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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pages 5-6) that Hendel is not analogous art as Hendel relates to a huge ship for transporting liquid cargo and therefore relates to a totally different field of vehicles. Additionally there is no disclosure that says the tanks of ships are suitable to transport liquified hydrogen and Hendel teaches tanks made of nickeled steel and therefore Hendel is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention or pertinent to the problems face by the inventor.
In response to applicant's argument that Hendel is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hendel is indeed in the field of inventors endeavor which broadly encompasses tanks onboard moving vehicles and further the same problems and concerns apply to both the tanks of the ship of Hendel and in the tanks of the aircraft of the other references and applicant’s claims in that Hendel is being utilize to teach the utilization of tensile straps to help secure a tank on a moving vehicle which can be beneficial during sharp movements whether it be on the ocean or in the air. With regard to the tanks of Hendel, the examiner is not utilizing Hendel to disclose or teach the fuel tanks, this is taught by the primary reference who already provides for hydrogen tanks. Hendel is merely utilized to disclose the utilization of a suspension system for holding vehicle tanks steady which can easily be applied to different tanks in different moving vehicles including the tank of Stolte. See motivation to combine including providing more flexibility and movement to the tank during vehicular movement or impact.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication number 2012/0240599 Stolte in view of U.S. patent number 3,659,817 Hendal et al. (hereinafter Hendal), U.S. patent number 4,817,890 Coffinberry, and U.S. patent number 4,300,354 Buchs et al. (hereinafter Buchs).
Regarding claim 1, Stolte discloses an aircraft comprising a hydrogen consumer; a hydrogen supply device configured to supply the hydrogen consumer with hydrogen, the hydrogen supply device having a cryogenic hydrogen tank configured to store liquid hydrogen (see figure 1, hydrogen tank 16 in aircraft 10, consumers 14/18; further see paragraph 46). Stolte does not disclose a suspension arrangement. Stolte does not disclose a suspension arrangement with suspension elements configured to suspend the hydrogen tank on the structure of the aircraft wherein the suspension arrangement comprises a plurality of tensile loaded suspension elements fixed to load introduction areas on the hydrogen tank such that the suspension elements extend essentially tangential to a surface of the hydrogen tank at the associated load introduction area. This is disclosed by Hendal who provides for suspending a liquid cargo tank onboard a moving vehicle through the use of tangential bands under tension (see abstract, figures 1, 3, and 4 or 9-11). Hendal states “means for storing and transporting liquid cargo…support means for supporting said tank each load-bearing element extending upwardly and tangentially from the cylindrical tank wall in a common vertical plane….each being attached…..under tension” (claim 1 of Hendal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize the suspension system of Hendal with the aircraft hydrogen tank of Stolte in order to alleviate dangers of movements of the tank and deformations that may occur during transport (see column 1 of Hendal). Further this is merely applying a known technique (tangentially attached suspension elements under tension used to support cargo tanks on vehicles) to a known device (hydrogen tank on an aircraft) reach for improvement to yield predictable results for example avoiding bending stresses in the tank wall (see column 1 of Handal). Stolte and Hendal do not explicitly disclose the suspension arrangement comprising dry fiber suspension elements. Buchs further discloses wherein the suspension elements are made at least partially from fibers only wherein the fibers are chosen from the group consisting of Kevlar, carbon, glass, spider silk, and PE (abstract, suspension elements 12 made of different fiber compound materials 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 18.4, see column 4, lines 35-53, see polyaramid fibers and carbon fibers in column 5, lines 1-10, see glass fibers column 1, lines 41-42). The specific types of fibers for suspension elements are found to be an obvious design choice based on strength and thermal resistance parameters in addition to cost of the construction of fibers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize fiber suspension elements to provide thermal flexibility and strength. Buchs states “it is well known to use fiber compound materials for suspension systems of the above type because of the desirable material characteristics of such materials” (column 1, lines 11-13). Additionally it would be a simple substitution of one known suspension element for another to obtain predictable results when applying the suspension elements of Buchs to the bands and suspension system of Handal and the tank/aircraft of Stolte. Stolte does not disclose that the hydrogen tank has a tank wall made from fiber reinforced composite material. This is disclosed by Coffinberry who provides utilizing fiber reinforced walls for hydrogen tanks is well known stating “typical light weight wall construction of liquid hydrogen tank 4 comprises graphite-epoxy resin walls 38 preferable fiber reinforced with for example graphite fibers” (see column 8, lines 18-43). It would have been obvious to have the hydrogen tank walls composed of fiber reinforced resin walls as disclosed by Coffinberry to ensure the tank had the required strength and insulation while still maintain a lightweight construction for aircraft use. Additionally this is applying a known technique (fiber reinforced tank walls) to a known device (hydrogen tank in aircraft) ready for improvement to yield predictable results in addition to the simple substitution of one known element to another to obtain predictable results (applying different types of tank walls/insulation well known in hydrogen tanks on board aircraft).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Buchs further discloses wherein the suspension elements are made at least partially from fibers only wherein the fibers are chosen from the group consisting of Kevlar, carbon, glass, spider silk, and PE (abstract, suspension elements 12 made of different fiber compound materials 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 18.4, see column 4, lines 35-53, see polyaramid fibers and carbon fibers in column 5, lines 1-10, see glass fibers column 1, lines 41-42). The specific types of fibers for suspension elements are found to be an obvious design choice based on strength and thermal resistance parameters in addition to cost of the construction of fibers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize fiber suspension elements to provide thermal flexibility and strength. Buchs states “it is well known to use fiber compound materials for suspension systems of the above type because of the desirable material characteristics of such materials” (column 1, lines 11-13). Additionally it would be a simple substitution of one known suspension element for another to obtain predictable results when applying the suspension elements of Buchs to the bands and suspension system of Handal and the tank/aircraft of Stolte. See motivation with respect to the rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes U.S. 6,019,316 Sarlin et al. who provides for utilizing tensile straps to hold a fuel tank in an aircraft (see figures 2-3, straps 21/24 attached to fuel tank 9).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798