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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated October 13, 2025, claims 1 and 3-11 were amended and claim 2 was cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending, with claims 12-20 withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with respect to claims 1 and 4-11. The objections and rejections are withdrawn. The claim objection to claim 3 was not addressed.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of the claims over Criel have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that in Criel, “The liner (20) is fused to the tape (31, 32) (see paragraphs [0015] and [0027]. Removal of the tapes (31, 32) within the meaning of claim 1 is therefore already impossible in the D1, since they cannot be easily separated from the liner. The second tape (32) is placed across the first tape (31) (see, for example, Figure 2a). Removal by unwinding is therefore not possible” (Remarks at p. 10), the examiner disagrees. Criel discloses the tapes are made of thermoplastic material. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that thermoplastic materials are capable of being heated and softened for repeated reuse. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the tapes are capable of being removed. Further, the claims are directed to a pressure vessel, rather than a method. The particular method of removing the thermoplastic polymer matrix with the reinforcing fibers is not part of the claim. “When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent” (MPEP 2112.01). The pressure vessel of Criel has a composite material unit that is capable of having the fibers removed and reused.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “The fact that the tapes (31, 32) of Criel are only connected to each other in the end area (point 2 of the above-mentioned disclosure) is politely but firmly contradicted” (Remarks at p. 10), the examiner disagrees. It is unclear what this statement is arguing. It is unclear whether Applicant is asserting that Criel is only connected to each other in the end area, or whether the claims require the tapes connected to each other in the end area. Nothing in claim 1 requires the tapes be only connected to each other in the end area.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “loosely overlapping the tapes is completely unrelated to the technology” (Remarks at p. 11), the examiner disagrees. It is unclear what this statement is arguing. It is unclear whether Applicant is asserting that Criel discloses loosely overlapping the tapes, which is unrelated to the claimed technology, or whether the claims require loosely overlapping tapes which is not disclosed in Criel. Nothing in the claims requires the tapes be “loosely overlapped.”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “In paragraph [0043] of Criel, it is disclosed that the matrix can consist of a thermoset. A thermoset cannot be re-softened, so removal is obvious impossible” (Remarks at p. 11), the examiner disagrees. The only mention of a thermoset material in Criel states: “The polymer resin can be thermoplastic such as a polyamide or polyphenyl sulfide, or thermosetting such as an epoxy or unsaturated polyester” (para. [0043]). That is, Criel teaches the tank could use a thermosetting material or a thermoplastic material. The rejection relies upon an embodiment with a thermoplastic material.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “in paragraph [0049] of Criel, it is disclosed that the tapes are intermingled. This also makes it impossible to remove the tapes” (Remarks at p. 11), the examiner disagrees. Criel explains that “intermingled” means staggered, rather than interwoven (see paras. [0048]-[0052], [0097]; Fig. 7). Applicant has not identified any reason the intermingled/staggered arrangement of Criel would not be removable.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Criel only discloses forming a pressure tank with several tapes in order to achieve the highest possible strength of the pressure tank (cross layers, thermoset, intermingled). Recycling is not taken into account in this design. On the one hand, the characteristics of the pressure tank are diametrically opposed to recycling and, on the other hand, Criel does not even teach that recycling or removal of the tapes should be considered” (Remarks at p. 11), the examiner disagrees. First, the characteristics of Criel are not “opposed” to recycling, as discussed above. Second, the fact that Applicant has recognized another advantage of using thermoplastic that is not recognized in the art cannot be the basis for patentability (see MPEP 2145(II)).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims over Nakayama in view of Criel have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “nothing has been identified by the Examiner in Nakayama or Criel that teaches or suggests a composite material that is arranged and configured such that the thermoplastic matrix with the reinforcing fibers is removable, wherein the composite material unit comprises a thermoplastic tape, wherein the plastic material is at least partially non-destructively removable with the reinforcing fibers, so that the composite material unit itself is substantially non-destructively removable as set forth in independent claim 1” (Remarks at pp. 12-13), the examiner disagrees. As discussed above, Criel teaches a composite material unit with reinforcing fibers and a thermoplastic polymer matrix as claimed, and this structure is capable of being removable.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim status identifier for claim 18 says “previously presented,” but it should read “withdrawn” (see 37 CFR 1.121(c)).
The claim status identifier for claim 3 says “currently amended,” but it should read “previously presented” (see 37 CFR 1.121(c)).
At claim 3, line 1: “Pressure vessel according to claim 1” should read “The pressure vessel according to claim 1”.
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 1 and 3-11 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 1 recites “the plastic material is at least partially non-destructively removable with the reinforcing fibers, so that the composite material unit itself is substantially non-destructively removable” in lines 10-12. It is unclear what is meant by “substantially non-destructively removable” in view of the specification. Applicant’s specification explains that “Essentially non-destructively removable means, for example, that more than 20%, more than 30%, more than 40% or more than 50% of the reinforcing fibers are present as continuous fibers after removal” (see p. 6, ll. 20-23). However, it is unclear whether the specification’s definition for “essentially non-destructively removable” applies to the claim limitation of “substantially non-destructively removable.”
Claim 1 recites “the composite material” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to the “composite material unit” or something else.
Claim 1 recites “the plastic material” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to the thermoplastic polymer matrix, the thermoplastic tape, or something else.
Claims 3-11 are also rejected through their 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2019/0170297 to Criel et al. (hereinafter, “Criel”).
Regarding claim 1, Criel discloses a pressure vessel (tank 10, Fig. 2A) with an interior chamber (para. [0011]), in particular for storing hydrogen (para. [0070]), comprising a vessel wall (body 20, Fig. 2A) comprising or consisting of a composite material unit (reinforcement structure 30, Fig. 2A) with reinforcing fibers (paras. [0042]-[0043]) and a thermoplastic polymer matrix (paras. [0042]-[0043]), wherein the composite material unit (reinforcement structure 30) is arranged and configured such that the reinforcing fibers can be removed as continuous fibers, in particular and non-destructively, so that the composite material unit can be reused (fibers are wound continuously with a thermoplastic matrix, and are thus capable of being removed and reused, see e.g., paras. [0020], [0042]), the composite material (reinforcement structure 30) arranged and configured such that the thermoplastic polymer matrix (paras. [0042]-[0043]) with the reinforcing fibers (paras. [0042]-[0043]) is removable (thermoplastic plastic matrix with fibers is capable of being removed, see e.g., para. [0042]), wherein the composite material unit (reinforcement structure 30) comprises a thermoplastic tape (see e.g., paras. [0040]-[0042]), wherein the plastic material (paras. [0042]-[0043]) is at least partially non-destructively removable with the reinforcing fibers (thermoplastic plastic matrix is capable of being removed with the fibers, see e.g., para. [0042]), so that the composite material unit itself (reinforcement structure 30, Fig. 2A) is substantially non-destructively removable (thermoplastic plastic matrix with fibers is capable of being removed, see e.g., para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Criel further discloses the composite material unit (reinforcement structure 30) extends from an arrangement start (start of winding of tapes in reinforcement structure 30) to an arrangement end (end of winding of tapes in reinforcement structure 30), and a detachment section of the composite material unit (portion of reinforcement structure 30 between start and end of winding) adjacent to the arrangement end is arranged and/or configured to be detachable (reinforcement structure 30 is capable of being detached).
Regarding claim 7, Criel further discloses two or more composite material units (primary tape 31, secondary tape 32, para. [0109]) each having an arrangement end (each of the tapes 31, 32 has an end of winding), and/or wherein the composite material unit is a composite material web in the form of a processed prepreg.
Regarding claim 10, Criel further discloses two or more composite material units (tapes 31, 32, Figs. 2A, 2B) each having an arrangement end (each of the tapes 31, 32 has an end of winding), wherein the arrangement ends are substantially evenly distributed along a container surface of the pressure vessel (see e.g., Figs. 2A-6B).
Regarding claim 11, Criel further discloses a hollow body (body 20, Figs. 2A-2B) defining a liner (para. [0103]) forming an interior chamber (para. [0103]), the composite material unit (reinforcement structure 30, Fig. 2A) is arranged on an outer side of the hollow body (see e.g., Figs. 2A-2B).
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, 3-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H10292899 to Nakayama et al. (hereinafter, “Nakayama”) in view of Criel.
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama discloses a pressure vessel (Figs. 1-4b; para. [0001] of translation attached to IDS dated April 15, 2024) with an interior chamber for storing hydrogen (chamber formed by liner 1 is capable of storing hydrogen, see Fig. 2; para. [0001]), comprising a vessel wall (annotated Fig. 2 below) comprising a composite material unit (FRP layer 2, Fig. 2) with reinforcing fibers (reinforcing fibers 4, Fig. 2) and a polymer matrix (para. [0021]), wherein the composite material unit (FRP layer 2) is arranged and configured such that the reinforcing fibers (reinforcing fibers 4) can be removed as continuous fibers (paras. [0049]-[0050], [0053]), and non-destructively, so that the composite material unit (FRP layer 2) can be reused (para. [0053]).
PNG
media_image1.png
537
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nakayama Annotated Figure 2
Nakayama does not expressly disclose the polymer matrix is a thermoplastic polymer matrix.
Criel teaches a similar pressure vessel (Figs. 2A-2B) with an interior chamber comprising a vessel wall with a composite material unit (tapes 31, 32, Figs. 2A-2B) with reinforcing fibers and a polymer matrix (paras. [0015]-[0019], [0041]-[0043]). Criel teaches the polymer matrix is a thermoplastic material (paras. [0043]-[0046]). Criel teaches that the specific resin used can be determined by the specific requirements of the vessel (para. [0044]). Criel further teaches that using a thermoplastic material as the polymer matrix permits the composite material unit to be bonded by the application of heat and pressure (para. [0046], [0083]). Criel further teaches that using thermoplastic as the polymer matrix allows stable and fast manufacturing of the pressure vessel (para. [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the pressure vessel of Nakayama to use a thermoplastic polymer matrix in the composite material unit as taught by Criel for the purpose of allowing stable and fast manufacturing, as recognized by Criel (para. [0083]), and because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). The pressure vessel of Nakayama as modified to use thermoplastic polymer matrix would have the composite material (Nakayama, FRP layer 2) arranged and configured such that the thermoplastic polymer matrix (Criel) with the reinforcing fibers (Nakayama, reinforcing fibers 4) is removable (Nakayama, paras. [0049]-[0050], [0053]), wherein the composite material unit (Nakayama, FRP layer 2) comprises a thermoplastic tape (Criel, paras. [0040]-[0042]), wherein the plastic material (Criel, thermoplastic polymer) is at least partially non-destructively removable with the reinforcing fibers (Nakayama, paras. [0049]-[0050]; Criel, thermoplastic polymer), so that the composite material unit itself is substantially non-destructively removable (Nakayama, paras. [0049]-[0050]; Criel, thermoplastic polymer).
Regarding claim 3, Nakayama further discloses the composite material unit (FRP layer 2) extends from an arrangement start (annotated Fig. 2) to an arrangement end (annotated Fig. 2, and a detachment section (annotated Fig. 2) of the composite material unit (FRP layer 2) adjacent to the arrangement end (see annotated Fig. 2) is arranged and/or configured to be detachable (see paras. [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Nakayama further discloses the detachment section (annotated Fig. 2) comprises a strength-reducing detachment layer (film 5, Fig. 2) on a side of the composite material unit (FRP layer 2) facing an interior chamber (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Nakayama further discloses the detachment section (annotated Fig. 2) is partially consolidated so that a bond strength of the detachment section (annotated Fig. 2) is lower than a bond strength of a consolidated section of the composite material unit (the bond strength of the composite material unit to the liner is lower at the detachment section than at the consolidated section, see annotated Fig. 2; para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Nakayama further discloses the detachment section (annotated Fig. 2) extends from the arrangement end (annotated Fig. 2) with a detachment extension (application area 7, annotated Fig. 2).
Nakayama as modified by Criel does not expressly disclose the detachment extension is in a range of 1 mm to 100mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the pressure vessel of Nakayama/Criel to form the detachment extension in a range of 1 to 100 mm because such is a mere change in size of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size, absent a teaching of an unexpected result, is within the ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (see Specification at p. 9, ll. 1-6).
Regarding claim 11, Nakayama further discloses a hollow body (liner 1, see Fig. 2) defining a liner (liner 2, Fig. 2) forming an interior chamber (annotated Fig. 2), the composite material unit (FRP layer 2) is arranged on an outer side of the hollow body (see Fig. 2).
Claims 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criel.
Regarding claim 6, Criel further discloses the detachment section (portion of reinforcement structure 30 between start and end of winding) extends from the arrangement end (end of winding of tapes in reinforcement structure 30) with a detachment extension (portion of reinforcement structure 30 between start and end of winding).
Criel does not expressly disclose the detachment extension is in a range of 1 mm to 100mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the pressure vessel of Criel to form the detachment extension in a range of 1 to 100 mm because such is a mere change in size of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size, absent a teaching of an unexpected result, is within the ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (see Specification at p. 9, ll. 1-6).
Regarding claim 8, Criel further discloses a cylindrical vessel portion (para. [0055]) having a cylindrical circumferential direction (see e.g., Figs. 2A-2B), wherein a first composite material unit (hoop wound primary tape 31, Figs. 2A-2B; para. [0025]) is arranged along the cylindrical circumferential direction (primary tape is arranged in a hoop manner, see Figs. 2A-2B; para. [0025]) of the cylindrical vessel portion (see Figs. 2A-2B) and a second composite material unit (helically wound primary tape 31, para. [0026]) is arranged angled to the cylindrical circumferential direction (para. [0026]).
Criel does not expressly disclose the second composite material unit is orthogonal to the cylindrical circumferential direction. Criel teaches that the hoop wound composite material unit may have an angle between 80 and 100 degrees and the helical wound composite material unit may have an angle between 10 and 60 degrees (paras. [0025]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the pressure vessel of Criel to orient the second composite material unit orthogonal to the circumferential direction as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (see Specification at p. 9, noting that the winding angle can deviate).
Regarding claim 9, Criel further discloses two or more composite material units (tapes 31, 32, Fig. 2A-2B) each having an arrangement end (each tape has a winding end), wherein more than 95% of the arrangement ends are arranged within the cylindrical vessel portion (see e.g., Figs. 2A-2B; para. [0119]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights