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
Newly submitted claim 19 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are directed to related apparatus. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. For example:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the inner wall and the outer wall are made of a thermoset carbon fiber reinforced polymer” whereas Claim 19 does not.
Additionally, Claim 19 recites “wherein the bushing comprises a cylindrical main body and a flange projecting radially outwardly from the cylindrical main body, wherein a central opening of the cylindrical main body includes an inner wall which is smooth for receipt of the at least one pipe which extends through the central opening”, whereas Claim I does not.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 19 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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, 4-8, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunnhofer (US 20060169704 A1) in view of Boyle (US 20250027609 A1) and Müller et al (US 20230002069 A1).
In re Claim 1, Brunnhofer discloses a double-wall tank (Fig. 1) comprising:
an inner wall (1) defining an inner chamber (inside of 1) configured to house a fluid (See [0023]: contains cryogenic liquids),
wherein the inner wall (1) comprises at least one inner wall hole (23);
an outer wall (2) defining an outer chamber (2) which houses the inner chamber (inside of 1) within,
wherein the outer wall (2) comprises at least one outer wall hole (24);
a piping connecting system comprising:
at least one inner connecting part (See Fig. 2: walls of aperture 23) coupled to the inner wall (1),
wherein the at least one inner connecting part (See Fig. 2: walls of aperture 23) comprises at least one inner part hole (opening of aperture 23), and
wherein the at least one inner connecting part (See Fig. 2: walls of aperture 23)) is positioned relative to the inner wall (1) such that the at least one inner part hole (opening of aperture 23) and the at least one inner wall hole (23) of the inner wall (1) are coincident (See Fig. 2 the opening of the aperture 23 and the inner wall hole are coincident); and
at least one outer connecting part (See Fig. 2: walls of aperture 24) coupled to the outer wall (2),
wherein the at least one outer connecting part (See Fig. 2: walls of aperture 24) comprises at least one outer part hole (opening of aperture 24), and
wherein the at least one outer connecting part (See Fig. 2: walls of aperture 24) is positioned relative to the outer wall (2) such that the at least one outer part hole (opening of aperture 24) and the at least one outer wall hole (opening of aperture 24) of the outer wall (2) are coincident (See Fig. 2 the opening of the aperture 24 and the outer wall hole are coincident).
However, Brunnhofer does not explicitly teach, at least one pipe passing through: the at least one outer part hole and the at least one outer wall hole; and the at least one inner part hole and the at least one inner wall hole, wherein the at least one pipe is coupled, by means of a fluid-tight fit, to the at least one inner part hole and the at least one outer part hole.
On the other hand, Boyle (Fig. 2) teaches at least one pipe (40, 42, and 44) passing through: the at least one outer part hole (hole penetrating 22) and the at least one outer wall hole (hole penetrating opening of hole for 22); and the at least one inner part hole (hole penetrating 24) and the at least one inner wall hole (hole penetrating opening of hole for 24), wherein the at least one pipe (40, 42, and 44) is coupled, by means of a fluid-tight fit ([0127]: fitted to substantially reduce or inhibit contact of the cryogenic liquid), to the at least one inner part hole (hole penetrating 24) and the at least one outer part hole (ole penetrating 22).
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 Brunnhofer and to have modified them by having at least one pipe passing through: the at least one outer part hole and the at least one outer wall hole of Brunnhofer as taught by Boyle; and the at least one inner part hole and the at least one inner wall hole, wherein the at least one pipe is coupled, by means of a fluid-tight fit, to the at least one inner part hole and the at least one outer part hole of Brunnhofer as taught by Boyle, in order to facilitate dispensing of cryogenic fluid and vapors from out the containment volume (See Boyle [0100] and [0127]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Modified Brunnhofer supra does not explicitly teach wherein the inner wall and the outer wall are made of a thermoset carbon fiber reinforced polymer.
However, Mueller teaches wherein the inner wall and the outer wall are made of a thermoset carbon fiber reinforced polymer ([0041]: the inner wall and the outer wall is made of a fiber-reinforced material where the matrix material is a thermoset).
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 Brunnhofer and to have modified them by having the inner wall and the outer wall of Brunnhofer made of a thermoset carbon fiber reinforced polymer as taught by Müller, in order to provide sufficient stability for storing the fuel, but is lightweight compared to conventional metallic tanks and provide better insulation (See Müller [0041]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 4, Brunnhofer as modified teaches wherein the inner wall (1) and the outer wall (2) comprise, respectively, a plurality of inner (See Fig. 2: 2 inner holes of 23) and outer wall holes (Boyle Fig. 2: holes of pipes 40, 42, and 44 in wall 20),
wherein the double-wall tank (Boyle 100 corresponding to Brunnhofer Fig. 1) comprises a plurality of pipes (Boyle 40, 42, and 44), arranged passing:
through an outer wall hole (Brunnhofer: 24); and
through an inner wall hole (Brunnhofer 23).
In re Claim 5, Brunnhofer as modified teaches wherein the at least one inner connecting part (Brunnhofer Fig. 2: walls of aperture 23) comprises
a plurality of inner part holes (See Brunnhofer Fig. 2: openings of apertures 23),
wherein the double-wall tank (Boyle 100 corresponding to Brunnhofer Fig. 1) comprises a plurality of the at least one inner connecting parts (See Brunnhofer Fig. 2: walls of aperture 23), and
wherein the one or more of the at least one inner connecting part is (See Brunnhofer Fig. 2: walls of aperture 23) are positioned relative to the inner wall (Brunnhofer 1) such that the one or more inner part holes (See Brunnhofer Fig. 2: openings of apertures 23) and the inner wall holes (Brunnhofer 23) are coincident (See Fig. 2 the opening of the aperture 23 and the inner wall hole are coincident); or
wherein the at least one outer connecting part (Boyle walls of holes for pipes 40, 42, and 44) comprises a plurality of outer part holes (Boyle hole penetrating 22 by pipes 40, 42 and 44),
the double-wall tank (Boyle 100 corresponding to Brunnhofer Fig. 1) comprises a plurality of the at least one outer connecting part (Boyle walls of holes for pipes 40, 42, and 44), and
wherein the one or more of the at least one outer connecting parts (Boyle walls of holes for pipes 40, 42, and 44) are positioned relative to the outer wall (Brunnhofer 2) such that the outer part holes (Boyle walls of holes for pipes 40, 42, and 44) and the outer wall holes (Boyle holes of 40, 42 and 44 penetrating opening of hole for 22) are coincident (See Fig. 2 the opening of the aperture 24 and the outer wall hole are coincident).
In re Claim 6, Brunnhofer as modified teaches wherein at least a portion of the inner wall (5,6) and at least a portion of the connecting parts surrounding the part holes (7) are overwrapped by a layer of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) material ([0023]: 5 6, 7 assembled from fiber-reinforced elements or are themselves such elements).
In re Claim 7, Brunnhofer as modified teaches wherein a gap (Brunnhofer 13) between the inner wall (Brunnhofer 1) and the outer wall (Brunnhofer 2) is under vacuum conditions (Brunnhofer [0025]: space 13 has vacuum insulation).
In re Claim 8, Brunnhofer as modified teaches wherein the inner wall (Brunnhofer 1) is made of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) material (Brunnhofer [0023]: inner container 1 comprises 5 6, 7 assembled from fiber-reinforced elements or are themselves such elements).
In re Claim 10 and 18, Brunnhofer as modified teaches wherein the at least one inner connecting part (Brunnhofer 23) is made of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) (Brunnhofer [0023]: inner container 1 comprises a central part 5 and end parts 6, 7 assembled from fiber-reinforced elements or are themselves such elements).
In re Claim 20, Brunnhofer is silent on wherein a quantity of the at least one outer wall hole is equivalent to a quantity of the at least one inner wall hole.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the quantity of outer and inner wall holes of modified Brunnhofer, and thus the claimed inner and outer hole quantities cannot be considered critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", where Huang teaches the general conditions of the claim in the prior art, including the same composition in all other respects and identical experimental data. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claim 2-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunnhofer (US 20060169704 A1) as modified by Boyle (US 20250027609 A1), herein, further in view of Kotcharian (US 4021982 A), hereinafter Brunnhofer, Boyle, Kotcharian.
In re Claim 2, Brunnhofer as modified does not explicitly teach, wherein the at least one inner connecting part, the at least one outer connecting part, or both is a bushing coupled, by means of a fluid-tight fit, to a corresponding inner or outer wall hole.
On the other hand, Kotcharian teaches herein the at least one inner connecting part (68) is a bushing (68; See Col 17:30-33: 68 is a metallic bush threaded internally into a complementary hole) coupled, by means of a fluid-tight fit (fluid-tight barrier 14 ), to a corresponding inner or outer wall hole (78).
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 Brunnhofer/Boyle and to have modified them by having the at least one inner connecting part be a bushing coupled, by means of a fluid-tight fit, to a corresponding inner wall hole as taught by Kotcharian, in order to provide a replaceable interface that once integrated can block a leakage and prevent tilting by distributing mechanical stress (See also Kotcharian Col 17:30-35 and Col 3:45-48), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 3, Brunnhofer as modified teaches wherein the bushing (Kotcharian 68) comprises
a cylindrical main body (See Kotcharian Fig. 16: 68 is cylindrical as it is in the shape of a bolt) and
a flange (Kotcharian 65) projecting radially outwardly from the cylindrical main body (See Kotcharian Fig. 16: 65 projects outward from cylindrical body of 68),
wherein said flange (Kotcharian 65) is arranged,
when the bushing (Kotcharian 68) is arranged on the inner wall (Brunnhofer 1), on an inner side of the inner wall (See Kotcharian inside of inside wall) facing the interior of the inner chamber (Brunnhofer interior of 1).
In re Claim 9, Brunnhofer as modified does not explicitly teach, wherein the at least one inner connecting part, the at least one outer connecting part, or both is metallic.
However, Kotcharian teaches wherein the at least one inner connecting part (68) is metallic. (68; See Col 17:30-33: 68 is a metallic bush threaded internally into a complementary hole).
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 Brunnhofer/Boyle and to have modified them by wherein the at least one inner connecting part of Brunnhofer/Boyle is metallic as taught by Kotcharian, in order to weld the metallic elements and form a rigid connection (See Kotcharian Col 26:60-64), without yielding unpredictable results.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks of February 02, 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below.
Applicant argues
On Page 10 of the Remarks, that the examiner has not shown that the amendment of claim 1 is obvious over Brunnhofer in view of Boyle because there is allegedly no basis in the prior art for wherein the inner wall and the outer wall are made of a thermoset carbon fiber reinforced polymer required by the claims. Applicant appears to suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize from the teaching of modified Brunnhofer that wherein the inner wall and the outer wall are made of a thermoset carbon fiber reinforced polymer. This argument on the amendment is persuasive.
However, it should be noted that applicant's amendments have changed the scope of the claimed invention, thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection. Namely, claim 1 now requires wherein the inner wall and the outer wall are made of a thermoset carbon fiber reinforced polymer. In light of the above, the claim has been reconsidered, and the new grounds of rejection now incorporates teachings from Müller to arrive at the claimed invention.
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
Prosecution Insights