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 § 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(s) 1, 2 and 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck (U.S. Patent No. 3969812) in view of Grover (U.S. Patent No. 4438858) and Nettis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150136789).
Regarding Claim 1, Beck discloses a pressure vessel for storing fluid 10 (figure 1), the pressure vessel comprising: metallic liner 12 (figure 5; column 4, lines 38-39) comprising a cylindrical portion and a pair of ellipsoidal domes positioned at opposite ends of the cylindrical portion (Figure 1); and a composite material wrapped over the cylindrical portion and the pair of ellipsoidal domes (Figure 3), wherein the composite material is formed of a polymeric matrix reinforced with fibers (Column 4, lines 55-58), the composite material comprises of a combination of hoop layers and helical layers which are positioned in a predetermined order with respect to each other (Figure 1 and 2); wherein, a hoop layer is wrapped over the cylindrical portion of the metallic liner of the pressure vessel and a helical layer is wrapped over both the cylindrical portion and the pair of ellipsoidal domes (figures 1-3), the helical layer is wrapped on each of the pair of ellipsoidal domes in a manner that a helical angle is defined at an intersection between the cylindrical portion and the pair of ellipsoidal domes (Figure 1). Beck does not disclose the metallic liner has a uniform thickness across the cylindrical portion and a varied thickness across each of the pair of ellipsoidal domes and each pair of ellipsoidal domes has a radius to height ratio in a range of 1.25 to 1.3. However, Grover teaches the metallic liner has a uniform thickness across the cylindrical portion and a varied thickness across each of the pair of ellipsoidal domes 30 (figure 3) and Nettis et al. teaches a various range of height ratio (paragraph 82) and wherein it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have each pair of ellipsoidal domes has a radius to height ratio in a range of 1.25 to 1.3 since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.05(III)(C). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beck to include the above, as taught by Grover and Nettis et al., in order to provide more support and strength for the domes.
Regarding Claim 2, Beck discloses the helical angle is in a range of 10 degrees to 45 degrees to and wherein the fluid is embodied as one of liquid and gas (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Beck discloses the reinforcing fiber is embodied as glass, aramid, carbon, and combination thereof (column 1, lines 17-20), wherein the polymeric matrix is embodied as one of thermoplastic resin and thermosetting resin (column 1, lines 17-20), wherein the thermoplastic resin is embodied as one of polyethylene and polyamide (column 1, lines 17-20), and wherein the thermosetting resin is embodied as one of epoxy, modified epoxy, polyester, and polyvinyl ester (Column 7, lines 63-66) .
Regarding Claim 6, Beck discloses the metallic liner is positioned at an inner surface of the pressure vessel (figure 5) and manufactured using a process of spin forming, wherein the metallic liner is T6 treated and 0-conditioned (product by process).
Regarding Claim 7, Beck discloses the metallic liner is enclosed by the pair of ellipsoidal domes connected to the cylindrical portion in between (Figure 1).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Beck teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a number of hoop layers is in a range of 10 to 30;a thickness of the hoop layer is in a range of 0.11 mm to 0.66 mm; a number of helical layers is in a range of 25 to 45; and a thickness of the helical layer is in a range of 0.44 mm to 5 mm and the thickness of the helical layer is uniform in the cylindrical portion, wherein an equation is derived to determine the thickness of the helical layer in the pair of ellipsoidal domes Hdome = Hcylinder where, Hdome is the layer thickness at a position, Hcylinder is layer thickness at the cylindrical region, Rcylinder is equator radius, Ropening is pole radius, Bo is the fiber bandwidth for winding that angle, and Rlocation is the radius at that location.
PNG
media_image1.png
63
198
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.05(III)(C).
Regarding Claim 10, Beck discloses the thickness of the helical layer is higher in the pair of ellipsoidal domes compared to the thickness of the helical layer in the cylindrical portion (figures 4 and 5), the thickness of the helical layer is highest in vicinity of trajectory of each of the pair of ellipsoidal domes (Figure 5), up to which it covers the pressure vessel (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Beck teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a length to diameter ratio of the cylindrical portion is in a range of 2.5 to 3 while each of the pair of ellipsoidal domes has a radius to height ratio in a range of 1.25 to 1.30. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.05(III)(C).
Regarding Claim 12, Beck discloses the helical angle is higher at the intersection between the ellipsoidal domes and the cylindrical portion (figure 1), wherein the thickness of the metallic liner is less at the intersection between the ellipsoidal domes and the cylindrical portion (figure 1 and 5).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck (U.S. Patent No. 3969812) in view of Grover (U.S. Patent No. 4438858), Nettis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150136789), Ramberg (U.S. Patent No. 2744043) and Lee (U.S. Pub. No. 20150184805).
Regarding Claim 3, Beck, Grover and Nettis et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the pressure vessel comprises a pair of openings at the pair of ellipsoidal domes, the cylindrical portion of the pressure vessel is connected to at least one control valve and at least one pressure release device through the pair of openings. However, Ramberg teaches the pressure vessel comprises a pair of openings at the pair of ellipsoidal domes (Figure 11) and Lee teaches at least one control valve and at least one pressure release device through the pair of openings (paragraph 20. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beck, Grover and Nettis et al. to include the above, as taught by Ramberg and Lee, in order to control the pressure within the vessel.
Regarding Claim 13, Beck, Grover, Ramberg and Lee teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the thickness of the metallic liner in vicinity of the pair of openings of the ellipsoidal domes is four times the thickness of the metallic liner in the cylindrical portion. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.05(III)(C).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck (U.S. Patent No. 3969812) in view of Grover (U.S. Patent No. 4438858), Nettis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150136789) and Corbin, Jr (U.S. Patent No. 3312575).
Regarding Claim 4, Beck, Grover and Nettis et al. teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the gas is embodied as one of compressed natural gas, hydrogen gas, LPG, and mixture thereof. However, Corbin, Jr teaches hydrogen gas (Column 1, line 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beck, Grover and Nettis et al. to include the above, as taught by Corbin, Jr, in order to store hydrogen at safe pressure values.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck (U.S. Patent No. 3969812) in view of Grover (U.S. Patent No. 4438858), Nettis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150136789) and Tupper et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150192251).
Regarding Claim 14, Beck, Grover and Nettis et al. teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the pressure vessel withstands an internal pressure of the fluid up to 800 bar. However, Tupper et al. teaches the pressure vessel withstands an internal pressure of the fluid up to 800 bar (paragraph 49). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beck, Grover and Nettis et al. to include the above, as taught by Tupper et al., in order to provide a strong vessel to withstand pressure.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm 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 at (571)270-5055. 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.
/ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733