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 § 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. (JP 2022103917A) in view of Smith (U.S. 4,344,264).
Regarding claim 1, Umeda et al. teaches a liquid gas storage container 1 comprising an inner shell 3 forming a cavity (figure 1), the inner shell 3 disposed on an insulation base at 36, the insulation base at 36 comprising a first insulation sub-layer 36, an outer shell 5 forming an insulation volume between the inner shell (figure 1) and the outer shell, a first insulation layer 61 disposed within the insulation volume and around the inner shell 3 and the insulation base (figure 1), Wherein the first insulation layer is bonded to an outer surface of the inner shell, and a second insulation layer 62 (figure 2) disposed within the insulation volume between the first insulation layer 61 and the outer shell 5.
Further regarding claim 1, Umeda et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first insulation layer comprising a closed-cell foam. Smith teaches that it is known to provide a tank with the first insulation layer comprising a closed-cell foam (see col. 2 line 65-col. 3 line 27; figure 3 and col. 4 lines 24-37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the storage container of Umeda et al. with the first insulation comprising a closed-cell foam, as taught by Smith, in order to provide sufficient strength to support the tank and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, a skirt disposed along a sidewall of the insulation base (figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, the first insulation layer 61 is disposed within the insulation volume and around the skirt (figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, comprising one or more anchors 9, 10 mechanically coupled to the skirt (figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, the first insulation sub-layer at 31, 36, 35 comprises a load-bearing insulation (capable of bearing a load).
Regarding claim 7, the modified container of Umeda et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first insulation sub-layer comprising a closed-cell foam. Smith teaches that it is known to provide a tank with an insulation layer comprising a closed-cell foam (see col. 2 line 65-col. 3 line 27; figure 3 and col. 4 lines 24-37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the storage container of Umeda et al. with the first insulation sub-layer comprising a closed-cell foam, as taught by Smith, in order to provide sufficient strength to support the tank and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, an interleaving layer 41 disposed between the first insulation sub-layer 36 and a second insulation sub-layer46, or the first insulation layer and the second insulation layer.
Regarding claim 9, a protective layer 31 disposed on the first insulation sub-layer.
Regarding claim 10, the second insulation layer 63 comprises a bulk fill material (glass wool and perlite disclosed).
Regarding claim 11, the bulk fill material comprises one or more of perlite, glass microspheres, fiberglass, or a mixture thereof (glass wool and perlite disclosed for layer 63).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. (JP 2022103917A) in view of Smith (U.S. 4,344,264), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Heinisch et al. (DE3735767A1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified container of Umeda et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first insulation sub-layer comprising a pressure of about 100 Torr to about 1000 m Torr. Heinisch et al. teaches that it is known to provide a tank with pressurized insulation which has an insulation layer comprising a pressure of about 100 Torr to about 1000 m Torr (“operating at pressures up to 700 bar”; up to 700bar includes the range of 100 Torr). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified storage container of Umeda et al. with the first insulation sub-layer comprising a pressure of about 100 Torr to about 1000 m Torr, as taught by Heinisch et al., in order to provide sufficient strength to support the tank and 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. (JP 2022103917A) in view of Smith (U.S. 4,344,264), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Park et al. (KR20230171064A).
Regarding claim 12, the modified container of Umeda et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the mixture comprising about 60 wt% to about 99 wt% perlite and about 1 wt% to about 40 wt% glass microspheres. Park et al. teaches that it is known to provide a tank with the insulation layer comprising perlite and glass microspheres. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified storage container of Umeda et al. with the mixture comprising perlite and glass microspheres, as taught by Park et al. and further comprises about 60 wt% to about 99 wt% perlite and about 1 wt% to about 40 wt% glass microspheres, in order to provide sufficient thermal insulation as perlite and glass microspheres are known materials for insulation, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. (JP 2022103917A) in view of Smith (U.S. 4,344,264) and Rohwer (DE10200600090614A1).
Regarding claim 13, Umeda et al. teaches a liquid gas storage container 1 comprising an inner shell 3 forming a cavity (figure 1), the inner shell disposed on an insulation base 36, the insulation base comprising a first insulation sub-layer 36, an outer shell 5 forming an insulation volume between the inner shell and the outer shell (figure 1), a first insulation layer 61 disposed within the insulation volume and around the inner shell 3 and the insulation base 36, and a second insulation layer 62 disposed within the insulation volume between the first insulation layer 61 and the outer shell 5.
Further regarding claim 13, Umeda et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first insulation layer comprising a closed-cell foam and except for the membrane layer. Smith teaches that it is known to provide a tank with the first insulation layer comprising a closed-cell foam (see col. 2 line 65-col. 3 line 27; figure 3 and col. 4 lines 24-37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the storage container of Umeda et al. with the first insulation comprising a closed-cell foam, as taught by Smith, in order to provide sufficient strength to support the tank and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Rohwer teaches that it is known to provide a tank with membrane layer (see layer 38; figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified storage container of Umeda et al. with the membrane layer, as taught by Rohwer, in order to provide a waterproof barrier between the layers for protection.
Regarding claim 14, the membrane layer comprises one or more of an aluminized Mylar, Mylar, epoxy, water glass, or zero-gel (Rohwer discloses aluminized Mylar for layer 38).
Regarding claim 15, a skirt disposed along a sidewall of the insulation base, wherein the first insulation layer is disposed within the insulation volume and around the skirt (figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, one or more anchors 9, 10 mechanically coupled to the skirt.
Regarding claim 17, the first insulation sub- layer 31, 36, 35 comprises a load-bearing insulation (capable of bearing a load).
Regarding claim 18, the modified container of Umeda et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first insulation sub-layer comprising a closed-cell foam. Smith teaches that it is known to provide a tank with an insulation layer comprising a closed-cell foam (see col. 2 line 65-col. 3 line 27; figure 3 and col. 4 lines 24-37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the storage container of Umeda et al. with the first insulation sub-layer comprising a closed-cell foam, as taught by Smith, in order to provide sufficient strength to support the tank and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 19, an interleaving layer 41 disposed between the first insulation sub-layer 36 and a second insulation sub-layer 46, or the first insulation layer and the second insulation layer.
Regarding claim 20, a protective layer 31 disposed on the first insulation sub-layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Umeda does not teach a first insulation layer comprising a closed cell foam which is bonded to an outer surface of the inner shell. Umeda teaches a first insulation layer at 61 which is in contact with the inner shell. The secondary reference of Smith (U.S. 4,344,264) is used in the rejections above for providing an insulation layer adjacent the inner shell which is comprised of a closed cell foam. The closed cell foam is discussed in col. 2 line 65-col. 3 line 27 of Smith. Smith also teaches that the closed cell foam is located in contact with the inner shell, as shown in figure 3 and discussed in col. 4 line 24-30. Additionally, Smith teaches that the first insulation layer may be secured in place by bonding (col. 3 line 67-col. 4 line 2). These teachings are used to modify the primary reference of Umeda.
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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
