DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2–5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites:
2. The subsea vessel according to claim 1, wherein the vessel comprises two flanges, and wherein each flange is connected to a respective one of the first and second longitudinal ends of the vessel. Emphasis added.
3. The subsea vessel according to claim 1, wherein the vessel comprises only one flange. Emphasis added.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if the “two flanges” refers to the “at least one flange” of claim 1, or to different flanges. Likewise, claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if the “only one flange” refers to the “at least one flange” of claim 1 or to a different flange. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claims 2 and 3 are interpreted to read:
2. The subsea vessel according to claim 1, wherein the at least one flange comprises two flanges, and wherein each flange is connected to a respective one of the first and second longitudinal ends of the vessel.
3. The subsea vessel according to claim 1, wherein the at least one flange comprises only one flange.
Claims 4 and 5 are indefinite because they depend from claim 3.
Claim 10 recites:
10. The subsea vessel according to claim 1, wherein the vessel comprises a galvanic coupling protection for the metal liner, the galvanic coupling protection being arranged between the metal liner and the load bearing structure. Emphasis added.
Claim 10 is indefinite because “the metal liner” lacks antecedent basis as claim 1 refers to “a liner.” For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 10 is interpreted to read:
10. The subsea vessel according to claim 1, wherein the vessel comprises a galvanic coupling protection for the
Claim 11 is indefinite because it depends from claim 10.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsuka et al., US 2012/0048862 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Otsuka teaches a cylindrical high-pressure tank 1, which reads on the claimed “cylindrical subsea vessel.” See Otsuka Fig. 1, [0033]. Note that the limitations describing the vessel as “subsea…for separation of a flow” fail to further limit the scope of the claim because they describe the intended use rather than the structure of the “vessel.” See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II (the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to alim construction where it merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention and the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention).
The tank 1 comprises left and right-hand ends (from the perspective of Fig. 1), which read on the claimed “first and second longitudinal ends.” See Otsuka Fig. 1, [0033].
The tank 1 also comprises a liner 20, which reads on the “liner.” See Otsuka Fig. 1, [0034].
The tank 1 further comprises a mouthpiece 11 at each end of the tank 1. See Otsuka Fig. 1, [0033]. Each mouthpiece 11 has an opening that can be fitted with valve assembly 50 to control supply or discharge of gas from the interior of the tank 1. Id. at Fig. 3, [0041]. The opening in one mouthpiece 11 reads on the “at least one fluid” and the opening of the other mouthpiece 11 reads on the “at least one fluid outlet.” The interior space of the tank 1 reads on the “inner volume of the vessel.”
The mouthpieces 11 read on the “at least one flange connected to one of the first and second longitudinal ends.” See Otsuka Fig. 1, [0033]. The mouthpieces 11 and the liner 20 “form the inner volume of the” tank 1, as claimed, because the liner 20 is on the inner side of the tank 1 (as seen in Fig. 3) and each mouthpiece 11 protrudes into the inner volume of the tank 1 thereby affecting the size of the interior space (also seen in Fig. 3). As noted, the one mouthpiece 11 comprises an opening forming the “inlet” and the other mouthpiece 11 comprises an opening form the “outlet.” The openings read on the ”at least one through-going opening forming the at least one fluid inlet and/or the at least one fluid outlet.”
The tank 1 further comprises a resin fiber layer (FRP layer 21) comprising a CFRP layer 21c, which reads on the “load bearing structure.” See Otsuka Fig. 1, [0034]. The CFRP layer 21c is arranged outside of the liner 20 and mouthpieces 11, as claimed. Id. at Figs. 1, 3, [0034]. The CFRP layer 21c is a “composite material,” as claimed, because it is formed by winding a carbon fiber bundle impregnated with a resin. Id. at [0042].
The liner 20 and the mouthpieces 11 can be made of aluminum. See Otsuka [0035], [0037]. This reads on “the liner and the at least one flange are made of the same metal material.”
PNG
media_image1.png
726
1192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Otsuka teaches that the tank 1 comprises two mouthpieces 11 (“two flanges”), wherein each mouthpiece 11 is connected to a respective one of the right and left-hand ends of the tank 1, as claimed. See Otsuka Fig. 1, [0033].
Regarding claim 6, Otsuka teaches that “all through-going openings for inlet and/or outlet of fluid into an out of the inner volume of the vessel are arranged in the at least one flange connected to the at least one longitudinal end of the vessel,” as claimed, because the mouthpieces 11 provide the only openings into the tank 1, as seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 7, Otsuka teaches that the composite material of the CFRP layer 21c (the “composite material of the load bearing structure”) comprises a carbon fiber reinforced polymer. See Otsuka Fig. 1, [0034], [0042].
Regarding claim 8, Otsuka teaches that the tank 1 comprises a GFRP layer 21g outside of the CFRP layer 21c (the “composite material”). See Otsuka Fig. 3, [0034]. The GFRP layer 21g reads on the “coating.”
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al., US 2012/0048862 A1 in view of Lee et al., US 2020/0271272 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Otsuka teaches the limitations of claim 8, as explained above.
Otsuka differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to the GFRP layer 21g (the “coating”) being a thermoplastic coating.
But Lee teaches a tank comprising a CFRP layer 74 (similar to the CFRP layer 21c of Otsuka) and a GFRP layer 72 (similar to the GFRP layer 21g) where the GFRP layer 72 comprises fiber reinforced plastic comprised of fibers wound around the tank and with resin with which the fibers are impregnated. See Lee Fig. 2, [0045]. The resin contained in each of the CFRP layer 74 and GFRP layer 72 can be a thermoplastic resin, such as a polyester or polyamide resin. Id. at [0048].
It would have been obvious for the GFRP layer 21g of Otsuka to be formed of fibers wound around the CFRP layer 21c with the fibers impregnated with a thermoplastic resin because Lee teaches that this is a suitable way of forming a GFRP layer for a tank. With this modification, the GFRP layer 21g of Otsuka is a “thermoplastic coating” as claimed.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al., US 2012/0048862 A1 in view of Takeuchi et al., US 2012/0325832 A1.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Otsuka teaches that the resin fiber layer 21 comprises a GFRP layer 21g in addition to the CFRP layer 21c. See Otsuka Fig. 1, [0034]. The GFRP layer 21g reads on the “galvanic coupling protection for the metal liner…[being] a Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP).”
Otsuka differs from claims 10 and 11 because it is silent as to the GFRP layer 21g being arranged between the liner 20 and the CFRP layer 21c (the “load bearing structure”), as claimed. But Otsuka is non-specific about the order of the CFRP layer 21c and the GFRP layer 21g, with paragraph [0034] merely saying that the fiber reinforcement layer 21 comprises these two layers. Also, Takeuchi teaches a tank 1 comprising a glass fiber reinforced plastic layer (GFRP layer) that is formed on the inner side of a carbon fiber reinforced plastic layer (CFRP layer). See Takeuchi [0067]. It would have been obvious for the GFRP layer 21g of Otsuka to be arranged between the liner 20 and the CFRP layer 21c because Takeuchi teaches that it is suitable for a GFRP layer to be on the inner side of a CFRP layer when manufacturing a tank.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 or 103
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsubo, US 2019/0195428 A1 or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo in view of Otsuka et al., US 2012/0048862 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Otsubo teaches a cylindrical tank 100, which reads on the “cylindrical subsea vessel.” See Otsubo Fig. 1, [0017]. Note that the limitations describing the vessel as “subsea…for separation of a flow” fail to further limit the scope of the claim because they describe the intended use rather than the structure of the “vessel.” See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II (the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to alim construction where it merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention and the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention).
The tank 100 comprises top and bottom ends (from the perspective of Fig. 1), which read on the “first and second longitudinal ends,” respectively. See Otsubo Fig. 1, [0017].
The tank 100 also comprises a liner 10, which reads on the claimed “liner.”
The tank 100 comprises a collet ring 40 with an opening that valve 60 is inserted into. See Otsubo Fig. 1, [0023]. The opening in the collet ring 40 functions as an inlet and an outlet because opening the valve 60 makes it possible to supply gas into the inner space of the tank 100 (the “inner volume of the vessel”) or supply gas stored in the tank 100 to the outside. Id. The opening in the collet ring 40 therefore reads on the “at least one fluid inlet and at least one fluid outlet connected to an inner volume of the vessel.”
The collet ring 40 is connected to the top end of the tank 100 (the “first longitudinal end”). See Otsubo Fig. 1, [0021]. The collet ring 40 reads on the “at least one flange connected to one of the first and second longitudinal ends.” The collet ring 40 and the liner 10 form the inner space of the tank 100, as claimed, because the liner 10 is on the inner side of the tank 100 (as seen in Fig. 1) and the collet ring 40 protrudes into the inner space of the tank 100 thereby affecting the size of the inner space (also seen in Fig. 1). The opening of the collet ring 40 (the “at least one through-going opening”) forms the inlet and outlet, as explained above. Id. at [0023].
The tank 100 further comprises a fiber-reinforced resin layer 20 arranged outside the liner 10 and the collet ring 40, which reads on the “load bearing structure arranged outside the liner and the at least one flange.” See Otsubo Fig. 1, [0018]. The fiber-reinforced layer 20 is “made of a composite material,” as claimed, because it is made of a fiber-reinforced resin. Id.
The liner 10 can be made of an aluminum alloy, and the collet ring 40 can be made of aluminum. See Otsubo [0019], [0020]. This reads on “the liner and the at least one flange are made of the same metal material.”
Note that if the aluminum alloy of the liner and aluminum of the collet ring are not considered to be “the same metal material,” as claimed, it would have been obvious to manufacture the liner from aluminum for the following reasons. More specifically, Otsuka teaches a tank comprising a liner made of aluminum. See Otsuka [0035]. It would have been obvious to manufacture the liner 10 of Otsubo from aluminum (instead of aluminum alloy) because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
PNG
media_image2.png
957
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Otsubo teaches that the tank 100 comprises “only one flange” because it only has one collet ring 40, as seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 6, Otsubo teaches that “all through-going openings for inlet and/or outlet of fluid into an out of the inner volume” of the tank 100 are arranged in the collet ring 40 (the “at least one flange”) connected to the top end of the tank 100, as claimed, because the collet ring 40 is the only opening into the tank 100, seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 7, Otsubo teaches that the fiber-reinforced resin layer 20 (the “composite material of the load bearing structure”) comprises carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP). See Otsubo [0024].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo, US 2019/0195428 A1 in view of Petitpas et al., US 2020/0025338 A1, and optionally in view of Otsuka et al., US 2012/0048862 A1.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Otsubo teaches the limitations of claim 3, as explained above.
Otsubo differ from claims 4 and 5 because it is silent as to the collet ring 40 (the “one flange”) comprising a first and a second through-going opening, wherein the first through-going opening forms the fluid inlet and the second through-going opening forms the fluid outlet, and further comprising an inlet pipe extending from the collet ring 40 towards an opposite longitudinal end of the tank 100 for directing fluid into the tank 100.
But the tank 100 is capable of storing hydrogen. See Otsubo [0017]. Also, the collet ring 40 is provided for insertion of valve 60 allow gas to be introduced into and withdrawn from the tank 100. Id. at Fig. 1, [0023]. With this in mind, Petitpas teaches a pressure vessel 12 for storing hydrogen. See Petitpas Fig. 2, [0026]. The pressure vessel 12 a neck portion 18 comprising an opening for a top inlet pipe 30 (the “first through-going opening…[forming] the fluid inlet”) and an opening for bottom outlet pipe 32a (the “second through-going opening…[forming] the fluid outlet”). Id. The configuration of Petitpas is beneficial because the inlet and outlet pipes 32 increase the efficiency of convective effects in warming the hydrogen between the pressure vessel 12 and a vaporizer 14. Id. It would have been obvious for the collet ring 40 of Otsubo to have the configuration of Petitpas to provide this benefit. With this modification, the top inlet pipe 30 reads on the “inlet pipe extending from the one flange towards an opposite longitudinal end of the subsea vessel for directing fluid into the subsea vessel.”
PNG
media_image3.png
535
766
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo, US 2019/0195428 A1 in view of Lee et al., US 2020/0271272 A1, and optionally in view of Otsuka et al., US 2012/0048862 A1.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Otsubo teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Otsubo differs from claims 8 and 9 because it is silent as to the tank 100 comprising a coating outside the fiber-reinforced resin layer 20, where the coating is a thermoplastic coating.
But the fiber-reinforced resin layer 20 is a carbon fiber-reinforced plastic layer. See Otsubo [0024].
With this in mind, Lee teaches a tank comprising a carbon fiber reinforced plastic layer (CFRP layer) and a glass fiber reinforced plastic layer (GFRP layer) positioned on the outside of the CFRP layer. See Lee [0046], [0047]. The GFRP layer comprises a thermoplastic resin. Id. at [0048]. The GFRP layer is beneficial because it protects the inside of the tank 100 from physical or chemical stimuli applied from the outside surface of the tank 100. Id. at [0047]. It would have been obvious for provide the GFRP layer of Lee to the outside of the fiber-reinforced resin layer 20 of Otsubo to protect the tank 100 of Otsubo from physical or chemical stimuli applied from the outside surface of the tank 100. With this modification, the GFRP layer reads on the “coating outside the composite material…wherein the coating is a thermoplastic coating.”
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo, US 2019/0195428 A1 in view of Takeuchi et al., US 2012/0325832 A1, and optionally in view of Otsuka et al., US 2012/0048862 A1.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Otsubo teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Otsubo differs from claims 10 and 11 because it is silent as to the tank 100 comprising a galvanic coupling protection for the liner 10, with the galvanic coupling protection being arranged between the liner 10 and the fiber-reinforced resin layer 20 (the “load bearing structure”), with the galvanic coupling protection being a glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP).
But Otsubo teaches that the fiber-reinforced resin layer 20 comprises a carbon fiber-reinforced plastic. See Otsubo [0024]. With this in mind, Takeuchi teaches a tank 1 comprising an outer shell 20 made of a carbon fiber-reinforced plastic layer (CFRP layer) and a glass fiber reinforced plastic layer (GFRP layer) formed on an inner side of the CFRP layer. See Takeuchi Fig. 1, [0067]. The GFRP layer is beneficial because it provides additional structural support for the tank 1. It would have been obvious to provide a GFRP layer inside of the fiber-reinforced resin layer 20 of Otsubo to provide additional structural support for the tank 100. With this modification, the GFRP layer reads on the “galvanic coupling protection.” The GFRP layer would be arranged between the liner 10 and the fiber-reinforced resin layer 20 of Otsubo, as claimed, because the GFRP layer is formed on an inner side of the CFRP layer in Takeuchi. The GFRP layer is a glass fiber reinforced plastic (i.e., polymer), as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 29, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 18 (now amended into claim 1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made, as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776