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 .
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 01/05/2026
Claim 1 has been amended
Claims 1-19 are presented for examination
This action is Final
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. A plate is defined as a thin, flat sheet or strip of metal or other material, typically one used to join or strengthen things or forming part of a machine. Because plates 6 and 17 of Applicant’s invention initially closes entry to the cryogenic tank, it is unclear how outer and inner panel walls 2 and 3 close access to the access opening (defined as allowing access to the tank interior) while being seen as the only closure used to seal the tank body. It is the Examiner’s position that multiple closures can be used to close access. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shingo et al. (EP 2937297).
Claim 1. Shingo discloses a cryogenic tank 100 comprising:
a multiple tank wall 100a,
an access opening 140 in the multiple tank wall allowing access to an interior of the cryogenic tank for at least one of maintenance, repair or replacement services, and a removable closure 113/123 for closing the access opening [0052],
wherein the multiple tank wall includes an inner tank wall skin 101, an outer tank wall skin 102 and a tank wall vacuum insulation space 103 between the inner tank wall skin and the outer tank wall skin [0025], [0028-0030] and
wherein the removable closure comprises a multiple wall panel that includes an outer panel wall 123, an inner panel wall 113 and a panel vacuum insulation space 125 between the outer panel wall and the inner panel wall ([0052]; fig. 2),
and wherein the outer panel wall and the inner panel wall both close the access opening [0052].
Claim 2. Shingo discloses the cryogenic tank according to claim 1, wherein the closure further includes a multiple wall closure ring with an outer closure ring wall, an inner closure ring wall and a closure ring vacuum insulation space between the outer and inner closure ring walls (fig. 1).
Claim 6. Shingo discloses the cryogenic tank according to claim 1, wherein the access opening in the multiple tank wall is defined by a multiple wall tank ring with an outer tank ring wall arrangement, an inner tank ring wall and a tank ring vacuum insulation space between the outer and inner tank ring walls (fig. 1).
Claim 7. Shingo discloses the cryogenic tank according to claim 6, wherein ends of the multiple wall tank ring are tightly closed [0028].
Claim 9. Shingo discloses the cryogenic tank according to claim 6, wherein the outer tank ring wall arrangement is tightly connected to the outer and inner tank wall skin so that the tank wall vacuum insulation space and the tank ring vacuum insulation space that at least one of are in fluid communication with each other, or form a single tank wall interspace vacuum volume (fig. 1).
Claims 10-11. Shingo discloses the cryogenic tank according to claim 6, wherein the closure further includes a multiple wall closure ring with an outer closure ring wall 120, an inner closure ring wall 110 and a closure ring vacuum insulation space between the outer and inner closure ring walls, and
the multiple wall closure ring is insertable in the multiple wall tank ring for closing the access opening ([0024-0028]; fig. 1-2).
Claim 12. Shingo discloses the cryogenic tank according to claim 1, wherein the access opening has a tank flange and the closure has a closure flange which mates to the tank flange so that in a closed state the closure flange is tightly connected, by a number of bolt and screw assemblies, to the tank flange [0028].
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) 3-5, 8 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shingo et al. (EP 2937297) in view of Yoshimoto et al. (US 11,384,747).
Claims 3, 8. Shingo discloses the cryogenic tank according to claim 2, but fails to disclose end ring closures. Yoshimoto teaches wherein a first end 16 of the multiple wall closure ring is tightly closed and a second end 15 of the multiple wall closure ring is tightly connected to the multiple wall panel so that the panel vacuum insulation space and the closure ring vacuum insulation space form a single closure interspace vacuum volume (col. 4, ll. 61-67; fig. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the opening of Shingo to include the closure of Yoshimoto to assist in maintaining the opening in a sealed position.
Claim 4. Shingo-Yoshimoto discloses the cryogenic tank according to claim 3, wherein the closure has a vacuum port 14 for evacuation of the closure interspace vacuum volume (Yoshimoto; col. 4, ll. 53-60).
Claim 5. Shingo-Yoshimoto discloses the cryogenic tank according to claim 3, wherein a multilayer insulation is fitted inside the closure interspace vacuum volume (Yoshimoto; col. 4, ll. 34-53).
Claim 13. Shingo disclose the he cryogenic tank according to claim 1, but fails to disclose a pipe running through the closure. Yoshimoto teaches wherein at least one pipe 7/10 runs through the closure and has a multiple wall pipe section fixed to the closure (fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the closure of Shingo to include the pipes of Yoshimoto to assist in introducing and/or removing products into and out of the tank.
Claim 14. Shingo-Yoshimoto discloses the cryogenic tank according to claim 13, wherein the multiple wall section has an inner pipe wall and an outer pipe wall with a pipe vacuum insulation space therebetween, such that the pipe vacuum insulation space is in fluid communication with the panel vacuum insulation space (Yoshimoto; abstract, fig. 1).
Claims 15, 17. Shingo-Yoshimoto discloses he cryogenic tank according to claim 13, wherein the multiple wall section has an inner pipe wall and an outer pipe wall with a pipe vacuum insulation space therebetween, such that the multiple wall section extends from the inner panel wall and the outer pipe wall 7 is connected to the inner panel wall (Yoshimoto; fig. 1).
Claims 16, 18. Shingo-Yoshimoto discloses the cryogenic tank according to claim 13, wherein the multiple wall section has an inner pipe wall and an outer pipe wall with a pipe vacuum insulation space therebetween, such that the multiple wall section extends from the outer panel wall and the outer pipe wall is connected to the outer panel wall (Yoshimoto; fig. 1).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shingo et al. (EP 2937297) in view of Minas et al. (US 12,017,789)
Claim 19. Shingo discloses a tank but fails to disclose an aircraft. Minas teaches an aircraft comprising a cryogenic tank according to claim 1 (col. 2, ll. 10-25; 57-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shingo to include the aircraft of Yoshimoto to provide power to an aircraft (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is the Examiner’s position that the access opening of the prior art is represented by outer walls 121 and inner walls 111. This also includes the vacuum space created between the inner and outer walls. Closures 123 (outer wall) and 113 (inner wall) are required to cover the access opening which includes the tank opening and vacuum space. The closures are required to access and perform maintenance of the tank both together and separately.
Applicant’s specification discloses that plate 17 initially closes entry into the tank “…the inner tank ring wall 16 (e.g., an inner ring made from the tank wall material), and an inside closing plate 17 (e.g., a lower closing plate made from the tank wall material for closing the inside end of the multiple wall tank ring 64). Bottom plate 6 also closes entry into the tank. Top plate (2/3), according to Applicant’s specification, once connected to the tank body, closes entry to the opening of the manhole at 44 and fails to completely allow access to the interior of the tank body.
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 RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm 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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at 571-272-4561. 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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights