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 .
Status of claims
This Office action is responsive to the amendment and remarks filed in reply to the non-final Office action mailed April 8, 2026. In the Reply, claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10 are amended, withdrawn claim 11 is amended, and claim 13 is canceled. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending. Claims 11, 12 and 14-20 stand withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-10 are examined on the merits and are rejected.
Response to Amendment
The rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Office action mailed April 8, 2026 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10. The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cimadevilla Garcia et al. (US 2023/0375139 A1) in view of Allen et al. (US 2003/0203149 A1) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1 and the new grounds of rejection set forth below. The amendment to claim 1 necessitates the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “a second gas.” Neither claim 5 nor claim 1, from which claim 5 directly depends, recites a first gas; the first gas is introduced only in claim 4, from which claim 5 does not depend. It is suggested that “a second gas, wherein the second gas comprises” be amended to read “a gas, wherein the gas comprises,” or that the dependency of claim 5 be changed.
Claim 8 recites “one or more of perlite, glass microspheres, or silica aerogel, or mixtures thereof.” The phrase “or mixtures thereof” is redundant to “one or more of,” and the list following “one or more of” should be conjunctive. It is suggested that the phrase be amended to read “one or more of perlite, glass microspheres, and silica aerogel.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 6-10 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 4 recites “wherein the closed-cell insulation material comprises a first gas” and in claim 6 recites “wherein the closed-cell insulation material comprises a closed-cell foam”. Independent claim 1 is not included in this rejection. Claim 1, from which claims 4 and 6 directly depend, was amended in the Reply to replace “a closed-cell insulation material” with “a closed-cell foam.” Claim 1 as amended no longer introduces any “closed-cell insulation material,” and the term lacks antecedent basis in claims 4 and 6. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). The lack of antecedent basis leaves the scope of the claims uncertain. Claim 6 states that the closed-cell insulation material “comprises” a closed-cell foam, which indicates that the material is something other than, and broader than, the closed-cell foam of which the first insulation layer of claim 1 is formed. It is therefore unclear whether “the closed-cell insulation material” in claims 4 and 6 is the closed-cell foam of claim 1, or is a further material of the container that merely includes a closed-cell foam. In claim 4 the uncertainty bears directly on the boundary of the claim, because it is unclear whether the recited first gas must be present in the closed-cell foam of claim 1 or may be present in some other material.
For purposes of examination, “the closed-cell insulation material” is interpreted as the closed-cell foam of claim 1. It is suggested that claim 4 be amended to recite “the closed-cell foam,” that claim 6 be canceled, and that claim 7 be amended to depend from claim 1.
Claims 7-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the closed-cell insulation material comprises a closed-cell foam.” Claim 1 as amended already requires “the first insulation layer formed of a closed-cell foam.” Read as referring to the foam of claim 1, claim 6 specifies no further limitation of the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 7-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Foss (US 2023/0258298 A1) in view of Davis (US 4,774,118).
In regard to claim 1, Foss teaches a liquid gas storage container (cargo containment arrangement of liquefied gas carrying vessel 32) comprising:
an inner shell (tank 33) forming a cavity (interior of tank 33, in which the liquefied hydrogen is loaded and contained) (¶ 0267, 0269, 0276; Table 1, Layer 1; figs. 121, 122);
an outer shell (hull or inner hull wall, Layer 7) forming an insulation volume (hold space occupied by Layers 2 to 6 of multi-layered insulation system 38) between the inner shell (33) and the outer shell (¶ 0268, 0270, 0275-0276; Table 1, Layers 2-7; figs. 121, 122);
a first insulation layer (primary insulation layer 35) disposed within the insulation volume and around the inner shell (arranged proximate to and coupled to tank 33), the first insulation layer formed of a foam (polyurethane spray foam sprayed on to the tank) (¶ 0268, 0270, 0276; Table 1, Layer 3; Table 2; figs. 121, 122); and
a second insulation layer (secondary insulation layer 36 on the hull, and likewise gas-filled void 37, each a layer of multi-layered insulation system 38) disposed within the insulation volume between the first insulation layer (35) and the outer shell (¶ 0268-0270, 0275-0276; Table 1, Layers 4 and 5; figs. 121, 122).
Foss does not explicitly teach that the foam of which the first insulation layer is formed is a closed-cell foam.
However, Davis teaches that the spray-on foam insulation used on cryogenic containment vessels, including liquid hydrogen propellant tanks, is a rigid closed cell polyurethane foam having excellent insulation qualities at low temperatures (col. 1, lines 16-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquefied hydrogen containment arrangement of Foss to include a rigid closed cell polyurethane foam as the polyurethane spray foam of the primary insulation layer as taught by Davis, in order to obtain excellent insulation qualities at low temperatures (Davis, col. 1, lines 24-27). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Foss already sprays polyurethane foam on to the liquefied hydrogen tank as the primary insulation layer and depends on that on-tank layer to hold the surrounding void above the boiling point of nitrogen (Foss, ¶ 0269-0270, 0276), a duty that calls for a foam of proven low-temperature insulating quality. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
In regard to claim 2, Foss as modified by Davis teaches the liquid gas storage container of claim 1, wherein the inner shell (tank 33) is made of a cryogenic metal (aluminium or an alloy thereof, which retains its mechanical properties at low temperatures; steel or aluminium designated for low temperature applications) (Foss, ¶ 0046, 0119, 0121, 0164, 0267).
In regard to claim 6, Foss as modified by Davis teaches the liquid gas storage container of claim 1, in which the first insulation layer (primary insulation layer 35) is coupled to the inner shell (33) and is formed of a foam (polyurethane spray foam sprayed on to the tank) (Foss, ¶ 0268, 0270, 0276; Table 1, Layer 3).
Foss does not explicitly teach that the closed-cell insulation material comprises a closed-cell foam.
However, Davis teaches that the spray-on foam insulation used on cryogenic containment vessels, including liquid hydrogen propellant tanks, is a rigid closed cell polyurethane foam having excellent insulation qualities at low temperatures (col. 1, lines 16-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquefied hydrogen containment arrangement of Foss to include a rigid closed cell polyurethane foam as the polyurethane spray foam of the primary insulation layer as taught by Davis, in order to obtain excellent insulation qualities at low temperatures (Davis, col. 1, lines 24-27).
In regard to claim 7, Foss as modified by Davis teaches the liquid gas storage container of claim 6, wherein the second insulation layer (secondary insulation layer 36, formed as a plurality of tessellating panels on the hull) comprises a bulk fill material (perlite filling the columns of the panels) (Foss, ¶ 0207, 0212, 0270, 0276, 0290; Table 1, Layer 5; Table 2).
In regard to claim 8, Foss as modified by Davis teaches the liquid gas storage container of claim 7, wherein the bulk fill material comprises one or more of perlite, glass microspheres, or silica aerogel, or mixtures thereof (perlite filling the columns of the panels of secondary insulation layer 36) (Foss, ¶ 0212).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Foss (US 2023/0258298 A1) in view of Davis (US 4,774,118) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kawasaki (“Kawasaki Obtains AIP for Large, 160,000㎥ Liquefied Hydrogen Carrier”).
In regard to claim 3, Foss as modified by Davis teaches the liquid gas storage container of claim 2, comprising the inner shell (tank 33) made of a cryogenic metal (aluminium alloy) and forming the cavity that contains the liquefied hydrogen, the outer shell (hull), the first insulation layer (35) formed of a closed-cell foam, and the second insulation layer (36), the container being the cargo tank arrangement of a ship purpose-built to carry liquefied gas in large tanks (Foss, ¶ 0121, 0247, 0250, 0267-0270; Davis, col. 1, lines 22-27).
The modified Foss does not explicitly teach that the cavity comprises a volume of greater than about 3,000 m³.
However, Kawasaki teaches a liquefied hydrogen carrier whose cargo containment system comprises four liquefied hydrogen carrying tanks each having a capacity of 40,000 m³ (main features, item (1); main specifications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquefied hydrogen containment arrangement of Foss to include a tank cavity having a volume of 40,000 m³ as taught by Kawasaki, in order to enable large-quantity transport of cryogenic liquefied hydrogen on each voyage (Kawasaki, main features, item (1)). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because the tank of Foss is itself the large cargo tank of a ship built to carry liquefied hydrogen in volume (Foss, ¶ 0002, 0247, 0250), and a change in the size of a known structure is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A) and MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Foss (US 2023/0258298 A1) in view of Davis (US 4,774,118) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smits (US 4,997,706).
In regard to claim 4, Foss as modified by Davis teaches the liquid gas storage container of claim 1, comprising the inner shell (tank 33), the outer shell (hull), the first insulation layer (35) coupled to the inner shell and formed of a closed-cell foam (rigid closed cell polyurethane spray foam), and the second insulation layer (36), the first insulation layer standing in the nitrogen that fills void 37 (Foss, ¶ 0267-0270, 0276, 0287; Table 1, Layers 3 and 4; Davis, col. 1, lines 22-27).
The modified Foss does not explicitly teach (a) the closed-cell foam comprises a first gas; and (b) the first gas comprises greater than 50% nitrogen measured by partial pressures.
However, Smits teaches limitations (a) and (b). Smits teaches a rigid closed-cell polyurethane foam for spray insulation whose closed cells hold a cell gas, initially carbon dioxide together with a fluorocarbon blowing agent that is most preferably 15 to 50 mole percent of the cell gas (col. 5, line 63 to col. 6, line 28; col. 10, lines 25-28). Smits further teaches that the composition of the cell gas changes with time by diffusion of environmental gases into the cells and of cell gases out of them, the carbon dioxide diffusing out relatively quickly and nitrogen diffusing in (col. 2, lines 3-10; col. 6, lines 34-37; col. 11, lines 52-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquefied hydrogen containment arrangement of Foss to include, as the closed cell polyurethane spray foam of the primary insulation layer, a rigid closed-cell polyurethane foam whose cells initially hold carbon dioxide and a fluorocarbon blowing agent as taught by Smits, in order to obtain a spray insulation foam whose loss of thermal insulation with time is reduced (Smits, col. 2, lines 53-57; col. 10, lines 25-28).
Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Foss (US 2023/0258298 A1) in view of Davis (US 4,774,118) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feger (US 2012/0060515 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Foss as modified by Davis teaches the liquid gas storage container of claim 1, comprising the inner shell (tank 33), the outer shell (hull), the first insulation layer (35) formed of a closed-cell foam, and the second insulation layer (void 37, Layer 4 of multi-layered insulation system 38), wherein the second insulation layer (37) comprises a second gas (nitrogen or helium filling void 37) (Foss, ¶ 0269, 0275-0276, 0287; Table 1, Layer 4; Davis, col. 1, lines 22-27).
The modified Foss does not explicitly teach that the second gas comprises greater than 50% argon measured by partial pressures.
However, Feger teaches filling the insulating spaces between the tub and the outer enclosure of a double-walled liquefied gas tank with a gas mixture made up primarily of argon (abstract; ¶ 0017, 0020, 0025; claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquefied hydrogen containment arrangement of Foss to include a gas mixture made up primarily of argon, argon thereby exceeding 50% of the gas by partial pressure, as the inert gas filling the void between the primary and secondary insulation layers as taught by Feger, in order to lower the thermal conductivity of the gas in the insulating space and reduce the thermal inputs into the tank by approximately ten percent (Feger, ¶ 0017-0020).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Foss (US 2023/0258298 A1) in view of Davis (US 4,774,118) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Allen (US 2003/0203149 A1) and Fesmire (NASA report of September, 2017: “Research and Development History of Glass Bubbles Bulk-Fill Thermal Insulation Systems for Large-Scale Cryogenic Liquid Hydrogen Storage Tanks”).
In regard to claim 9, Foss as modified by Davis teaches the liquid gas storage container of claim 8, comprising the inner shell (tank 33), the outer shell (hull), the first insulation layer (35) formed of a closed-cell foam, and the second insulation layer (secondary insulation layer 36) formed as evacuated tessellating panels whose columns are filled with a bulk fill material comprising perlite (Foss, ¶ 0182, 0207, 0212, 0267-0270, 0276; Davis, col. 1, lines 22-27).
The modified Foss does not explicitly teach that the second insulation layer comprises a mixture of perlite and glass microspheres.
However, Allen teaches glass microspheres (glass bubbles) as the particulate fill of an evacuated insulation form such as a panel, the microspheres being load bearing and offering better thermal performance and lower insulation weight than perlite and other powder insulations (¶ 0008-0009, 0025, 0027-0031, 0038; claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquefied hydrogen containment arrangement of Foss to include, as the fill of the columns of the evacuated panels, a mixture of the perlite of Foss and the glass microspheres as taught by Allen, in order to bring to the perlite fill the improved thermal performance, lower weight and load-bearing capacity that glass microspheres provide (Allen, ¶ 0025, 0027-0028, 0038).
However, Fesmire teaches that glass bubbles are used in place of perlite powder as the bulk-fill insulation of double-wall cryogenic tanks, and that other, coarser particles are used with the glass bubbles to prevent unwanted displacement of the bubbles in the filtration and vacuum pumping of the fill (p. 1, first paragraph; p. 2, Research & Development Highlights, fifth paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquefied hydrogen containment arrangement of Foss to include the glass microspheres in admixture with a second, coarser particulate fill as taught by Fesmire, in order to prevent the unwanted displacement of the glass bubbles when the fill is placed under vacuum (Fesmire, p. 2, Research & Development Highlights, fifth paragraph).
In regard to claim 10, the modified Foss teaches the liquid gas storage container of claim 9, in which the second insulation layer (36) is formed as evacuated panels whose columns are filled with a mixture of perlite and glass microspheres (Foss, ¶ 0212; Allen, ¶ 0027, 0038; Fesmire, p. 2).
The modified Foss does not explicitly teach that the mixture comprises 60 wt% to 99 wt% perlite and 1 wt% to 40 wt% glass microspheres.
However, Allen teaches that glass microspheres and perlite differ in thermal performance, in bulk density and resulting insulation weight, and in tendency to compact (¶ 0027, 0029, 0038), so that the proportion of glass microspheres to perlite in a mixed fill is a result-effective variable that sets the thermal performance and weight of the fill. Allen further teaches that the proportion in which one particulate constituent is blended into a fill is a suitable amount easily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art (¶ 0029).
However, Fesmire teaches that perlite is inexpensive, that glass bubbles have about one half the bulk density of cryogenic grade perlite, and that glass bubbles have the lower effective thermal conductivity of the two (p. 5, second paragraph; p. 9, Figure 4; p. 10, Glass Bubbles Important Points), so that the proportion of perlite to glass bubbles in a mixed fill likewise sets its cost.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquefied hydrogen containment arrangement of Foss to include the perlite and the glass microspheres taught by Allen in proportions of 60 wt% to 99 wt% perlite and 1 wt% to 40 wt% glass microspheres, in order to obtain the thermal performance and insulation weight wanted of the fill while retaining the low cost of a fill made up mostly of perlite (Allen, ¶ 0027, 0038; Fesmire, pp. 5, 9, 10). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Foss itself treats the fill of the panel columns as a matter to be balanced among strength, weight and thermal performance (Foss, ¶ 0212), and 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 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)-(B). The specification attributes no criticality to the claimed proportions and describes mixtures containing from 1 wt% to 99 wt% of each constituent as suitable (specification, ¶ 0035). See KSR, 550 U.S. 398.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
