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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/29/25 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Further, the information disclosure statement filed 7/29/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The pages of the JP references that should have Japanese text are substantially blank. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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) 1-3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any one of Katano (US 2021/0078238) or Hu et al (the article entitled “Investigation on failure behaviors of 70 MPa Type IV carbon fiber overwound hydrogen storage vessels”) further taken with any one of Korean Patent 10-2356868 (machine translation included) Japanese Patent 2-231141 (machine translation included) or European Patent 3587086.
The references to any one of Katano or Hu et al all each suggested that the ordinary artisan would have formed a pressure vessel by filament winding wherein one wound the resin impregnated filaments upon a liner wherein during the winding operation the liner is inflated in order to retain its shape and as the winding proceeded (as each layer was built up on the mandrel in the winding operation the internal pressure inside the mandrel was increased with the use of a controller). The applicant is referred more specifically to Katano at paragraph [0026] for instance, particularly that increasing the pressure is designed to prevent deformation, and Hu et al section “2.3 Winding processing” and Figure 3 and the discussion of the same, especially the first sentence of p. 4. As the layers were wound on the inflated liner assembly, the prior art all suggested one skilled in the art would have progressively increased the internal pressure of the air filled liner so as to accommodate the forces exerted upon the liner during winding so that the shape of the liner was retained during winding. The references increase the pressure as a function of the number of layers applied to the liner (the thickness of the composite material applied to the liner, i.e. the changes in diameter of the windings. There is no evidence one skilled in the art would have acquired information regarding the outer dimension of the fiber layer on the liner during the winding operation and used this information to control the internal pressure of the liner during the winding operation (but clearly the artisan was well aware of the need to control the internal pressure of the liner as a function of the number of layers wound upon the same during the winding operation. To actively measure the diameter of the windings as one applied the same onto the liner (rather than use of a timing mechanism as layers were built up) would have more accurately controlled the winding operation rather than use of a passive system.
Any one of Korean Patent ‘868, Japanese Patent ‘141 or European Patent ‘086 taught control of a winding operation wherein one actively measured the diameter of the windings as one wound upon a liner in the manufacture of a pressure vessel therein and used this information in the control of the manufacture of the pressure vessel. In Korean Patent ‘868 as the diameter of the windings increased the heating mechanism was displaced away from the increased diameter windings so as to not overheat the same. In Japanese Patent ‘141 the diameter of measured to adjust the angle of winding as the composite vessel is filament wound in order to optimize the angle of lay down of the filaments in the winding operation therein. In European Patent ‘086, as the diameter is measured, the amount of excess resin is determined and the thickness of the wound intermediate assembly was then used to control the tension in the filaments during winding as well as to remove excess resin, when necessary, therein. In each instance the measured diameter of the windings is taken as the winding is proceeding and this information is used to control the winding operation. Given that it was known to control the winding operation where the air pressure inside of the liner was regulated as a function of the diameter of the windings (thickness and number of layers applied), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to measure the diameter of the winding actively while winding upon the mandrel therein in order to more accurately control the process where it was generally known to actively measure the diameter of the windings (and use the same to control the operation) as expressed by any one of Korean Patent ‘868, Japanese Patent ‘141, or European Patent ‘086 wherein one used the measurement of the diameter to actively control the pressure within the liner during winding as the thickness of the wound vessel was increased to prevent deformation of the liner shape therein as expressed by any one of Japanese Patent ‘168, Japanese Patent ‘150, Katano or Hu et al.
With respect to the various dependent claims, the references that measure the diameter of the windings do such with non-contacting sensing means including photo sensing (the use of a laser being understood as a well known sensing means as well). Additionally the use of a controller to control the operation with a feedback controller to actively regulate the internal pressure within the liner as the cylinder diameter increased would have afforded one better more accurate control over the shape of the form (as the windings were applied there was a necessity to increase the internal pressure of the liner to maintain the shape of the same as more windings are applied). Such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
The rejections based on Japanese Patent 2021-148168 and Japanese Patent 2017-194150 are withdrawn in view of the amendment because JP ‘168 and JP ‘150 do not explicitly teach that the liner is not deformed during the winding.
Applicant argues that Katano teaches shape changing steps. The argument is unconvincing because those are not during the winding. Katano teaches that during the winding, deformation should be avoided [0026]
Applicant argues that neither Katano nor Hu teaches the relationship between the outer shape of the tank and the internal pressure of the tank. The argument is unconvincing because Katano [0026] and Hu (Section 2.3) each recognize that the increasing amount of fiber on the tank needs to be offset by increasing the pressure in the tank. Given that the references use measurements of the outer diameter in several ways and given that the relationship of the diameter of the fiber on the tank to the amount of fiber on the tank and the force that it exerts on the liner is well understood, it would have been obvious to have used the known method of measuring the outer diameter to have produced the increases in pressure that Katano and Hu desire.
Applicant argues that none of KR ‘868, JP ‘141, or EP ‘086 teaches referring the measurement of the outer diameter to the internal pressure. The argument is unconvincing because it does not address the combination of references and the understanding of Katano and Hu that the diameter (and thus amount) of the fiber layer will require a higher pressure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2020-151935 teaches measuring the thickness of the fiber layer in order to control the winding angle of the fiber bundle (English translation, p. 4, 2nd paragraph).
JP 2022-83881 teaches a device for measuring the thickness of the fiber layer on a tank (Abstract).
Kobayashi (US 2018/0272592) teaches measuring the shape of the tank layer by layer (Fig. 7) and adjusting the winding conditions accordingly [0023, 0028].
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 MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712