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 without traverse of Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
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 3-14 are 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.
Examiner notes the claims are not written in a way consistent with US practice and have clarity and antecedent basis issues throughout. Examiner highly recommends a thorough review of the claims for clarity and consistency. Below are issues noted with the current claim set.
Claim 3 recites “a plurality of struts” without connecting this plurality to the at least one strut previously recited, thus making it unclear if the at least one strut is part of the plurality or not. Presumably it is and Applicant should state the at least one strut is part of a plurality of struts to make the connection clear. Further, Claim 3 recites “wherein in the step of arranging the at least one outer vessel layer, multiple outer vessel layers are arranged, and at least one additional bending step is carried out between the multiple steps of arranging outer vessel layers such that at least one strut includes at least one bent end portion sandwiched between two outer vessel layers.” This is very unclear framing. Firstly, “at least one strut” and “at least one bent end portion” are not referenced in the antecedent, thus making it unclear the relationship between this “at least one strut” and “at least one bent end portion” and the ones define din Claim 1. If this is a distinct strut, separate terminology should be utilized. If it is the same strut, antecedent language should be utilized. Secondly, “the at least one outer vessel” of claim 1 is never connected to the multiple outer vessels of Claim 3, so their specific relationship in both sequence and structure is not clear. Thirdly, Applicant states “multiple outer vessel layers are arranged” and then refers to “the multiple steps of arranging outer vessel layers” without ever actually directly stating the multiple outer layers arranged using multiple steps, nor explaining how these layers connect to the process of claim 1. Further, there possibly appears to be two bending steps performed on the same strut so as to position bent portion between different layers of the vessel, but it is unclear if the bent end portion of claim 1 is the same as the bent end portion of Claim 3 or not. They must be different since they apparently occur in different steps, but the same terminology is utilized, and as above, it is unclear if the same strut must be bent twice or if two separate struts may be bent. It is not clear if they must occur at different times in the process or not or may both occur simultaneously. Examiner assumes simultaneous or sequential bending of two different portions of the same strut over a first outer layer is claimed. Regardless, Applicant should clarify the sequence to recite each step directly with precise terminology so it is clear what steps are actually occurring on what elements because the current language leaves the required method quite unclear.
In Claim 4, dependent on Claim 1, “the at least one inner vessel layer” has no antecedent basis as this term was introduced in Claim 2, from which Claim 4 does not depend. Applicant must correct dependency and/or antecedent basis. The same problem occurs with Claims 7, 8, 9 and 14. Again, “the at least one inner vessel layer” has no antecedent basis in these claims.
Examiner notes “preferably” in Claim 4 makes this portion of the claim non-limiting or indefinite. Examiner recommends deleting this qualifying language, or deleting the language Applicant does not want to require. Examiner notes any language paired with “preferably” is rendered entirely superfluous at best, or else renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(c) (wherein “preferably” paired with more limiting language has been found to be indefinite.) “Preferably” also appears in Claims 6 and 13.
Examiner notes the claims often use passive voice, which can affect the clarity of method claims by making it unclear if the method defined in the passive voice itself is actually required, or if only the structure resulting from this method is required. Examiner sees passive voice in Claim 3 (are arranged), Claim 4 (brought into contact), Claim 5 (is formed), Claim 6 (is arranged on and attached), Claim 7 (is pressurized), Claim 9 (is sharpened), Claim 10 (is formed), Claim 11 (are at least partially separated from each other and bent), Claim 13 (are joined), and Claim 14 (is at least partially removed). Although some of these create more confusion than others, Examiner highly encourages Applicant to write all method language in the active voice for process clarity, e.g. (arranging; bringing the at least one end portion into contact; forming, etc.), or else explicitly state the claim is intended to claim structure and not process. Likewise, in Claim 12, the core structure is defined as an “injection molded thermoplastic skeleton.” Examiner notes this is a structural description that does not necessarily require injection molding. Examiner recommends “injection molding the core structure as a thermoplastic skeleton.” Otherwise it is unclear if injection molding is required, or only any product that may have a similar structure as injection molding may produce, e.g. thermoformed thermoplastic skeletons. If Applicant feels such language is clear as written, they should specify why it clearly states a positively recited process or only a structure rendered thereby to specify their intent and clarify the record.
In Claim 10, it is unclear if “especially comprises or is formed of” as a qualifier actually requires fiber reinforced plastics. Applicant should define clearly what they want to require of the claim, and either definitively require fiber reinforced plastics or omit them.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102009057170 (wherein all textual citations are to the English translation provided by Applicant with IDS filed 2/9/2024) in view of Austerhoff et al. (US 2005/0011891).
Regarding Claim 1, 5, and 6, DE102009057170 teaches a method of manufacturing a vessel [1] for housing a fluid, wherein the vessel comprises at least one strut [9] extending through an inner space of the vessel [1] (See page 1, paragraph [0001], teaching a vessel for storing fluid), wherein the method comprises the steps:
manufacturing a core structure [2],[11] as a shaping element of the vessel [1]; characterized by:
during and/or after manufacturing the core structure [2],[11], providing the at least one strut [9] such that at least one end portion of the at least one strut connects with the core structure [2],[11]; and arranging at least one outer vessel layer [4] to cover the at least one bent end portion of the at least one strut (See page 6, [0032]-[0033] and Fig. 1, teaching injection molding a body [2], which has wall sections [11] with plastic layers cast thereover and connecting reinforcing means [9], such as via welding, to body [2]/[11], which implicitly cannot occur before body [2] is formed, and then using body [2] as a core for winding outer vessel layer [4]; note any internal support such as [9] is a strut).
DE102009057170 teaches the rod-like reinforcing means [9] are implemented to provide mechanically stability to the pressure vessel and are mechanically connected to the wall sections [11], such as by welding and/or pressing, wherein the pressing of the reinforcing means to connect them to body [2] may occur “with the wall elements” to form the mechanical connection (See page 3-4, paragraph [0015]-[0017]).
DE102009057170 doesn’t specifically teach the rod-like extends from an outer surface of body [2] or walls [11], but it would have been apparent known methods of pressing internal struts into a mechanical connection with a pressure vessel body would have predictably been suitable. Austerhoff et al. teaches one method of connecting support struts [21] into a pressed and welded mechanical connection with the walls [7],[9] of a plastic pressure vessel is to utilize a stop member [42] against the interior wall, to penetrate openings in the vessel with a portion of the strut [21] to extend from an outer portion of vessels walls [7],[9], to press the strut [21] to deform and bend it over the top of the opening, and then weld the top and bottom portions to the walls [7],[9] (See page 3, paragraphs [0034]-[0035] and Fig. 2, teach tie elements [21] that reinforce internal strength of vessel, exactly as rods [9] in DE102009057170, are passed through walls [7],[9] of vessel, deformed to bend them around the opening, and welded to mechanically connect the internal struts [21] to the plastic vessel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize known pressing and welding methods for mechanically connecting internal supports, such as rods [9] in DE102009057170, to attach via welding and pressing as taught therein. Using a bottom stop member, penetrating of the wall [2],[11] in DE102009057170, and deforming to bend the top of the rods [9] over the walls [2],[11] as taught in Austerhoff et al. would have predictably created a suitable pressing and welding mechanical connection for the internal support rods [9] to the plastic vessel [2],[11] as desired. Further, this would have also created a superior mechanical connection via the stop features on each side of the openings, thus predictably creating a more mechanically stable structure. Note welding between materials makes them integral, i.e. forms the struts integral with the core when attaching them thereto as in Claim 5 and 6.
Regarding Claims 2-4, DE102009057170 teaches casted plastic layers on the walls [11] as shown in figure 1 (See page 6, paragraph [0032]). The outer such layer is an inner vessel layer as claimed. Note there is no reason to cast the layer after bending, and presumably the body [2] should have been complete prior to bending over the wall layers. Thus, it at least would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to bend after casting inner vessel layer. Examiner submits the exact same casted layer may also be considered another outer vessel layer under the most outer vessel layer [4], and the deforming each side of the strut is “bending” as in claim 1, and additional bending as in claim 3 (See Austerhoff et al., page 3, paragraph [0038], teach each side of the struts may be shaped/bent). Note for Claim 4, the bent portion is welded to and thus clearly brought into contact with this inner vessel layer.
Regarding Claim 8, DE102009057170 teaches the outer vessel layer [10] is a fiber reinforced plastic (See page 8, paragraph [0042], teaching fiber in a plastic resin matrix).
Regarding Claim 9, Austerhoff et al. illustrates the top of the pin [44a] to be shaped as having sharp corners between the top and side surface (See Fig. 5). Examiner submits formation of such corners is rendering such corners sharpened as claimed. Similar structures would have predictably been suitable when implementing press bending as described above.
Regarding Claim 12, DE102009057170 teaches injection molding the core as a weldable plastic material (See page 6, paragraphs [0032]-[0033]). Examiner submits since thermosets are not easily weldable, a thermoplastic core is implied or as least obvious to facilitate welding.
Regarding Claim 13, Austerhoff et al. teaches two core portions formed separately and welded (See page 2, paragraph [0030]). It at least would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize two core portions that are welded in DE102009057170. Doing so is a known suitable method of forming similar pressurized cores to be supported by struts and thus would have predictably served a suitable core forming method.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102009057170 and Austerhoff et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Horoschenkoff et al. (US 2023/0202123).
Regarding Claim 7, DE102009057170 and Austerhoff et al. teach the method of Claim 1. DE102009057170 and Austerhoff et al. don’t teach pressurizing the core. However, this is a well-known technique in pressure vessel manufacturing to enhance stability during manufacture (See, for example, Horoschenkoff et al., page 3, paragraph [0043]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to pressurize the core at any time during manufacture. Doing so would have predictably enhanced core stability.
Regarding Claim 10, DE102009057170 and Austerhoff et al. teach the method of Claim 1. DE102009057170 implies a reinforcing material but fails to specifically describe the make-up of the struts [9] therein. However, similar supportive struts are well-known to be fiber reinforced plastic to provide lightweight and strong reinforcement (See, for example, Horoschenkoff et al., page 4, paragraph [0064] and page 5, paragraph [0077], teaching the ties/struts [23], described as preventing bulging in vessels, may be “pre-impregnated fibers,” which implies plastic impregnation as is standard in the art). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize fiber reinforced plastics as struts. Doing so would have predictably increased the strength of the struts while keeping low weight. the core at any time during manufacture. Doing so would have predictably enhanced core stability.
Regarding Claim 11, Examiner submits pressing to bend the head wide at the top from a narrower portion passing through the hole, such as has been described as obvious in view of Austerhoff et al., is a T-bend as claimed (See Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, DE102009057170 and Austerhoff et al. teach the method of Claim 1. DE102009057170 does not teach removing the core. However, lost cores, wherein the core is removed, are well-known in similar pressure vessels (See, for example, Horoschenkoff et al. page 7, paragraphs [0111]-[0112], teaching a core can be removed or function as a liner in different embodiments). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to remove the core. Doing so is well-known and would have predictably reduced weight when desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746