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 Objections
Claims 8, 13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the pressure” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a system for configured to” is grammatically incorrect.
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the concentration of the substance” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2009147162 A1 (herein Janssen).
Regarding claim 1, Janssen teaches A storage tank (container 10, p. 7, Line 15) comprising:
a storage chamber configured to store a working fluid (see location of liquid load 400, Fig. 3);
a first skin forming the storage chamber (first liquid barrier layer 50, p. 7, Fig. 3);
a second skin positioned radially outwardly of the first skin (second liquid barrier layer 100, p. 7, Fig. 3);
an insulation cavity formed between the first skin and the second skin (annulus 200, Fig. 3); and
a sensor configured to detect the presence of a substance in the insulation cavity (gas sensor can be connected to one or more of the fluid vents 250. The gas sensor can monitor the gas vented from the annulus 200 for any gas evaporated from the liquefied gas 400, p. 11, Lines 28-31),
wherein the substance is usually present in an environment external to the storage tank but not in the working fluid stored within the storage chamber (liquified gas such as liquified nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, or hydrogen, is corresponding working fluid, p. 1, Lines 3-5; p. 1, Line 25 states environment may be oceangoing vessel which would consist of atmospheric air; and p. 11, Lines 28-31 teach gas sensor can sense gas phases of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, which are present in air but distinctly not a liquefied substance).
Regarding claim 2, Janssen teaches wherein the substance is oxygen or nitrogen (liquified gas such as liquified nitrogen, oxygen, p. 1, Line 3).
Regarding claim 3, Janssen teaches wherein the sensor is also configured to detect the presence of a component of the working fluid in the insulation cavity (liquified gas such as liquified nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, or hydrogen, is corresponding working fluid, p. 1, Lines 3-5; p. 1, Line 25 states environment may be oceangoing vessel which would consist of atmospheric air; and p. 11, Lines 28-31 teach gas sensor can sense gas phases of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, which are corresponding components of liquified form).
Regarding claim 5, Janssen teaches wherein the working fluid is a cryogenic liquid (cryogenic container for storing liquefied gas, p. 1, Line 1).
Regarding claim 6, Janssen teaches wherein the cryogenic liquid is liquid hydrogen (liquefied hydrogen, p. 1, Line 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, Janssen teaches wherein the insulation cavity is a vacuum insulation cavity (annulus 200 is held under reduced pressure compared to ambient pressure, p. 10, Lines 30-31).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20230175647 (herein Geistbeck).
Regarding claim 1, Geistbeck teaches A storage tank (hydrogen tank assembly 10, [0110]) comprising:
a storage chamber configured to store a working fluid (hydrogen tank volume 20, [0112]);
a first skin forming the storage chamber (first liquid barrier layer 50, p. 7, Fig. 3);
a second skin positioned radially outwardly of the first skin (rigid element 54, [0122]);
an insulation cavity formed between the first skin and the second skin (cavity 28, [0122]); and
a sensor configured to detect the presence of a substance in the insulation cavity (sensor 40, [0117]),
wherein the substance is usually present in an environment external to the storage tank but not in the working fluid stored within the storage chamber (gaseous hydrogen leaks through inner tank wall is collected in cavity 28, [0113]; sensor 40 provided at the channel system can be used for monitoring leakage rate [of the hydrogen gas], [0137]).
Regarding claim 4, Geistbeck teaches wherein the storage tank comprises a further sensor configured to detect the presence of a component of the working fluid in the insulation cavity ([0117] teach several sensors are provided for monitoring leakage of hydrogen gas).
Regarding claim 8, Geistbeck teaches comprising one or more pressure sensors for measuring the pressure or a rate of change in the pressure in the insulation cavity or in the storage chamber (several sensors can be used such as sensors for detecting pressure loss, [0127]).
Regarding claim 9, Geistbeck teaches comprising a layer of foam provided radially outwardly of the second skin (barrier sheet 70 and partly filled with a micro-porous material 56, for example an open-porous foam 72, [0130]).
Regarding claim 14, Geistbeck teaches An aircraft (a hydrogen fueled aircraft, [0009]) comprising: a safety system as claimed in claim 8 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and an engine supplied by the storage tank (hydrogen powered engine, [0059]).
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.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 116428512 A (herein Hou).
Regarding claim 10, Janssen does not teach, “a system for configured to initiate an action when damage to the storage tank is detected..” However, Hou teaches it is known in the art to start emergency protocol when damage is detected (p. 8).
Regarding claim 11, Janssen does not teach, “wherein the action comprises at least one of causing the storage chamber to be vented to the external atmosphere and alerting a user to damage to the storage tank.” However, Hou teaches it is known in the art to, upon the system starting an alarm, vent hydrogen from a vent upon a particular detection rate, and sending a voice alarm after external damage (p. 8).
Regarding claim 12, Regarding claim 12, Janssen teaches “when the substance is detected in the insulation cavity or an increase in the concentration of the substance in the insulation cavity is detected” (gas sensor can monitor increase in concentration of gas, p. 11, Lines 31-32). Janssen does not teach, “wherein the safety system is configured to alert a user to damage to the second skin.” However, Hou teaches it is known in the art to sound an alarm in the event of external damage (p. 8).
For the above claims 10-12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the alarm and action of Hou with the container of Janssen. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of providing basic safety measures and appropriate alarms for the safety of personnel nearby, and for notifying operators of diagnosis (p. 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13 and dependents thereof, the prior art does not teach, “wherein the safety system is configured to alert a user to damage to the first skin when a change in the pressure in the insulation cavity is detected but no substance has been detected or no change in the concentration of the substance in the insulation cavity is detected; or when a component of the working fluid or an increase in concentration of the component is detected in the insulation cavity.”
Regarding claim 15 and dependents thereof, the prior art does not teach, “operating the sensor to monitor for the presence of a substance or to measure a concentration of the substance in the insulation cavity; and detecting damage to the second skin when the substance is detected or when the concentration of the substance has increased.”
Hou teaches equivalent safety system (communication control system, p. 8) for alarm and notification of damage of leaks, but the necessary conditions required by the above claims are not taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights