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 I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on June 27, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Groups I and II share the same special technical feature. Applicant contends that Criel “fails to teach that the reinforcing fibers of the reinforcement tape can be removed as continuous fibers non-destructively” (Remarks at pp. 2-3). This is not found persuasive because the claims do not require the reinforcing fibers actually be removed, just that they are capable of being removed. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the reinforcing fibers of Criel would be capable of being removed as continuous fibers non-destructively (See MPEP 2114).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention (see e.g., Specification at p. 14). However, no drawings have been filed. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). For purposes of examination, the examiner has reviewed the drawings from the PCT Publication WO 2023/001328.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, line 1, “Pressure vessel” should read “A pressure vessel”;
At claims 2-11, line 1: “Pressure vessel according to claim” should read “The pressure vessel according to claim”.
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 2, 6, 9, and 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 2 recites “the thermoplastic plastic matrix” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to the “thermoplastic polymer matrix” recited in claim 1, or something else. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the thermoplastic polymer matrix.”
Claim 6 recites “the detachment extension is more than 1 mm, more than 2 mm, more than 5 mm, more than 10 mm and/or less than 100 mm, less than 50 mm, less than 25 mm, less than 15 mm, less than 10 mm” in lines 5-7. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites multiple different ranges. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “more than 50%, more than 75%, more than 90%, or more than 95% of the arrangement ends are arranged within the cylindrical vessel portion” in lines 3-4. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites multiple different ranges. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 recites “one or more of the composite material units” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 depends from claim 1, which only recites “a composite material unit.”
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, 6, 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 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]).
Regarding claim 2, Criel further discloses the composite material unit (reinforcement structure 30) is arranged and configured such that the thermoplastic plastic matrix with the reinforcing fibers is removable (thermoplastic plastic matrix 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 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), and the detachment extension is more than 1 mm, more than 2 mm, more than 5 mm, more than 10 mm and/or less than 100 mm, less than 50 mm, less than 25 mm, less than 15 mm, less than 10 mm (detachment extension is more than 1 mm, see e.g., Figs. 2A-2B).
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]), wherein one or more of the composite material units (reinforcement structure 30, Fig. 2A) is or are 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 1-6 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).
Regarding claim 2, Nakayama as modified by Criel already includes the composite material unit (Nakayama, FRP layer 2) is arranged and configured such that the thermoplastic plastic matrix (Criel, paras. [0043]-[0046], [0083]) with the reinforcing fibers is removable (see Nakayama at paras. [0049]-[0050], [0053]; the thermoplastic material of Criel is capable of being removed).
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), and the detachment extension is more than 1 mm, more than 2 mm, more than 5 mm, more than 10 mm and/or less than 100 mm, less than 50 mm, less than 25 mm, less than 15 mm, less than 10 mm (application area 7 is more than 1 mm, see e.g., para. [0044]).
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), wherein one or more of the composite material units (FRP layer 2) is or are arranged on an outer side of the hollow body (see Fig. 2).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criel.
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 50%, more than 75%, more than 90%, or more than 95% of the arrangement ends are arranged within the cylindrical vessel portion (see e.g., Figs. 2A-2B).
Conclusion
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