DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 2026-08-31 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because method claims that do not contain all the positive structural features of the apparatus, and vice versa, imply diverging searches, especially during later prosecution rounds. Applicant is free to amend the unelected claims to include all the structural features of the independent apparatus claims, and, if the apparatus claim is found to be allowable at some point down the road, the method claims will be rejoined and allowed as well, since they would at that point contain all the limitations that lead to a determination of allowable subject matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-14 are pending; claims 9-14 being withdrawn. Claims 1-8 are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 requires “a composite cryogenic liquid hydrogen fuel tank comprising an inner tank, an outer tank, and an intermediate chamber between the inner tank and the outer tank, wherein the optical fiber sensors are in the inner tank, in the intermediate chamber and in the outer tank.” The instant specification appears to disclose a double-shelled tank, with an inner liquid hydrogen tank, and an intermediate, insulative chamber between the outer shell and the inner shell. The references to “an inner tank” and “an outer tank” therefore appear to refer to “an inner tank [with an accommodation space]” and “an outer tank [housing shell].” That is, there are only two accommodation spaces: the intermediate chamber and the inner chamber, but the claim refers to three elements. This results in indefiniteness when it says that “the optical fiber sensors are in the inner tank, in the intermediate chamber and in the outer tank,” because it is not clear how the sensor can be “in” the outer tank, the outer tank being just a shell forming the intermediate chamber between its inner wall and the outer wall of the inner tank. The claim has been interpreted as broadly requiring three different locations for optical fiber sensors, including in the inner chamber, somewhere in the intermediate chamber, and somewhere close to the outer tank wall.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 110469772 to Zhang et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches:
a hydrogen tank (p. 1) with a network of optical fiber sensors 1 forming a network around the tank (Figs. 1-2, p. 2)
the optical fiber sensors are configured to continuously and simultaneously measure temperature and strain data, the sensors converting modified light properties into a corresponding value for at least one of the physical variables (pp. 2-3)
PNG
media_image1.png
518
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang teaches:
a single wall tank, within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase, having no intermediate chamber (Fig. 2)
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.
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.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 110469772 to Zhang et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Chen (US 2004/0046109 to Chen et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang does not explicitly teach:
continuously and simultaneously measuring acceleration
Measuring acceleration via optical fiber sensors was, however, known in the art. Chen, for example, teaches using fiber optic arrays to measure acceleration, displacement, vibration, and force (¶ 0039). It would have been obvious to use the optical fiber network of Zhang to measure acceleration in order to monitor shocks and the like for a vehicle tank. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 5 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 110469772 to Zhang et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Susko (US 2012/0097270 to Susko).
Regarding Claims 5 and 7, Zhang does not explicitly teach:
measuring oxygen
Bragg grating sensors
Susko, however, from the same field of invention regarding optical sensors for measuring temperature and pressure, further teaches measuring oxygen (abstract, ¶ 0003, etc.), wherein the sensors including fiber Bragg grating (¶ 0020). It would have been obvious to use such techniques as taught in Susko to measure the oxygen, temperature, and pressure in Susko, with the motivation to detect possible explosion risks. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 110469772 to Zhang et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Kleinerman (US Patent No. 5,991,479 to Kleinerman).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang does not teach:
luminescent optical fiber sensors
Kleinerman, however, from the same field of invention, regarding optical fiber sensor arrays, teaches luminescent sensing for a variety of physical variables (columns 2-3, column 4 line 65). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to use luminescent light for the sensors, since they were well-known in the art.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 110469772 to Zhang et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Siegl (Siegl et al. “Advanced Sensor Technologies for Cryogenic Liquid Propellant Flow Phenomena.” Institute of Transport Research, IAC-15-C4.5.2, 2015).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang does not explicitly teach:
backscattering sensors
Rayleigh backscattering sensors were known in the art for measuring hydrogen concentrations, as taught, for example in Siegl (p. 6 column 2). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to use backscattering sensors to measure the hydrogen in a sensor network for a hydrogen tank to monitor, e.g. explosion risk.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US Patent No. 3,951,362 to Robinson et al.) in view of Zhang (CN 110469772 to Zhang et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) and Brower (US 2010/0229662 to Brower), in further view of del Olmo (del Olmo et al. “Fiber Optic Sensors for Reusable Launch Vehicle Cryogenic Tanks.” 1st International ARA Days: Atmospheric Reentry Systems, Missions and Vehicles, Jan. 2006).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Robinson teaches:
a liquid hydrogen tank with an outer shell 14, inner shell with core 22, and an intermediate space formed by baffling 21 (Figs. 3 and 8, columns 2-3)
wherein the hydrogen fuel tank is a composite tank, formed from an inner tank 22, outer tank 14, and an intermediate chamber between the inner tank and the outer tank (i.e. claim 3)
PNG
media_image2.png
980
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Robinson does not explicitly teach:
a network of optical fiber sensors in the fuel connected and continuously and simultaneously measuring physical variables of the hydrogen fuel tank such as temperature, strains, and/or pressure, that operate by converting light properties into said variables\
sensors at the inner tank, the intermediate chamber, and the outer tank
Zhang, however, from the same field of invention teaches providing a network of fiber optic cables for measuring such variables in a hydrogen tank (Figs. 1-2, p. 2). Brower, also from the same field of invention, regarding monitoring of a two-shell container for cryogenic materials, teaches fiber optics cables at the inner and outer shell walls (Fig. 5, abstract, etc.).
PNG
media_image3.png
812
590
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Meanwhile, del Olmo teaches providing H2 fiber optic sensors in LH2 tank walls (pp. 4-5, etc.). It would have been obvious to provide fiber optic sensors to monitor temperature, H2, strain, and the like, at the inner tank wall, in the intermediate chamber, and at the outer chamber, as the prior art renders obvious such locations for different kinds of sensors, depending on the physical variables to be measured. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights