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 with traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on October 20, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Groups I and II share the same special technical feature and that searching all inventions would not impose a serious burden. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “no indication was provided that the content of the claims interpreted in light of the description was considered in making the assertion of a lack of unity and therefor has not met the burden necessary to support the assertion” (Remarks at p. 3), the examiner disagrees. Pending claims are always given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “unity of invention does exist between Groups I to II because there is a technical relationship that involves the same special technical feature. It is this technical feature that defines the contribution which each of the groups, taken as a whole, makes over the prior art” (Remarks at p. 3), the examiner disagrees. As set forth the in restriction, although Groups I and II share a technical feature, that technical feature is not a special technical feature, and thus Groups I and II do not share a special technical feature.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “the office action has not considered the relationship of the inventions of Groups I to II with respect to 37 CFR 1.475(b)(2) and MPEP 806.03. Therefore the burden necessary according to MPEP 1893.03(d) to sustain the conclusion that the groups lack of unity of invention has not been met” (Remarks at p. 4), the examiner disagrees. MPEP 1893.03(d) explains that “A group of inventions is considered linked to form a single general inventive concept where there is a technical relationship among the inventions that involves at least one common or corresponding special technical feature.” A special technical feature is defined as “technical features that define the contribution which each claimed invention, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art” (MPEP 1893.03(d)). Here, claim 1 does not recite any “special technical feature,” as there the prior art anticipates each limitation in the claim (see Restriction Requirement at pp. 3-4).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “a search of all the claims would not impose a serious burden on the examiner. In fact, the International Searching Authority searched all of the claims together” (Remarks at p. 4), the examiner disagrees. While the searches may overlap, the search would be burdensome and longer because the Examiner would need to search for each distinct invention. Further, the examination of the application would be burdensome because the examiner would be required to apply art and rejections to the additional claims directed toward each distinct invention. Also, unity of invention considerations at the international stage are not binding on national phase examination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 15-25 are withdrawn.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the limitations “α1 being in a range of from 40 to 90°” and “α2 being in a range of from 40° to α1” recited in claim 9 are not supported in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 13, line 4: “dome reinforcement shell flushes with the liner” should read “dome reinforcement shell is flush with the liner.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 9, and 13 are 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 4 recites “each set of intermediate layers” in lines 4-5. There is only a single “set of intermediate layers” previously recited in line 3, so it is unclear whether the “each” is intending to convey that there are multiple sets of intermediate layers, or referring to each layer within the set of intermediate layers.
Claim 5 recites “more than one of the set of intermediate layers which start angles αi with respect to the central axis gradually decrease from the proximal layer to the distal layer” in lines 2-4. It is unclear whether this is intending to convey that there are multiple sets of intermediate layers, or referring to each layer within the set of intermediate layers. It is further unclear whether each has the same start angle of αi, or whether each has a different angle.
Claim 9 recites “the proximal layer has an end angle α1” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to the angle α1 recited in claim 1, or something else.
Claim 9 recites “the distal layer has an end angle α2” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to the angle α2 recited in claim 1, or something else.
Claim 9 recites “each set of intermediate layers” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are no intermediate layers recited in claims 1 or 8. It is unclear whether this is referring to the “additional layer of fiber-reinforced composite material” recited in claim 8, or something else.
Claim 9 recites “an additional layer is present” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to the “additional layer of fiber-reinforced composite material” recited in claim 8, or a different additional layer.
Claim 13 recites “the at least one dome reinforcement shell” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only a single “dome reinforcement shell” was recited previously in claims 12-13. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the dome reinforcement shell.”
Claim 5 is also rejected through its dependence on a rejected parent claim (details above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP-2418412 to Otsubo (hereinafter, “Otsubo”). Note – a copy of Otsubo is attached to the Restriction Requirement dated July 18, 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Otsubo discloses a dome reinforcement shell (dome portion of FRP layer 21, see Figs. 3, 8) configured for a pressure vessel (tank 1, Fig. 3), comprising a winding of layers of fiber-reinforced composite material tapes (see e.g., para. [0009]), having a dome-shaped portion (see Fig. 8) with a base (portion of FRP layer 21 near boss 20, see Fig. 8) and a central axis (see Figs. 3, 8), the layers comprising: a proximal layer of fiber-reinforced composite material (fiber layer 71 of FRP layer 21, see Figs. 8-9), the proximal layer (fiber layer 71) having a start angle α1 with respect to the central axis (Abstract), measured at a first end of the proximal layer (Abstract), α1 being in a range of from 0 to 90° (fiber angle in fiber layer 71 is between 30° and 90°, Abstract); and a distal layer of fiber-reinforced composite material (fiber layer 72 of FRP layer 21, see Fis. 8-9), the distal layer (fiber layer 72) having a start angle α2 with respect to the central axis (Abstract), measured at a first end of the distal layer (Abstract), α2 being in a range of from 0 to α1 (fiber angle in fiber layer 72 is between 0° and 30°, Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Otsubo further discloses α1 is in a range of from 60 to 75° (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Otsubo further discloses α2 is in a range of from 10 to 20° (Abstract).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2020/0158286 to Criel (hereinafter, “Criel”) in view of U.S. Pub. 2013/0087567 to Kaneko et al. (hereinafter, “Kaneko”).
Regarding claim 1, Criel discloses a dome reinforcement shell (local reinforcement layer 20, Fig. 3) configured for a pressure vessel (pressure vessel 100, Fig. 3), comprising a winding of layers of fiber-reinforced composite material tapes (paras. [0067], [0075]-[0080]), having a dome-shaped portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below) with a base (annotated Fig. 3) and a central axis (annotated Fig. 3), the layers comprising: a proximal layer of fiber-reinforced composite material (see e.g., para. [0080]); and a distal layer of fiber-reinforced composite material (see e.g., para. [0080]).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Criel Annotated Figure 3
Criel further teaches that the dome reinforcement shell can be formed by a variety of possible manufacturing methods (see e.g., paras. [0075]-[0080]), including “by a build-up of tape sections” (para. [0080]).
Criel does not expressly disclose the proximal layer having a start angle α1 with respect to the central axis, measured at a first end of the proximal layer, α1 being in a range of from 0 to 90°, and the distal layer having a start angle α2 with respect to the central axis, measured at a first end of the distal layer, α2 being in a range of from 0 to α1.
Kaneko teaches a pressure vessel having a dome reinforcement shell comprising a winding of layers of fiber-reinforced composite material (para. [0056]). Kaneko teaches a proximal layer (high-angled helical layers 4-6 in Fig. 6; Note – the specification describes an additional layer beneath the proximal layer, and thus “proximal” does not require the layer be the innermost layer – see e.g., specification at p. 5, ll. 7-13) having a start angle α1 (angle α in Fig. 2C) in a range of from 0° to 90° (see Fig. 2C). Although not expressly disclosed, the angle α1 appears to be in a range of about 60° to 75° (see Fig. 2C). Kaneko teaches a distal layer (low-angled helical layers 44-54 in Fig. 6) having a start angle α2 (angle α in Fig. 2B) in a range of from α1 (Figs. 2B-2C; para. [0080]). Although not expressly disclosed, the angle α1 appears to be in a range of about 10° to 20° (see Fig. 2B). Kaneko teaches a set of intermediate layers (see Fig. 6; para. [0080]) between the proximal layer and the distal layer (see Fig. 6; para. [0080]). Kaneko teaches an additional layer of fiber-reinforced composite material (layer number 3 in Fig. 6) below the proximal layer (layer numbers 4-6 in Fig. 6) that is a hoop layer with an angle of 90° (para. [0062]). Kaneko further teaches that this layered arrangement of fiber-composite material with different angles ensures smooth winding and improves strength of the tank and prevents fracture at the shoulder between the dome portion and the cylindrical portion of the vessel (paras. [0020], [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dome reinforcement shell of Criel to form the shell from a proximal layer having a higher angle, a distal layer having a lower angle, and a hoop layer below the proximal layer as taught by Kaneko for the purpose of improving strength and preventing fracture of the pressure vessel, as recognized by Kaneko (see e.g., paras. [0020], [0083]). It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the dome reinforcement shell of Criel/Kaneko to form the angle α1 in a range of from 60 to 75° and the angle α2 in a range of from 10 to 20° because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (see Kaneko at Figs. 2B-2C), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 (II-A); In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 2, Criel as modified by Kaneko already includes α1 is in a range of from 60 to 75° (see Kaneko at Fig. 2C and modification above).
Regarding claim 3, Criel as modified by Kaneko already includes α2 is in a range of from 10 to 20° (see Kaneko at Fig. 2B and modification above).
Regarding claim 6, Criel further discloses an integral extension portion (annotated Fig. 3) of revolution (see Fig. 3) about the central axis (annotated Fig. 3) extending axially from the base (annotated Fig. 3) of the dome-shaped portion (annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Criel further discloses the integral extension portion (annotated Fig. 3) has an inner surface (annotated Fig. 3) and an outer peripheral surface (annotated Fig. 3), wherein the outer peripheral surface (annotated Fig. 3) is a cylindrical surface (see Fig. 3), and wherein the inner surface (annotated Fig. 3) is a surface selected from the group consisting of cylindrical, frustoconical, curved, and a combination thereof (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Criel as modified by Kaneko already includes an additional layer of fiber-reinforced composite material (Kaneko, layer number 3 in Fig. 6), wherein the additional layer has a start angle α0 with respect to the central axis (Kaneko, see Fig. 2A), and wherein α0 is in a range of from α1 to 90° (Kaneko, para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 9, Criel as modified by Kaneko already includes the proximal layer (Kaneko, high-angled helical layers 4-6 in Fig. 6) has an end angle α1 with respect to the central axis (Kaneko, see Fig. 2C), α1 being in a range of from 40° to 90° (Kaneko, see Fig. 2C and reasons for modification above), and wherein the distal layer (low-angled helical layers 44-54 in Fig. 6) has an end angle α2 with respect to the central axis (Kaneko, see Fig. 2B), α2 being in a range of from 40° to α1 (Kaneko, see Fig. 2B and related Specification objections and 112(b) rejections), and/or wherein each set of intermediate layers has an end angle αi with respect to the central axis between α1 and α2 (This is an alternative limitation that is not required in the claim), and/or wherein an additional layer (Kaneko, layer number 3 in Fig. 6) is present and has an end angle α0 with respect to the central axis (Kaneko, see Fig. 2A), α0 being between α1 and 90° (Kaneko, para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, Criel as modified by Kaneko already includes an additional layer of fiber-reinforced composite material (Kaneko, layer number 3 in Fig. 6), wherein the additional layer is a hoop layer (Kaneko, Fig. 2A; para. [0062]) forming an angle α0’ with respect to the longitudinal axis (Kaneko, Fig. 2A; para. [0062]), α0' being approximately equal to 90° (Kaneko, Fig. 2A; para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 11, Criel as modified by Kaneko already includes the additional layer of fiber-reinforced composite material (Kaneko, layer number 3 in Fig. 6) lays below the at least one proximal layer (Kaneko. high-angled helical layers 4-6 in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Criel as modified above discloses a pressure vessel (pressure vessel 100, Fig. 3), comprising: a liner (liner 40, Fig. 3) defining a fluid storage chamber (annotated Fig. 3); the dome reinforcement shell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), fit over a dome-shaped longitudinal end of the liner (annotated Fig. 3); a boss (boss 10, Fig. 3); and an outer composite structure (reinforcement structure 50, Fig. 3) enclosing or encasing the liner (liner 40) and the dome reinforcement shell (local reinforcement layer 20, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Criel further discloses the liner (liner 40) comprises an intermediate portion (annotated Fig. 3) dimensioned so as to accommodate the dome reinforcement shell (local reinforcement layer 20) such that the at least one dome reinforcement shell (local reinforcement layer 20) flushes with the liner (inner surface of local reinforcement layer 20 is flush with the liner 40, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Criel as modified above discloses a vehicle (para. [0090]) comprising a pressure vessel (pressure vessel 100) according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criel in view of Kaneko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. 11,346,499 to Joubert Des Ouches et al. (hereinafter, “Ouches”).
Regarding claim 4, Criel as modified by Kaneko already includes a set of intermediate layers of fiber-reinforced composite material laid between the proximal layer and the distal layer (Kaneko, see Fig. 6), each set of intermediate layers having a start angle αi with respect to the central axis (Kaneko, see Figs. 2A-C; 6).
Criel as modified by Kaneko does not expressly disclose wherein the start angle αi is between α1 and α2.
Ouches teaches a pressure vessel having a dome reinforcement shell (portion of container 110 covering dome portion of pressure vessel, see Figs. 1A-1B) comprising a winding of layers of fiber-reinforced composite material tapes (see e.g., col. 7, l. 61-col. 8, l. 23). Ouches teaches a proximal layer having a start angle α1 with respect to the central axis (see Figs. 3A-3B). Ouches teaches a distal layer having a start angle α2 with respect to the central axis (see Figs. 3A-3B). Ouches teaches a set of intermediate layers of fiber-reinforced composite material laid between the proximal layer and the distal layer and having a start angle αi with respect to the central axis (see Figs. 3A-3B). Ouches teaches that the start angle αi is between the start angles α1 and α2, and gradually changes within each layer between the proximal layer to the distal layer (Figs. 3A-3B; col. 8, l. 24-col. 9, l. 22). Ouches teaches that having the different angles between layers helps reduce damage to the composite material (col. 9, ll. 1-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dome reinforcement shell of Criel/Kaneko to form the intermediate layers having a start angle between α1 and α2, and have the start angles gradually decrease from the proximal layer to the distal layer as taught by Ouches for the purpose of reducing damage to the composite material, as recognized by Ouches (see col. 9, ll. 1-22).
Regarding claim 5, Criel as modified by Kaneko and Ouches already includes more than one of the set of intermediate layers (Kaneko, Fig. 6; Ouches, Figs. 3A-3B) which start angles αi with respect to the central axis gradually decrease from the proximal layer to the distal layer (Ouches, Figs. 3A-3B; col. 8, l. 24-col. 9, l. 22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. 5,385,262 to Coquet et al. discloses a dome reinforcement shell for a pressure vessel comprising a plurality of layers of fiber-reinforced composite materials wound at different angles (see Figs. 1a-2).
U.S. Pub. 2020/0240586 to Sonnen et al. discloses a dome reinforcement shell for a pressure vessel comprising a plurality of layers of fiber-reinforced composite materials wound at different angles, and a pressure vessel having a liner with a shoulder (see Figs. 1-6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3733