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
Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 30, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: a period is missing at the end of claim 12. 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “one or more pressure sensors for measuring comprising one or more sensors configured to detect the presence of at least one of a component of the working fluid or a substance in the insulation cavity” in lines 1-4. It is unclear whether the emphasized portion is missing a comma, or whether it is a duplicate limitation. In other words, is the “one or more sensors” the same as the “one or more pressure sensors”? Are the “one or more sensors” a subset of the “one or more pressure sensors”? For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “one or more sensors configured to detect the presence of at least one of a component of the working fluid or a substance in the insulation cavity.”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2010/0187237 to Brooks et al. (hereinafter, “Brooks”).
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); and a foam layer (para. [0073]) positioned radially outwardly of the second skin (barrier film 117, para. [0073]).
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 5, Brooks further discloses the insulation cavity (insulation layers 113, 115) is a vacuum insulation cavity (para. [0035]).
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 9, Brooks further discloses the foam layer (para. [0073]) is configured to form a mark or indent to identify the site of an impact event (the foam layer is capable of forming a mark or indent; 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]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks 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 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 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 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 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).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks as applied to claim 1 and in further view of FR-3131359 to Schulz et al. (hereinafter, “Schulz”).
Regarding claim 14, Brooks does not expressly disclose one or more sensors configured to detect the presence of at least one of a component of the working fluid or a substance in the 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.
Schulz teaches a similar a similar storage tank (Fig. 1) comprising a storage chamber configured to store a cryogenic liquid working fluid (para. [0001] of attached translation). 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 the working fluid or of 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 first or 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 the working fluid or a substance from an external environment as taught by Schulz for the purpose of detecting possible leaks from the first or second skin, as recognized by Schulz (see para. [0004]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/781,326 (“the ‘326 application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the ‘326 application “anticipates” application claims 1 and 14, as shown below.
Current Claims
Claims of the ‘326 application
Claim 1: A storage tank comprising:
a storage chamber configured to store a working fluid;
a first skin forming the storage chamber;
a second skin positioned radially outwardly of the first skin;
an insulation cavity formed between the first skin and the second skin; and
a foam layer positioned radially outwardly of the second skin.
Claim 1: A storage tank comprising:
a storage chamber configured to store a working fluid;
a first skin forming the storage chamber;
a second skin positioned radially outwardly of the first skin;
an insulation cavity formed between the first skin and the second skin; and
a sensor configured to detect the presence of a substance in the 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.
Claim 9: The storage tank as claimed in claim 1, comprising a layer of foam provided radially outwardly of the second skin.
Claim 14: The storage tank as claimed in claim 1, in combination with one or more pressure sensors for measuring comprising one or more sensors configured to detect the presence of at least one of a component of the working fluid or a substance in the 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.
see Claim 1 at lines 6-8.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. 6,347,719 to Rosen et al. discloses a storage tank for an aircraft comprising an inner skin, an outer skin, an insulating cavity between the inner and outer skins, and a foam layer arranged outside the outer skin (see Figs. 1-5).
WO 2022/144971 to Shimoda et al. discloses a cryogenic storage tank comprising first and second skins, an insulating cavity between the first and second skins, and a foam layer (see Figs. 1-10).
U.S. Pub. 2014/0117163 to Simpson discloses a storage tank comprising first and second skins, an insulating cavity, and a foam layer surrounding the second skin (see e.g., Figs. 1-8; para. [0037]).
U.S. Pat. 5,386,706 to Bergsten et al. discloses a cryogenic storage tank comprising first and second skins, an insulating cavity between the first and second skins, and a protective foam layer arranged outside the second skin (see Figs. 1-5).
U.S. Pat. 4,011,963 to Cheng et al. discloses a cryogenic storage tank comprising first and second skins, an insulating cavity, and a foam layer (see Fig. 1).
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/Examiner, Art Unit 3733