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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “radial support members” of claims 14, 16 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
A substitute specification, including the claims, in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axis A" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the axis A” refers to “an axis” of line 6 or a different axis.
Regarding claim 3, the applicant states “wherein the inner end of each of the at least two of the plurality of support members, and an outer end of each of the at least two of a plurality of support members is provided correspondingly on another side of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank”. However, claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, states “wherein each support member comprises an inner end and an outer end”. This limitation appears to be introduced twice, falling under double inclusion. Where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite. Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected as depending from rejected base claims since they inherently contain the same deficiencies therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fournel et al. (US 20210164614).
Regarding claim 1, Fournel teaches a cryogenic storage tank (figures 1-4, reference 1), comprising: a shell (figure 1, reference 3); an inner tank provided inside the shell (figure 1, reference 2); and two support assemblies supported between the inner tank and the shell (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below and paragraphs 60-64); wherein the two support assemblies are provided at two opposite ends of the inner tank along an axis (figure 1, reference A) of the inner tank respectively (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below); wherein each support assembly comprises a plurality of support members (figure 1 and 2, reference 5), and the number of the support members is even (figure 1 and 2: there are four support members 5 on each side); wherein the plurality of support members of each support assembly are provided symmetrically with respect to a vertical center axis plane of the inner tank (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below), and each of an upper side and a lower side of a horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank is provided with the support members (figure 2, reference 5 and as shown in the annotated figure below); and wherein each support member comprises an inner end (figure 1 and 2, reference 18) and an outer end (figure 1 and 2, reference 7), the outer end of the support member is connected to an inner wall of the shell (figure 1 and 2, reference 7), the inner end of the support member is connected to an outer wall of the inner tank (figure 1 and 2, reference 18), and the support member is located in a different plane from the axis A of the inner tank (figure 1: support members 5 are on a different plane than the axis A).
PNG
media_image1.png
539
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
386
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches the inner end and the outer end of each support member are located on the same side of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1: inner end 18 and outer end 7 of each support member 5 are located on the same side of the horizontal center axis plane).
Regarding claim 3, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches the inner end of each of the at least two of the plurality of support members, and the outer end of each of the at least two of the plurality of support members is provided correspondingly on another side of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1: inner end 18 and outer end 7 of the top support members 5 are located above the horizontal center axis plane while inner end 18 and outer end 7 of the bottom support members 5 are located below the horizontal center axis plane).
Regarding claim 5, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 3, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches the inner ends of at least two of the plurality of support members are provided in the same vertical plane and are located in different vertical planes from the inner ends of the remaining support members (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
381
435
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as show above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches a space in the cryogenic storage tank is divided into four quadrant regions bounded by the vertical center axis plane and the horizontal center axis plane (figure 2, as shown I the annotated figure below); wherein the corresponding support member in any one of the four quadrant regions is not connected to the support members in the other of the four quadrant regions (figure 1 and 2: the support members are not connected to one another).
PNG
media_image4.png
398
486
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 6, as show above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches when one of the four quadrant regions is provided with the plurality of the support members, the plurality of the support members are not connected to each other (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6).
Regarding claim 10, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches each of the plurality of the support members of each of the two support assemblies are provided symmetrically with respect to the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank (figure 1 and 2, reference 5 and as shown in the annotated figures above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches a first one of the plurality of support members is located above the horizontal center axis plane (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below) and a second one of the plurality of support members is located below the horizontal center axis plane (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below), and wherein an eccentric distance of the first one of the plurality of support members located above the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank is the same as or different from an eccentric distance of the second one of the plurality of support members located below the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below: eccentric distance 1 and eccentric distance 2 are the same).
PNG
media_image5.png
398
486
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches each of the outer ends of each of the support members is connected to a barrel or a closure head of the shell (figure 1 and 2, reference 7), and each of the inner ends of each of the support members is connected to a closure head of the inner tank (figure 1 and 2, reference 18).
Regarding claim 13, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches each of the support members is in the form of a tube, rod or hanging ring (figure 1-4, reference 5 and paragraph 62: the support members 5 are in the form of a rod); and wherein when each of the support members is in the form of the hanging ring, each of the support members is made of a fiber reinforced resin composite material (figure 1-4, reference 5 and paragraph 62: since the support members 5 are in the form of a rod, this limitation is not require by the prior art).
Regarding claim 14, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches at least one of the two support assemblies further comprises at least two radial support members distributed along a periphery of the inner tank (figure 1 and 3, reference 6), wherein a number of the radial support members is an even number (figure 3: there are four radial support members 6), each of the two radial support members is extended in a radial direction of the inner tank (figure 1 and 3), an inner end of each of the two radial support members is located on the axis of the inner tank (figure 1 and 3, reference 9), and an outer end of each of the two radial support members is connected to the inner wall of the shell (figure 1 and 3, reference 10).
Regarding claim 15, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches at least one of the outer ends of one of the support members is mounted to the shell by an outer mounting seat (figure 1 and 2, reference 7), and wherein the outer mounting seat is fixed to the inner wall of the shell (figure 1 and 2, reference 7 on shell 3); and wherein at least one of the inner ends of one of the support members is mounted to the inner tank by an inner mounting seat (figure 1 and 2, reference 18), and wherein the inner mounting seat is fixed to the outer wall of the inner tank (figure 1 and 2, reference 18 on inner tank 2).
Regarding claim 16, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 14, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches the at least two radial supports are distributed evenly along the periphery of the inner tank (figure 1 and 3, reference 6).
Regarding claim 17, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches the shell is wrapped around a periphery of the inner tank (figure 1 and 2: shell 3 wrapped around inner tank 2), and wherein a gap is provided between an inner wall of the shell and an outer wall of the inner tank (figure 1 and paragraph 50: the gap between inner tank 2 and shell 3).
Regarding claim 18, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches the shell comprises an outer cylinder (figure 1, reference 3 and paragraph 51) comprising two ends (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below), and wherein the shell comprises two outer closure heads correspondingly provided at the two ends of the outer cylinder (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
566
724
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches one of the two support assemblies is a fixed support assembly for fixing the shell and the inner tank (figure 1, support assemblies on left side with fixed link 15 and paragraph 64) and the other of the two support assemblies is a movable support assembly (figure 1, support assemblies on right side opposite of fixed link 15 and paragraph 65).
Regarding claim 20, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 19, as shown above. Furthermore, Fournel teaches one or both of the fixed support assembly and the movable support assembly also comprises a corresponding radial support member (figure 1, reference 6 on left side near fixed link 15 and reference 6 on right side opposite fixed link 15), and the number of radial support members of the fixed support assembly and the number of radial support members of the movable support assembly are the same or not the same (figure 1).
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournel et al. (US 20210164614), as applied to claim 3 and 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 113551147).
Regarding claim 4, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 3, as show above.
Fournel does not explicitly teach the inner ends of the plurality of support members are staggered with each other in a manner that the inner ends of the plurality of support members are located in different vertical planes. However, Liu does teach the inner ends (figure 1, reference 5) of the plurality of support members (figure 1, reference 3) are staggered with each other in a manner that the inner ends of the plurality of support members are located in different vertical planes (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image7.png
533
494
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tank of Fournel to include the inner ends of the plurality of support members are staggered with each other in a manner that the inner ends of the plurality of support members are located in different vertical planes, as disclosed by Liu, because having the inner ends of the plurality of support members are staggered with each other in a manner that the inner ends of the plurality of support members are located in different vertical planes allows for ensuring that at least two pull rods bear the pulling force at the same time in any moving direction, thus the strength of the interlayer supporting structure is guaranteed, as stated by Liu (page 6 of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as show above. Furthermore, Fournel appears to teach an angle between each support member and a radial direction of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank is from 30° to 60° (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below and paragraph 74: Since angle B can fall between 70° and 130°, the angle to the vertical center axis plane would fall between 35° and 65°. Therefore, the angle from the support member to the horizontal center axis plane would appear to fall between 25° and 55°, which falls within most of the range of the claimed 30° to 60°).
PNG
media_image8.png
398
486
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fournel does not explicitly teach an angle between each support member and a radial direction of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank is from 30° to 60°. However, Liu does teach an angle between each support member and a radial direction of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank is from 30° to 60° (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below and page 6 of the machine translation: since angle α is 30° and angle β is 45°, both with respect to the angle between the vertical center axis plane and the support member, the angle from the support member and the radial direction of the horizontal center axis plane would be 45° and 60°).
PNG
media_image9.png
472
498
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tank of Fournel to include an angle between each support member and a radial direction of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank is from 30° to 60°, as disclosed by Liu, because having an angle between each support member and a radial direction of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank is from 30° to 60° would be an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournel et al. (US 20210164614).
Regarding claim 8, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as show above. Furthermore, Fournel appears to teach an angle between each support member and a radial direction of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank is from 30° to 60° (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below and paragraph 74: Since angle B can fall between 70° and 130°, the angle to the vertical center axis plane would fall between 35° and 65°. Therefore, the angle from the support member to the horizontal center axis plane would appear to fall between 25° and 55°, which falls within most of the range of the claimed 30° to 60°. Fournel discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of an angle between each support member and a radial direction of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank is from 30° to 60°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an angle between each support member and a radial direction of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank is from 30° to 60°, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image8.png
398
486
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Fournel teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as show above. Furthermore, Fournel appears to teach an angle between each support member and an axial direction of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank is from 60°to 90° (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below). Fournel discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of an angle between each support member and an axial direction of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank is from 60°to 90°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an angle between each support member and an axial direction of the horizontal center axis plane of the inner tank is from 60°to 90°, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image10.png
586
766
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Posselt et al. (US 20190145580) discloses a tank with an inner tank and shell and a support assembly.
Weltmer et al. (US 5,005,362) discloses a cryogenic tank with inner and outer tanks.
Johnston (US 2,863,297) discloses a cryogenic tank with inner and outer tanks.
Zenner et al. (US 2,229,080) discloses a tank with an inner tank and shell and a support assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights