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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 8-14 in the reply filed on August 21, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden on the examiner to examine all of the claims. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have separate classification as indicated in the previous Office Action, the inventions have recognized divergent subject matter and the inventions have a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 8, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bastone et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,412,891).
Regarding claim 8, Bastone discloses a method of forming a fiberglass reinforced plastic storage tank (Abstract of Bastone, storage tank; 5:69-75 of Bastone, tank made of glass fiber reinforced plastic), the method comprising: providing a rotating mandrel having a base layer disposed around an outer surface of the rotating mandrel such that the base layer rotates with the rotating mandrel (12:45-49 of Bastone, as mandrel is turned, rovings laid on chopped strand layer); and forming a reinforcement layer having a plurality of fiberglass ribs disposed along a length of the base layer (FIG. 13 of Bastone, plurality of spaced ribs formed from glass fiber during filament winding process), the forming step including continuously winding fiberglass filaments around the base layer of the rotating mandrel to form the plurality of fiberglass ribs along the length of the base layer in a continuous helical pattern (FIG. 13, 7:49-51 of Bastone, ribs formed by continuous filament winding process).
Regarding claim 11, Bastone discloses that the forming step further includes: continuously winding the fiberglass filaments from a fiber placement head over a first area of the base layer to form a first fiberglass rib of the plurality of fiberglass ribs; advancing the fiber placement head from the first area of the base layer to a second area of the base layer while continuously winding the fiberglass filaments from the fiber placement head; and continuously winding the fiberglass filaments from the fiber placement head over the second area to form a second fiberglass rib of the plurality of fiberglass rims adjacent to the first fiberglass rib (FIG. 13, 7:49-51 of Bastone, plurality of ribs formed by continuous filament winding process; 12:45-49 of Bastone, fiber placement head traverses the length of the mandrel to form the ribs).
Regarding claim 12, Bastone discloses that the step of advancing the fiber placement head from the first area to the second area forms a joining member that joins the first fiberglass rib to the second fiberglass rib in the continuous helix pattern (12:45-49 of Bastone, fiber placement head traverses the length of the mandrel to form the ribs; fiberglass in ribs therefore joined together in helical winding pattern).
Regarding claim 13, Bastone discloses that the first fiberglass rib and the second fiberglass rib include a greater thickness than the joining member (FIGS. 11 and 12 of Bastone, ribs are thicker than connecting portions).
Regarding claim 16, Bastone discloses that the base layer is in the form of a cylindrically shaped tube (FIG. 17 of Bastone).
Regarding claim 17, Bastone discloses that the continuous helical pattern includes the plurality of fiberglass ribs each forming a raised ring around the base layer and a plurality of joining members each disposed between and joining adjacent raised rings (FIGS. 11 and 13 of Bastone).
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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastone in view of Weaver et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,923,081).
Regarding claim 9, Bastone does not specifically disclose the method of Claim 8 further comprising forming a primary outer wall layer over the reinforcement layer and base layer. Weaver, however, discloses a method for making a storage tank with support ribs comprising forming an inner wall comprising ribs and an outer side wall #22 (FIG. 2 of Weaver). According to Weaver, the method results in a double-walled tank (Abstract of Weaver). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an outer wall layer on the storage tank of Bastone. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a double-walled tank as taught by Weaver (Abstract of Weaver).
Regarding claim 10, Weaver discloses curing the reinforcement layer to the base layer prior to forming the primary outer wall layer (Abstract of Weaver, ribs are cured before applying outer wall).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastone in view of Sharp (U.S. Patent No. 5,320,247).
Regarding claim 14, Bastone does not specifically disclose that the first fiberglass rib and the second fiberglass rib are disposed about twenty-four inches to about thirty-six inches apart. Sharp, however, discloses a storage tank with support ribs wherein the ribs are spaced about 4 to 30 inches apart (Abstract, 3:32-39 of Sharp). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the ribs in the modified method about 4 to 30 inches apart since Sharp establishes that it was known to form ribs at such spacings for storage tanks (Abstract, 3:32-39 of Sharp). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Sharp therefore clearly teaches a rib spacing range (i.e., 4-30 inches) that overlaps with that recited in claim 18 (i.e., 24-36 inches) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastone in view of Weaver as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Bartlow et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,462,191).
Regarding claim 15, Weaver does not specifically disclose forming a secondary outer wall layer disposed over the primary outer wall layer and an interstice layer disposed between the primary outer wall layer and the secondary outer wall layer. Bartlow, however, discloses forming multiple outer wall layers on a storage tank comprising ribs (Abstract, 7:48-53 of Bartlow). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to forma plurality of outer wall layers in the modified process including an interstice layer and a secondary outer wall layer since Bartlow establishes that it was known to do so. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastone in view of Sharp.
Regarding claim 9, Bastone does not specifically disclose that each of the raised rings are disposed about twenty-four inches to about thirty-six inches between adjacent raised rings. Sharp, however, discloses a storage tank with support ribs wherein the ribs are spaced about 4 to 30 inches apart (Abstract, 3:32-39 of Sharp). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the ribs in the modified method about 4 to 30 inches apart since Sharp establishes that it was known to form ribs at such spacings for storage tanks (Abstract, 3:32-39 of Sharp). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Sharp therefore clearly teaches a rib spacing range (i.e., 4-30 inches) that overlaps with that recited in claim 18 (i.e., 24-36 inches) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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 (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746