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
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 § 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, 71-77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver et al. (US Patent No. 4496073), hereinafter referred to as 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 5A), 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 work as a support structure, Column 8, lines 6-14),
wherein the support structure comprises a first collar having (cold attachment ring 32, Column 8, line 9),
wherein the first collar surrounds at least a portion of the inner vessel (the cold ring surrounds the inner vessel, in the same way as in 3b with the ring 30 shown in the figure, as the general configurations are the same, Column 8, line 4-5).
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 cold attachment rings 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 rings 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 72, Silver teaches wherein the support structure further comprise a second collar (as seen in the figure there are two rings 32, so the other ring 32 would be the second collar), wherein the first and second collars are located at opposing ends of the inner vessel along a longitudinal direction of the inner vessel (the two collars are at opposite ends of the inner vessel as seen in the figure).
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 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.
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 the 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).
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 77, Silver (Figure 5A) 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), an inner tank (internal storage tank 20, Column 8, line 20), at least one support collar for mounting the inner tank within the outer tank ((cold attachment ring 32, Column 8, line 9),
wherein the at least one support collar surrounds at least a portion of the inner tank (the cold ring surrounds the inner vessel, in the same way as in 3b with the ring 30 shown in the figure as the general configurations are the same, Column 8, line 4-5).
Silver does not teach wherein the at last one support collar comprises a means for extending an effective heat path length between the outer tank to the inner tank.
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 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. The holes are the means as claimed.
Claim(s) 59-63, 71-77 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 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 the tubular support section (22a, which is an intermediate wall between the inner and outer vessels) of Silver based on the teaching of Lowry In order to intercept heat flowing to the tank from outside the vessel. As they are wrapped around the wall, they can be considered to be attached.
With respect to claim 65, Silver as modified does not teach wherein at least one of said access pipes is wrapped around 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 the tubular support section (22a, which is an intermediate wall between the inner and outer vessels) 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 68, Lowry teaches further comprising an intermediate layer interposed between the inner and outer vessels of the system (the other tubular support section 22b).
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 the tubular support section (22b, which is an intermediate wall between the inner and outer vessels) 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 69, Silver as modified teaches wherein the intermediate layer is a mechanically solid support structure (22b can be considered a mechanically solid support structure, as it is a tubular support section and thus has a physical structure which can be considered mechanically solid).
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 (the other tubular support section 22b).
Silver as modified does not teach wherein at least one access pipe is wrapped around the intermediate layer.
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 the tubular support section (22b, which is an intermediate wall between the inner and outer vessels) of Silver based on the teaching of Lowry In order to intercept heat flowing to the tank from outside the vessel.
Claim(s) 66, 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) comprising an outer tank (external shell 24, Column 8, line 21), an inner tank (internal storage tank 20, Column 8, line 20),
wherein the tank comprises an inner vessel and an outer vessel connected by a support structure that comprise a collar (32, 22a, 30 work as a support structure with cold attachment ring as the collar Column 8, lines 6-14),
wherein the collar surrounds at least a portion of the inner tank (the cold ring surrounds the inner vessel, in the same way as in 3b with the ring 30 shown in the figure as the general configurations are the same, Column 8, line 4-5).
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 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
In view of the amendments, the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 6/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) claims 59-78 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Silver.
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 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