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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed December 22, 2025, have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-10 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In re Claim 1, the recitation “a cryogenic fluid” in line 4 should be amended to recite—the cryogenic fluid--to avoid potential ambiguities and/or § 112(b) issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US H000080 H) in view of Kasuma et al. (US 20050127074).
In re Claim 1, Lewis discloses a storage system (Fig. 1) for a cryogenic fluid (12), comprising:
a housing (17) delimiting a cavity (Col 3:43-48: interior of 17) therein;
a collapsible container (13)
disposed within the cavity (Fig. 1 and Col 3:43-48: 13 is within the interior of 17) and
coupled to a surface of the housing (Col 3:43-48: 13 is coupled to surface of 17),
wherein the collapsible container (13) is configured to contain a cryogenic fluid (12);
an inlet (19) configured to distribute a pressurant (Col 4:59-65: distribute a pressurized gas in the cavity and around 13)
within the cavity (interior of 17) and
about the collapsible container (around 13), and
an outlet (15) fluidly coupled to the collapsible container (13)|(See Col 3:27-28),
wherein the outlet (15) is configured to dispense the fluid (Col 3:30-33) out of the collapsible container (13) and housing (17).
Lewis does not explicitly teach wherein the collapsible container (13) is configured to form a folded pattern when collapsed and wherein the collapsible container (13) comprises a plurality of panels which are foldable at flexure hinges.
On the other hand, Kasuma teaches a folded pattern when collapsed (Fig. 4: 10) and a plurality of panels (See Fig. 3: 34) which are foldable at flexure hinges (Fig. 3-4: 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Lewis and to have modified them by having the collapsible container is configured to form a folded pattern when collapsed in order to allow for a direct downward collapsing of the wall sections into concentric surrounding relation to the base with the top surrounding the collapsed folded wall sections (See Kasuma [0008]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Lewis and to have modified them by having the collapsible container of Lewis comprise a plurality of panels which are foldable at flexure hinges, in order to control the manner of collapse using defined flexure hinges and prevent the collapsed contained from obstructing the outlet tube, without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 4, Lewis as modified teaches wherein a thickness of the flexure hinges (Kasuma thickness of 40) is less than a thickness (See Fig. 4) of the panels (Kasuma thickness of panels 34).
In re Claim 5, Lewis as modified teaches wherein a radius of curvature of a first portion of the flexure hinges (See Kasuma Fig. 6: inner curvature of 40) is smaller than a thickness of the panels (Fig. 6: thickness of 34) and wherein a radius of curvature of a second portion of the flexure hinges (See Kasuma Fig. 6: inner curvature of 40) is larger than a thickness of the panels (Fig. 6: thickness of 34).
In re Claim 7, Lewis does not explicitly teach, wherein the folded pattern includes at least one of a Yoshimaru pattern, a Kresling pattern, a Miura-ori pattern, an accordion pattern, and a hexagonal pattern.
On the other hand, Kasuma teaches wherein the folded pattern includes at least one of an accordion pattern (See Fig. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Lewis and to have modified them by having the folded pattern includes an accordion pattern in order to allow for a direct downward collapsing of the wall sections into concentric surrounding relation to the base with the top surrounding the collapsed folded wall sections. (See Kasuma [0008]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 9, Modified Lewis teaches wherein the collapsible container (13) is formed from an impermeable material (Col 4:5-11: metallic impermeable layer).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US H80) as modified by Kasuma et al. (US 20050127074) further in view of Takahashi (US 9290296 B2).
In re Claim 3, Lewis as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the panels (Kasuma See Fig. 3: 34) have an average thickness of at least 0.1 μm.
However, Takahashi classified in B29C33/00 teaches an average thickness of at least 0.1 μm (an average thickness of at least 0.1 μm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of modified Lewis and to have modified them by having panels with an average thickness of at least 0.1 μm in order to make the collapsable container durable for repeatable collapsing and expanding with easily compressible channels. (See also Takahashi Col 4:1-8), without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US H80) as modified by Kasuma et al. (US 20050127074) further in view of Tom et al. (US 9290296 B2).
Modified Lewis does not explicitly teach, wherein the plurality of panels are arranged in at least one of a hexagonal structure and an isogrid structure.
However, Modified Lewis does not explicitly teach, wherein the plurality of panels are arranged in an isogrid structure (See Tom Fig. 10A: triangular, i.e. isogrid, panels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of modified Lewis and to have modified them by having the plurality of panels of modified Lewis arranged in an isogrid structure as taught by Tom, in order to control the manner of collapse using defined flexure hinges and prevent the collapsed contained from obstructing the outlet tube, without yielding unpredictable results. without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US H80) as modified by Kasuma et al. (US 20050127074) further in view of Tom et al. (US US20120267388A1B2).
In re Claim 8, Modified Lewis does not explicitly teach wherein the collapsible container (Lewis 13) comprises a plurality of channels within the panels of the container (Kasuma 34) configured for flowing a coolant.
However, Tom teaches a plurality of channels (See Fig. 40 and [0194]: plurality of interconnected tubes within 4002 ) within the panels of the container (inner wall elastomere of Tom corresponding to Kasuma 34) configured for flowing a coolant1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of modified Lewis and to have modified them by having a plurality of channels within the panels of the container as taught by Tom, in order prevent deformation and help stabilize the collapse and choke-off (See Tom [0194]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US H000080 H) in view of Glenn Tom et al (US 20150078685 A1), hereinafter Lewis and Glenn.
In re Claim 10, Lewis does not explicitly teach wherein the impermeable material is a polyimide, polyethylene terephthalate, or fluropolymer film.
However, Glenn teaches wherein the impermeable material is a polyimide ([0121]: material of construction is polyimide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Lewis and to have modified them by having the impermeable material of Lewis be polyimide as taught by Glenn, in order to in order for the bladder to be inflated to suitable pressure (See Glenn [0122]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks of December 22, 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below.
Applicant argues
On Page 5¶1-6¶1 of the Remarks, that the examiner has not shown that claim 1 is obvious over Lewis in view of Kasuma because there is allegedly no basis in the prior art for arriving at the panels which are foldable at flexure hinges and a collapsible container as required by the claims. Applicant appears to suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize from the teaching of Lewis/Kasuma that the container is collapsible and foldable at the hinges because Lewis does not teach a collapsible container and the invention of Kasuma is used as a dog food dish for food or water. It is further suggested by Applicant that neither reference provides the requisite guidance for modifying Lewis to include flexure hinges. This is not persuasive.
Contrary to Applicant' s assertion, first, it should be noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In light of the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the findings of fact outlined in the rationale and motivation for the 103 rejection based on Lewis and Kasuma satisfy the requirements to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In essence, the fact that Lewis’ overall goal is to provide a lightweight and flexible tank structure with a collapsible interior structure for the storage and controlled expulsion therefrom of a cryogenic liquid provides evidence that the plurality of panels which are foldable at flexure hinges and collapsible container of Kasuma is indeed compatible with the teachings of Lewis.
Moreover, the test for obviousness it not whether the prior art references are within the same field of endeavor as each other, but rather, whether the prior art references are within the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)). Since Lewis (classified in CPC class F17C2203) and Kasuma (classified in CPC class B65D21) are within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (which contains classifications in both F17C2203 and B65D21, as evidenced by the cover page of the printed publication: US 20240044454, the prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention, which is explicit evidence that the combination would have been considered by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kasuma teaches allow for a direct downward collapsing of the wall sections into concentric surrounding relation to the base with the top surrounding the collapsed folded wall sections2 as detailed in §103, supra.
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 IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 The recitation of " configured for flowing a coolant," recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
2 See Kasuma [0008]