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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/11/2025 in response to Office Actions 4/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the cited hoop base end portion decreases and not increases in thickness to the intermediate portion in primary prior art Baumer (page 4, para last). Examiner disagrees, please see the immediate Baumer annotated Figure 5 showing increase in thickness from base end to intermediate portion, which is just a further zoomed in version of the Baumer annotated Figure 5 in the rejection below. It appears that the Applicant did not flip the drawing appropriately before analyzing. Further explained, the prior art apex causes slope on either side of the intermediate portion as claimed. In other words, the prior art bump looks precisely like the invention bump.
PNG
media_image1.png
1535
1906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by US Pub 20210324999 by Baumer et al. (hereinafter “Baumer”).
Regarding claim 1, Baumer teaches a tank for storing a fluid therein comprising:
a liner including a circular cylindrical body part having a center axis (Fig 1, an inner vessel liner 2) and a dome part placed at each of opposite ends of the body part (Fig 1, domes 22); and
a reinforcing layer placed on the liner and containing fiber (Fig 5, a reinforcing fiber layer F2 on 2), wherein the reinforcing layer includes a hoop layer placed on the body part (Fig 5, a hoop layer F2i of the reinforcing layer F2) and a helical layer (Fig 5, [0017], F2 of “fiber material is stitched spirally”) placed across an area on the hoop layer and on the dome part, the helical layer being in contact with the hoop layer (Fig 5, [0047], “outer layer F2a”, is shown in draped contact to hoop layer F2i, thus showing that F2a is the “drapeable” support material disclosed to which the “[helical] fiber material is spirally stitched” [0017]),
the hoop layer includes
a hoop body layer (EAFB5, a hoop layer body portion of F2i) and
a hoop end layer connected to the hoop body layer and located at an end portion of the hoop body layer in an axis direction along the center axis (EAFB5, a hoop layer end portion of F2i), and the hoop end layer has a shape projecting externally further in a radial direction of the body part than the hoop body layer, and includes
an intermediate portion having the greatest thickness of the hoop end layer, a hoop base end portion connecting the intermediate portion, and a hoop tip portion located on an opposite side of the hoop base end portion across the intermediate portion in an axis direction along the center axis, wherein the hoop base end portion has a thickness that is gradually increased with a shorter distance from the hoop body layer toward the intermediate portion in the axis direction, wherein
the hoop tip portion has a thickness that is gradually reduced with a greater distance from the intermediate portion in the axis direction (EAFB5, hoop tip, is a hoop layer portion that has a thickness that is gradually reduced with a greater distance from the, intermediate portion, in the axis direction (in other words the apex is the apex because on either side there is a curved slope downward and away)), wherein
an outer surface of the intermediate portion forms
an apex portion located at the outermost position in the radial direction, wherein the hoop tip portion has a tilted surface extending from the apex portion toward an outer surface of the dome part and having a shape conforming to the shape of the outer surface (EAFB5, the hoop end layer portion has a shape projecting externally further in a radial direction of the body part than the hoop body layer, and includes an apex portion located at the outermost position in the radial direction and a tilted surface extending from the apex portion toward an outer surface of the dome part and having a shape conforming to the shape of the outer surface;
examiner points out that all the portions are a subset of the cited apex and tilted surface (i.e. the shape is the same with or without portions claimed, since the defining boundaries are shown matched to the claim). In other words, the apex portion and tilted surface comprise a hoop base end portion – that has a thickness that is gradually increased further with a shorter distance from the hoop body layer toward the intermediate portion in the axis direction – connected to the intermediate portion that has the apex portion, and a hoop tip portion that has the tilted surface; wherein a horizontal distance from the base end portion to the intermediate portion/apex is shorter than a distance from the intermediate portion/apex to the hoop tip portion ending the tilted surface).
PNG
media_image2.png
744
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Baumer further teaches a section defined by cutting the tank along a plane passing through the center axis and parallel to the center axis (EAFB5 shows cross-section), a distance along the tilted surface is equal to or greater than a width of a fiber bundle used for forming the helical layer (EAFB5, a [hoop] tilted surface distance is greater than a fiber bundle helical layer width distance).
Regarding claim 4, Baumer further teaches the tilted surface and the outer surface of the dome part form an isotonic curved surface (EAFB5, an isotonic curve).
Regarding claim 5, Baumer further teaches the hoop layer is composed of a cylindrical member formed by winding the fiber on a member different from the liner (the hoop layer is formed of fiber).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumer.
Regarding claim 3, Baumer further teaches a distance between the apex portion and an outer surface of the body part in the radial direction is equal to or greater than the thickness of the hoop body layer (EAFB5, an apex thickness [i.e. a distance between the apex portion and an outer surface of the body part in the radial direction] is greater than a body thickness [of the hoop body layer]).
But does not explicitly teach a specific range of proportional thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a proportional thickness distance of an apex portion to an outer surface of greater than or equal to 1.05 to less than or equal to 1.10 times the thickness of the body hoop, recognizing that the thickness/size of the tilted surface is directly correlated to ease of winding the fiber layer and local versus overall stress on the tank liner for a particular use, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733