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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 04 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the fibers" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not previously recite “fibers”. For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as instead reciting “fibers”.
Claims 2, 5, 11-13, and 17 are indefinite as the recitation of possible elements is not properly claimed in the alternative. Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications ("Supplementary Guidelines"), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7166 (February 9, 2011). Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. at 1281. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
For the purposes of examination claim 2 will be interpreted as reciting “reinforcement is chosen from the group consisting of dry continuous fibers….” Correction is required.
For the purposes of examination claim 5 will be interpreted as reciting “reinforcement is chosen from the group consisting of a braid of dry….” Correction is required.
For the purposes of examination claim 11 will be interpreted as reciting “the thermoplastic polymer is chosen from the group consisting of poly(aryl ether ketone)s….” Correction is required.
For the purposes of examination claim 12 will be interpreted as reciting “the thermoplastic polymer is chosen from the group consisting of polyamides,….” Correction is required.
For the purposes of examination claim 13 will be interpreted as reciting “the thermoplastic polymer is chosen from the group consisting of aliphatic polyamides,….” Correction is required.
For the purposes of examination claim 17 will be interpreted as reciting “the fibrous material is chosen from the group consisting of glass fibers,….” Correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the fibers" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 does not previously recite “fibers”. For purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as instead reciting “
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fibers" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not previously recite “fibers”. For purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted as instead reciting “
Claim 12 recites the term “PEKK” without the claims previously reciting what PEKK stans for. It is thus unclear as to what PEKK refers. For purposes of examination, claim 12 is interpreted as instead reciting “poly(ether ketone ketone) (PEKK)” as evidenced by the instant specification Par. 0044.
Claims 18-19 recite the term “it” line 2. However, it is unclear as to what exactly “it” refers. For purposes of examination, claims 18-19 are interpreted such that the term “it” instead recites “the tank”.
Claims 3, 7-10, 14-16, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, since these claims depend from the claims rejected above and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocher et al. (US-20190277447-A1) in view of Kato et al. (US-20170343158-A1). Claim 9 is further evidenced by PET - Density - Strength - Melting Point - Thermal Conductivity (PET - Density - Strength - Melting Point - Thermal Conductivity, Materials-properties, 2026, Pages 1-2).
Regarding claim 1, Rocher teaches a tank for containing a pressurized fluid, comprising: at least one cylindrical element (tubular element), a first cap placed (end fitting/tip) at one end of the at least on cylindrical element closing it, and a second cap (end fitting/tip) placed at the other end of the at least one cylindrical element, fitted with an orifice intended to make possible the entry and the exit of the fluid (Rocher, Abstract, Par. 0024-0025, Claims 1, 3, and Figs 1A-3). Rocher teaches the cylindrical element is made of a fibrous material impregnating with a thermoplastic matrix (Rocher, Abstract, Par. 0013). Rocher teaches an additional fibrous reinforcement (second layer of composite material, 9) partially or completely surrounding the cylindrical element the fibers contained in the fibrous reinforcement being positioned along a different axis (circumferential axis) from the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical element (Rocher, Par. 0024).
Regarding the pultruded limitation, this is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (See MPEP 2113). The fiber structure of the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical or substantially identical to the claimed product-by-process fiber structure subjected to the process steps of pultrusion, and therefore absent any objective evidence showing to the contrary, the addition of the process limitations of claim 1 does not provide a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Rocher is silent regarding the total content of the fibers of the tank being of between 40 and 70% by volume, with respect to the volumes of the matrix and the fibers contained in the tank.
Kato teaches a tank for containing pressurized fluid comprising a cylindrical element formed form fibers impregnating a thermoplastic matrix wherein the total content of the fibers is from 40-70% by volume relative to the total volume (Kato, Abstract, Par. 0015, 0038-0039, and Fig. 1).
Rocher and Kato are analogous art as they both teach tanks for containing a pressurized fluid comprising a cylindrical element formed from fibers impregnating a thermoplastic matrix. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the fibers of Rocher in an amount of 40-70% by volume. This would allow for a reinforced layer (Kato, Par. 0030-0038).
Regarding claim 2, modified Rocher teaches the additional fibrous reinforcement are continuous fibers impregnated within a thermoplastic matrix (Rocher, Par. 0010 and 0024).
Regarding claim 4, modified Rocher teaches a portion of the fibers included in the material of the cylindrical element is positioned in the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical element (Rocher, Abstract, Par. 0010 and 0024).
Regarding claim 7, modified Rocher teaches the additional fibrous reinforcement is a layer partially or completely surrounding the cylindrical element, which has been flattened beforehand over the caps, the layer being made of a fibrous material impregnated with a thermoplastic resin (Rocher, Par. 0024-0025 and Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 8, modified Rocher teaches the thermoplastic matrix of the cylindrical element and the thermoplastic matrix of the additional fibrous reinforcement are both thermoplastic materials and discusses using the same thermoplastic material for the different thermoplastic layers (Rocher, Par. 0024 and 0038). While Rocher does not specifically state that the thermoplastic matrix’s are the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same thermoplastic for each thermoplastic matrix to allow for simpler manufacturing, see MPEP 2143. Therefore, the thermoplastic matrix's are the same thermoplastic and would thus be miscible.
Regarding claim 9, modified Rocher teaches the thermoplastic matrix of the additional fibrous reinforcement is PET (Rocher, Par. 0038), which has a melting temperature of 267°C as evidenced by PET - Density - Strength - Melting Point - Thermal Conductivity (PET - Density - Strength - Melting Point - Thermal Conductivity, Page 2), which lies within the claimed range of greater than 150°C and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 10, modified Rocher teaches the thermoplastic matrix of the cylindrical element predominantly contains a thermoplastic polymer (Rocher, Par. 0024).
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Rocher teaches the thermoplastic polymer is a polyamide (PA) (Rocher, Par. 0038).
Regarding claim 17, modified Rocher teaches the fibrous material is carbon fibers (Rocher, Par. 0024).
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Rocher teaches a second cylindrical element or liner composed of a layer of thermoplastic resin, not comprising fibers (Rocher, Par. 0024 – see “tube, 5”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocher et al. in view of Kato et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Meyer et al. (US 20230256688 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Rocher teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Rocher is silent regarding the additional fibrous reinforcement comprising fibers positioned at an angle of between +/- 10° and +/- 89° with respect to the axis of the cylindrical element.
Meyer teaches a pressurized tank comprising a fiber reinforcement layer wherein the fibers of the fiber reinforcement layer are positioned at an angle of between 10° and 80° (Meyer, Abstract, Par. 0001-0002, and 0062-0064), which lies within the claimed range and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Modified Rocher and Meyer are analogous art as they both teach pressurized tanks comprising a fiber reinforcement layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the fibers of modified Rocher at an angle within the claimed range. This would allow for control of the properties of the reinforcement layer, such as tensile strength, flexural strength, and compression strength (Meyer, Par. 0062-0064).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocher et al. in view of Kato et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Levesque et al. (US 20120295046 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Rocher teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Rocher is silent regarding the additional fibrous reinforcement being chosen from the group consisting of a braid of dry continuous fibers, a braid of fibrous tapes impregnated with thermoplastic resin, and their mixture as required by claim 5. Modified Rocher is further silent regarding fibers used to manufacture the pultruded fibrous material of the cylindrical element being a braid of dry fibers as required by claim 6.
Levesque teaches a cylindrical composite material (see tube) formed from a fibrous material embedded in a thermoplastic matrix wherein the fibers are dry continuous fibers (Levesque, Abstract, Par. 0002, 0007-0011).
Modified Rocher and Levesque are analogous art as they both teach cylindrical composite materials formed from fibers embedded in a thermoplastic matrix. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have braided the fibers of modified Rocher. This would allow for lightweight material that is less labor intensive to manufacture (Levesque, Par. 0005-0007).
Claims 13-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocher et al. in view of Kato et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, further in view of Hochstetter et al. (US 20190084252 A1).
Regarding claims 13-16, modified Rocher teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1 and 10. Modified Rocher teaches the thermoplastic polymer is a polyamide (Rocher, Par. 0038).
Modified Rocher is silent regarding the specific polyamide discussed in claims 13-16.
Hochstetter teaches a tank comprising a fibrous material comprising a thermoplastic matrix wherein the thermoplastic polymer of the matrix is a semi-aromatic polyamide that is polyamide 6 or a polyamide A/6T (Hochstetter, Abstract, Par. 0033, 0036, 0047, 0069-0070, and 0075-0077).
Modified Rocher and Hochstetter are analogous art as they both teach tanks comprising a fibrous material comprising a thermoplastic matrix that is polyamide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the polyamide of Hochstetter as the polyamide of modified Rocher as it is an art recognized equivalent for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06 & MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocher et al. in view of Kato et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kataoka et al. (US 20190047409 A1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Rocher teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Rocher teaches the diameter of the cylindrical element is preferably small compared to the length (Rocher, Par. 0025), and thus teaches the diameter is a results effective variable. It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to decrease the diameter to improve the advantages of the invention such that the diameter falls within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2144.05. Alternatively, the diameter of the cylindrical element can be achieved by scaling the entire invention, see MPEP 2144.04.
Modified Rocher is silent regarding several cylindrical elements connected to one another.
Kataoka teaches a tank for pressurized fluid comprising several cylindrical elements connected to one another (Kataoka, Abstract).
Modified Rocher and Kataoka are analogous art as they both teach tanks for pressurized fluid comprising a cylindrical element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized several cylindrical elements of modified Rocher connected to one another. This would allow for increased capacity of the tank (Kataoka, Abstract and Par. 0005).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights