as each side had the respective collars present, but a side view for example could look similar to that of Figure 8A), where the cold attachment is placed on the end rounded cap such that it curves along part of it with (one or more, taught by Silver in the same section above in Column 9 as well as Column 8, lines 61-68) or like the annotated figure below with the same structure on each side. The cold attachment ring would still surround at least part of the vessel as it still a ring that is along the structure, it would just be attached around the cap and the annotated figure would be mirrored with 22b on the other side albeit with a slightly different shape that would be necessary for it to form a ring on the cap.
PNG
media_image1.png
186
172
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6B
Silver does not teach the first collar has a surface with a plurality of openings arranged in a repeating pattern.
Yang (Figure 7) teaches the outer surface of a support member between walls (anchor member 131 paragraph 56) is provided with a series of repeating openings (a plurality of zig-zag through holes in the body of the anchor member are provided to extend a transfer path of the cold energy, paragraph 78).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a plurality of zig-zagging through-holes with a similar frequency as shown in Yang through on the outer surface of the attachment rings and support tube of the first collar of Silver based on the teachings of Yang in order to extend the transfer path of cold energy which would further prevent heat ingress to the inside of the inner vessel.
With respect to claim 60, Silver does not teach wherein the plurality of openings comprise a first row of openings and a second row of openings, and wherein the openings of the first row are offset from the openings of the second row (as modified with the zig-zagging pattern there are two rows).
With respect to claim 61, Silver teaches wherein the first collar as an outer surface (the surface walls of the ring).
With respect to claim 62, Silver does not teach wherein the repeating pattern of openings extends over more than 50% of the outer surface of the collar.
Silver as modified shows having the openings along some of the outer surface of the collar, but do not teach them extending over more than 50% of the outer surface of the collar.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have modified Silver so the openings extend over more 50% of the outer surface of the collar since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Silver et al. would not operate differently with the openings extending over the claimed outer surface of the collar since the use of openings as shown by Silver as modified would function approximately the same as the claimed openings. appropriately having the claimed diameter. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that there are multiple percentages of operation that the invention can be operating including 20-40%, and more than 50% (paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 63, Silver as modified teaches one or more access pipes for input or extraction of cryogenically stored liquids or gases (although not shown, the necessary piping for delivery of cryogenic fluid into and from within the storage tank is present, Column 5, lines 64- Column 6, line 3).
With respect to claim 71, Silver as modified teaches wherein the support structure comprise a second collar (as seen in the figure there are two rings 32, so the other ring 32 would be the second collar).
Silver as modified does not teach wherein the second collar has at least one surface with a plurality of openings in a repeating pattern.
Yang (Figure 7) teaches the outer surface of a support member between walls (anchor member 131 paragraph 56) is provided with a series of repeating openings (a plurality of zig-zag through holes in the body of the anchor member are provided to extend a transfer path of the cold energy, paragraph 78).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a plurality of zig-zagging through-holes through on the outer surface of the other cold attachment ring, hot attachment ring and support tube of Silver based on the teachings of Yang in order to extend the transfer path of cold energy which would further prevent heat ingress to the inside of the inner vessel.
With respect to claim 73, Silver does not teach wherein at least one collar of the support structure has a frusto-conical shape.
Yang teaches that an anchor member which acts as a support between an inner and outer wall has a frustoconical body (paragraph 76).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill art at the time the invention was filed for the body of one of the cold attachment ring of Silver to have had a frusto-conical shape (the top has a smaller width than the bottom with a truncated tip) since it has been shown that combining prior rat elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using a frusto-conical shape would as would be common knowledge in the art decrease the heat transfer contact points on one side of the shape compared to the other which would decrease the overall heat transfer between the inner and outer vessels. Thus there is a frusto-conical shape in one of the collars.
With respect to claim 74, Silver as modified teaches wherein at least one surface of the support structure has a folded layout (the support structure goes from the cold ring 2 to the support section 22a to the hot ring 30, Column 8, lines 6-10, which forms a total outer surface starting where the ring contacts the inner vessel, and passes then along a side of 22a and then up the outer ring 30, which outer surface can be considered folded as it has turns within it).
With respect to claim 75, Silver as modified teaches wherein one or more of the inner and outer vessels has a non-cylindrical shape (Silver teaches while the cylinders are shown having a circular cross-action, the internal storage tank can have a general ellipsoidal cross-section, Column 8, lines 19-20).
With respect to claim 76, Silver as modified teaches the repeating pattern of openings comprises at least 5 rows of openings (the zigzags in Silver form a series of repeated patterns of around the collar which can be considered to be there are at least 5 rows formed by each pair of zig-zagging openings).
With respect to claim 79, Silver as modified teaches wherein at least one of the first or second collars has a diameter that is less than a maximum diameter of the inner storage vessel (as one of the cold attachment rings is attached to the round cap of the inner storage vessel, part of it would be on a part of the round cap that is with respect to the longitudinal axis of the inner storage vessel, such as the bottom part of 32 shown in Annotated Figure 6B, which when forming a ring with the overall end cap, would have at least one diameter formed which has a diameter smaller than the diameter of the cylindrical section of the inner storage vessel, this can also be seen in Annotated Figure below which shows a front profile of the inner storage vessel looking at the round cap as an example of a configuration within the scope of the modification that would be present in the inner storage vessel as modified).
PNG
media_image2.png
133
117
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated sideview of modification.
Claim(s) 66 (in both interpretations of claim 59), 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver/Yang and further in view of Lee et al. (US Patent No. 201803278056), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
With respect to claim 66, Silver as modified does not teach wherein the outer vessel comprise one or more extension regions, and wherein at least one of the access pipes is located at least partially in an extension region of the outer vessel.
Lee (Figure 2) teaches that an LNG storage tank (100) which has a vapor-boil off line (L10) (paragraph 48) which passes from a neck of the tank (see Figure at top of 100). A neck can be considered an extension.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Lee for the outer vessel (external shell) of Silver to have had a neck connected to a vapor outlet line since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing neck (an extension) would provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of a location for the vapor removed from the tank to concentrate for removal as well as location that can be used for multiple tank penetrations such as instrumentation if necessary that can be readily sealed.
With respect to claim 78, Silver (Figure 5A) comprising a storage tank (the overall invention is a cryogenic storage tank, Column 3, line 15) wherein the tank comprises an inner vessel (internal storage tank 20, Column 8, line 20) and an outer vessel (external shell 24, Column 8, line 21), and a support structure connecting the inner vessel to the outer vessel (ring 32, 22a, tubular support section, and ring 30 as well as the other set of 30, 22b and 32 work as a support structure, Column 8, lines 6-14),
wherein the support structure comprises a first collar (the first combination of 32, 22a, 30 act as a support structure) and a second collar (the second combination of 32, 22b, 30 act as the second collar),
wherein the first and second collars are attached to opposing ends of the inner vessel and extend from the inner vessel along a longitudinal direction of the inner vessel (as seen in the figure, the attachment points of the rings 32 that are part of the collars is at opposing ends of the vessel and from the attachment points the collars extend along the vessel),
wherein at least one of the first or second collar surrounds at least a portion of the inner vessel (the cold ring surrounds the inner vessel at least in part as in 3b with the ring 30 shown in the figure, as the general configurations are the same, column 8, lines 4-5, so this would be both cold rings 32).
Silver as modified does not teach the storage tank is part of a fuel delivery system for a vehicle with an engine operatively connected to the storage tank and configured to operate using fuel from the storage tank. Though not specifically taught as part of a vehicle, Silver does consider the idea of the tank being part of transporting vehicle and recognizes that cryogenic tanks can be on vehicles which use LNG as propellant (Column 1, lines 29-34).
Lee teaches a transportation and storage system for LNG (paragraph 2) as part of a vessel which allows some of the boil-off gas to be consumed by an engine (paragraphs 11-13).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Lee for the tank of Silver to have contained a fuel and boil-off formed in the tank of Silver to have been used for powering the engine of a ship that is used to transport the tank of LNG which would allow the boil-off gas to be vented If the pressure rises to high while being able to use it for powering the engine transporting the LNG so it is not wasted as boil-off gas is a loss (paragraph 5 of Lee).
Claim(s) 67 (in both interpretations of claim 59) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver/Yang and further in view of Eigenbrod (US Patent No. 3797262), hereinafter referred to as Eigenbrod.
With respect to claim 67, Silver does not teach wherein a first access pipe of said one or more access pipes has a different diameter than a second access pipe of said one or more access pipes, and wherein the first access pipe is for a gas and the second access pipe is for a liquid.
Eigenbrod (Figure 3) teaches that for a cryogenic fluid container (11) a gas vent-liquid conduit has a 0.125 diameter and a liquid withdrawal-gas vent conduit for the same tank has a diameter of 0.188 (Column 9, lines 26-59).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Eigenbrod to have had the access pipes of Silver include a gas vent liquid conduit and a liquid withdrawal-gas vent conduit which have different diameters since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby having two separate pipes each capable of gas or liquid passage at different diameters would have would have been common knowledge in the art to provide each access pipe with a different diameter to meet the individual need for the flowrate of each fluid through the pipe. As each pipe is for liquid or gas, there it meets the limitations as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 8, paragraph 1 that “the relied-upon rings are not attached to opposing ends of the inner vessel and extending form the inner vessel along a longitudinal direction of the inner vessel” as required by the clam language. This is not persuasive.
In the rejection above, the entirety of the structure (32/22a/30 and 32/22b/30) of Silver are interpreted as being the respective collars. While applicant is treating the ends of the inner vessel as the end caps themselves, the attachment point for the respective inner ring portion (32) of Silver are at opposing ends of the vessel, the claims do not require them to be at “distal portions” as argued only at opposing ends which is what is seen in Figure 6A as those are two different ends of the inner storage vessel. Further it should be noted, that in the additional rejection of claim 59, in view of claim of 69 it is shown in Silver that it is known to place the rings wherever desired effectively (Column 9, lines 5-25) which can show either interpretation of “end” obvious. Further, the entirety of the structure 32/22a/30 can be said to extend along the longitudinal axis with the support tube itself providing what can be considered an extension along the axis.
Applicant argues, page 9, that Lowry does not provide a teaching of an access pipe to a support collar, because the teaching in Lowry is to an intermediate wall, which applicant makes no argument against, and thus the modification to the claims of the pipes wrapped around the support collar as claimed, as the support tube itself is considered based on the interpretation of the amended claims to be part of the collar.
Applicant’s remaining remarks make no specific arguments as to how the limitations of the claims read over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights