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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated August 3, 2026, claims 1, 3, 10, and 12 were amended and claims 5, 9, 14, 16, and 17 were cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, and 15 are pending.
The amendments to the claims overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The amendments to the claims overcome the Double Patenting rejections.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims over Brooks in view of Shulz have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Schulz does not disclose a pressure sensor configured to detect a substance originating from the external environment and absent from the stored fluid, nor a pressure sensor specifically positioned in the space between the inner tank 1 and the outer shell 2. Instead, the cryogenic fluid molecules are the stored fluid and are normally within the environment. See e.g., Schulz at [0003]” (Remarks at p. 6), the examiner disagrees. Schulz expressly teaches that the sensors detect possible leaks from the outer shell (para. [0004]). Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a pressure sensor is capable of detecting the presence a substance originating from the external environment in the vacuum between the inner and outer shells.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “although Schulz discloses the presence of a glass foam, it is in no way mentioned that the material is specifically selected for having the ability to form a mark or indent identifying the site of an impact event” (Remarks at p. 6), the examiner disagrees. Brooks, rather than Schulz, is relied upon for the claimed foam layer. Although Brooks does not expressly disclose an impact event, the foam layer would be capable of forming a mark or indent in response to an impact event. Notably, the claim does not require any particular material for the foam layer, or any particular details of the impact event.
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, 3, 6-8, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2010/0187237 to Brooks et al. (hereinafter, “Brooks”) in view of FR-3131359 to Schulz et al. (hereinafter, “Schulz”).
Regarding claim 1, Brooks discloses a storage tank (tank 103, Figs. 1-2) comprising: a storage chamber (inner tank 110, Fig. 2) configured to store a working fluid (para. [0035]); a first skin (hard shell 111, Fig. 2) forming the storage chamber (inner tank 110, see Fig. 2); a second skin (barrier film 117, Fig. 2) positioned radially outwardly of the first skin (inner tank 110, see Fig. 2); an insulation cavity (insulation layers 113, 115, Fig. 2) formed between the first skin (hard shell 111) and the second skin (barrier film 117), wherein the insulation cavity (insulation layers 113, 115) is a vacuum insulation cavity (para. [0035]); and a foam layer (para. [0073]) positioned radially outwardly of the second skin (barrier film 117, para. [0073]), wherein the foam layer (para. [0073]) is configured to form a mark or indent to identify a site of an impact event (the foam layer is capable of forming a mark or indent; see also MPEP 2114(I)).
Brooks does not expressly disclose one or more sensors configured to detect a presence of a substance in the vacuum insulation cavity, 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, wherein detection of the substance being an indication of damage to the second skin.
Schulz teaches a similar storage tank (Fig. 1) comprising a storage chamber configured to store a cryogenic liquid working fluid (para. [0001] of translation attached to March 2, 2026 Office Action). Schulz teaches a first skin (inner reservoir 1, Fig. 1 forming the storage chamber and a second skin outward of the first skin (outer casing 2, Fig. 1). Schulz teaches an insulation cavity (void 3, Fig. 1) formed between the first and second skins (see Fig. 1). Schulz teaches a sensor configured to detect the presence a substance in the insulation cavity that is usually present in an environment external to the storage tank (para. [0004]). Schulz further teaches that these presence sensors detect possible leaks from the second skin (para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage tank of Brooks to add a sensor configured to detect the presence of a substance from an external environment as taught by Schulz for the purpose of detecting possible leaks from the second skin, as recognized by Schulz (see para. [0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the storage tank of Brooks as modified to have a sensor of Schulz would indicate damage to the second skin when a substance from an external environment is detected in the vacuum insulation cavity.
Regarding claim 3, Brooks further discloses the foam layer (para. [0073]) extends over a full extent of the outer surface of the storage tank (para. [0073]).
Regarding claim 6, Brooks further discloses the working fluid is a cryogenic liquid (para. [0009]).
Regarding claim 7, Brooks further discloses the cryogenic liquid is liquid hydrogen (paras. [0009], [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Brooks further discloses the foam layer (para. [0073]) provides protection against damage to the second skin from impact events (the foam layer is capable of providing protection to the second skin; see also MPEP 2114(I)).
Regarding claim 10, Brooks further discloses a depth of the indent indicates the severity of the impact event (the foam layer is capable of forming a mark or indent based on the severity of an impact event; see also MPEP 2114(I)).
Regarding claim 11, Brooks further discloses the foam layer (para. [0073]) insulates the second skin (barrier film 117) of the storage tank from radiant heat (para. [0073]).
Regarding claim 12, Brooks further discloses one or more pressure sensors (para. [0070]) for measuring a pressure in the insulation cavity or in the storage chamber (para. [0070]).
Regarding claim 13, Brooks further discloses one or more pressure sensors (paras. [0056]-[0057]; [0070]-[0071]) for measuring a rate of change in a pressure in the insulation cavity or in the storage chamber (paras. [0056]-[0057]; [0070]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 15, Brooks discloses an aircraft (aircraft 101, Fig. 1; para. [0028]) comprising: a storage tank as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and an engine (para. [0028]) supplied by the storage tank (para. [0028]).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Schulz as applied to claim 1 and in further view of U.S. Pub. 2016/0059970 to Embler et al. (hereinafter, “Embler”).
Regarding claim 2, Brooks as modified by Schulz does not expressly disclose the foam layer is bonded to the second skin.
Embler teaches a similar storage tank (vessel 102, Fig. 4) comprising a storage chamber configured to store a cryogenic liquid working fluid (para. [0030]). Embler teaches a first skin (surface 114, Fig. 4) forming the storage chamber and a second skin outward of the first skin (surface 112, Fig. 4). Embler teaches a foam layer (cryofoam 116, Fig. 4) positioned radially outwardly of the second skin (see Fig. 4). Embler teaches that the foam layer may be open cell or closed cell, and made from polyurethane (para. [0032]). Embler teaches that the foam layer is bonded to the second skin (paras. [0032], [0046]). Embler further teaches that the foam layer may be applied “in any manner that facilitates operation of the cryofoam layer 116” (para. [0032]), including spraying, pouring, and/or adhesive (paras. [0032], [0046], [0052]-[0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage tank of Brooks/Schulz such that the foam layer is bonded to the second skin as taught by Embler as it is no more than a simple substitution of one attachment means for another that is known in the art for attaching foam to a cryogenic storage tank and would only produce predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 4, Brooks as modified by Schulz does not expressly disclose the foam layer comprises a low density polyurethane foam, or wherein the foam layer comprises a mid-high density polyurethane foam. Brooks does teach that the foam layer is an open cell foam that is lightweight (para. [0073]).
Embler teaches a similar storage tank (vessel 102, Fig. 4) comprising a storage chamber configured to store a cryogenic liquid working fluid (para. [0030]). Embler teaches a first skin (surface 114, Fig. 4) forming the storage chamber and a second skin outward of the first skin (surface 112, Fig. 4). Embler teaches a foam layer (cryofoam 116, Fig. 4) positioned radially outwardly of the second skin (see Fig. 4). Embler teaches that the foam layer may be open cell or closed cell foam, and the foam layer can be made from polyurethane (para. [0032]). Embler teaches that the foam could be less dense or denser to achieve a high strength per weight (para. [0034]). Embler further teaches that the foam layer provides insulation that is lightweight (para. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage tank of Brooks/Schulz to form the foam layer from low or mid-high density polyurethane as taught by Embler for the purpose of providing insulation that is lightweight, as recognized by Embler, and because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights