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 .
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1: The term “substantially identical” recited in five locations within the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially identical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how identical the specified elements must be to be considered “substantially identical.” Further, the term “substantially identical” is an oxymoron because it combines two words that contradict each other. “Substantially” means something that is not the same, and “identical” means something that is the same. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Regarding claim 4: The term “substantially corresponds to” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how close to a width or a half length of a sliver of the first plurality of grooves of slivers is actually required to meet the limitation.
Regarding claim 5: The term “substantially the same” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how similar the specified items must be to read on the claim.
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, 5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 2010/0294776).
PNG
media_image1.png
692
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1: Liu discloses Pressure tank (10, fig 1, abstract) which is designed to store a pressurized fluid, comprising; a liner (20, fig 1), which comprises a substantially cylindrical portion (30, fig 1 and a closure cap (i.e., dome portions 32, fig 1) on the axial ends thereof, wherein a central axis is defined by the cylindrical portion, wherein an intersection point of the central axis with a closure cap defines a pole of the closure cap (see fig 1), wherein a first plurality of slivers (44, called out in above annotated figure, ¶0029) is arranged on the an outside of the liner (fig 6, ¶0029), which slivers are arranged relative to one another, along a peripheral direction of the liner, in such a way that mutually adjacent slivers begin at a substantially identical longitudinal starting position (i.e., the ends 44 closest to cylindrical portion 30, fig 6 ), follow an identical rotational direction with respect to the peripheral direction of the liner (as shown in fig 6, ¶0042) and at a substantially identical angle with respect to the longitudinal direction of the liner (as shown in fig 6, ¶0042), and end at a substantially identical longitudinal end position (i.e., the ends nearest the end of the dome portions 32), wherein the respective end position is located closer to a pole associated with the first plurality of slivers than the respective starting position (see fig 6),wherein a second plurality of slivers (44, called out in above annotated figure 6) is arranged on the an outside of the first plurality of slivers (see fig 6, note that since fibers 44 cross, one of them must be the “outside” fiber), which slivers of the second plurality are arranged relative to one another, along the peripheral direction of the liner, in such a way that mutually adjacent slivers begin at a substantially identical longitudinal starting position (i.e., the ends of 44 nearest the cylindrical portion 30), follow an identical rotational direction with respect to the peripheral direction of the liner (as shown in fig 6) and at a substantially identical angle with respect to the longitudinal direction of the liner (as shown in fig 6), and end at a substantially identical longitudinal end position (i.e., the end of 44 nearest the end of the dome portion 32, fig 6), wherein the respective end position is located closer to the pole associated with the first plurality of slivers than the respective starting position (see fig 6); first plurality of slivers and the second plurality of slivers overlap at least in part (they are shown crossing each other in fig 6), and wherein the rotational direction followed by the first plurality of slivers is opposite the rotational direction followed by the second plurality of slivers (as shown in fig 6).
Regarding claim 5: Liu discloses wherein a length of the slivers of the first plurality of slivers is substantially the same length as a length of the slivers of the second plurality of slivers (see fig 6).
Regarding claim 14: Liu discloses wherein at least one of the slivers comprises carbon fiber (¶0054).
Regarding claim 15: Liu discloses at least one of the slivers are impregnated with a matrix material (i.e., resin, ¶0054) which reads on the claim. The examiner noting that “pre-impregnated” or being impregnated after being arranged on the liner are product by process limitations that do not define an end product that is materially different from the end product of Liu.
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2: Liu, as applied above, does not disclose wherein the longitudinal starting position at which at least the first plurality of slivers begins is arranged in the region of the cylindrical portion of the liner.
However, Liu discloses another embodiment (fig 7) wherein the longitudinal starting position at which slivers (44, fig 7) begins is arranged in the region of the cylindrical portion (30) of the liner (¶0042, fig 7). Liu teaches that the purposes of the slivers is to address a non-homogeneous stress distribution profile (¶0043). Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the embodiment of figure 6 such that the longitudinal starting position at which at least the first plurality of slivers begins is arranged in the region of the cylindrical portion of the liner, as taught by the embodiment of figure 7, so that stresses in the cylindrical portion could be addressed by the slivers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3: Liu does not disclose the limitations of claim 3 and there is no reference of record that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Liu to include said limitations. The examiner further noting that if the location of the plurality of slivers were changed relative to each other, it is not clear if they would still overlap as required by claim 1.
Regarding claim 6: Liu does not disclose the limitations of claim 6 and there is no reference of record that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Liu to include said limitations.
Regarding claim 11: Liu does not disclose the limitations of claim 11 and there is no reference of record that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Liu to include said limitations. The examiner noting the discussion of what constitutes a “trapezoidal basic shape” and the reason for the shape on page 7 of the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4923. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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.
/DON M ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733