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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 uses the term “dispersion networks”. This does not rise to the level of indefinite because it is clear from the specification that the dispersion networks are the dispersion net(s). However, there is lack of antecedent basis for “dispersion networks”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-16 are each missing the appropriate article at the beginning of the claims” “A tank”, “The tank according to claim 1”, etc. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 should be amended to state “wherein
Claim 3 should be amended to state “wherein
Claim 6 is objected to because the term “it” should more clearly state “the tank”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12, as written, depends from claim 1. However, it is clear from the preamble and claim limitations that claim 12 is should depend from claim 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 should be amended to state “wherein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-16 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.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, 10 and 15, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 is a method of making the device of claim 1. However, claim 10 refers to said second internal lining, housings, and through holes/channels which are not claimed in claim 1. There is lack of antecedent basis for these elements in claim 10. Claims 11-16 depend from claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp (US5054645) in view of Beaver et al. (US5149105).
Claim 1: Sharp teaches a tank for containing fluids and gases (storage tank 10 for liquid gasoline. Col. 2, lines 34-37), such as hydrogen and the like, comprising a wall (sidewalls 11 and end caps 12 comprise the outer wall), having an external face, facing the outside of the tank (see Fig. 1), and an internal face, facing the inside of the tank (the internal faces of the sidewalls 11 and end caps 12 face the interior of the tank 10), a first internal lining layer (inner tank 17), a support frame (attachment columns 21), placed between said wall (sidewalls 11 and endcaps 12) and said first internal lining layer (inner tank 17, Figs. 3, 4), wherein said wall is arranged on said support frame, and one or more dispersion nets (gas pervious separating material 16; Examples are open-cell synthetic foams, jute, matting, meshes, screens and cardboard.), arranged integrated in said support frame, wherein said one or more dispersion networks disperse the gas contained in the tank in case of leaks between said wall and said first internal lining layer (col. 3, lines 11-32; the gas pervious separating material 16 allows the detection means including pressure transducers to detect a change in level (col. 5, lines 33-47)).
Sharp fails to explicitly teach wherein the internal lining layer is made of aluminum or other corrosion-resistant material. However, Sharp teaches that stored liquids can be corrosive (col. 1, lines 13-15). Knowing that the stored liquids are corrosive, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to prevent corrosion by using a suitable material.
Beaver teaches a lined vessel including a liner made of corrosion resistance material including metals or resins. Therefore, the resinous material of the liner 17 used by Sharp is recognized as a corrosion resistant material, as evidenced by Beaver.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp in view of Beaver further in view of Sharp (US4875361, herein after “Sharp2”)
Claim 2: Sharp in view of Beaver teaches the tank according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein in that said support frame comprises a plurality of strips arranged to form a framework, which identifies a plurality of spacings, and in that said each dispersion net is arranged in a respective spacing.
However, Sharp2 teaches a storage tank including support ribs 11 which separate spaces between the ribs and allows for monitoring the spaces between the ribs in order to detect leaks using a pressure sensor 27, Figs. 6-8. The spaces between the ribs are enclosed col. 6, lines 9-13, and can only communicate through purposefully placed apertured tubes 28 or tunnels 29. Sharp2 further teaches a separating material which is used between the inner and outer tank wall and includes foraminous or porous materials (col. 5, lines 37-45).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a plurality of ribs (strips) as taught by Sharp2 with the device of Sharp in view of Beaver in order to provide strength for the inner and outer walls (col. 4, lines 40-44).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp in view of Beaver further in view of Hauck (US5877932).
Claim 7: Sharp in view of Beaver teaches the tank according to claim 1. Sharp teaches a mesh material used as the separating material (col. 3, lines 10-15). However, Sharp in view of Beaver fails to teach wherein the dispersion net are of the “waved mesh” type and are made of steel, aluminum, or aluminum alloy.
However, Hauck teaches a tank including an intermediate layer 5 between the tank 1 and the inner envelope/line 6 wherein the intermediate layer is known to be made of steel and is pervious to air (Steel wool, col. 1, lines 14-20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use gas pervious steel as an intermediate layer, as taught by Hauck, with the device of Sharp in view of Beaver in order to utilize a material layer that is pervious to air and is used to maintain a minimum distance between the inner envelope and the tank wall (Hauck, col. 1, lines 14-20).
Sharp in view of Beaver further in view of Hauck fails to explicitly teach wherein the mesh is a “woven mesh”.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could substitute a suitable mesh which would yield predictable results as long as the mesh is pervious to gas, as taught by both Sharp and Hauck.
Claims 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp in view of Beaver further in view of Backhouse (US20220403980)
Claim 6: Sharp in view of Beaver teaches the tank of claim 1, but fails to teach a second internal lining layer made of polymeric material coupled to said internal face.
However, Backhouse teaches that a polymer liner can be used with gaseous storage tanks in order to control hydrogen gas diffusion through the tank wall [0004].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a polymer liner, as taught by Backhouse, with a storage tank such as that of claim 1 in order to make the tank suitable for hydrogen gas storage and also provide insulation (Backhouse [0006]).
Claim 8: Sharp in view of Beaver teaches the tank of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein said lining material is a polymer, such as polyethylene, one of the polymers used as a protective lining to prevent or limit the penetration of hydrogen.
However, Backhouse teaches that a polymer liner can be used with gaseous storage tanks in order to control hydrogen gas diffusion through the tank wall [0004].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a polymer liner, as taught by Backhouse, with a storage tank such as that of claim 1 in order to make the tank suitable for hydrogen gas storage and also provide insulation (Backhouse [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 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.
Claim 3: Sharp in view of Beaver further in view of Sharp teaches the device of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein in that said wall comprises a plurality of housings, and in that said support frame comprises a plurality of strips, arranged in said housings.
The wall 11 of Sharp is not modified to accommodate the lining 17 and frame 21. There is no reasonable teaching, suggestion, or motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create housings within the wall 11 to arrange the framework 21 or strips (taught by Sharp 2) therein without hindsight.
Claim 4: Sharp in view of Beaver teaches the tank of claim 1, but fails to teach where the wall 11 has one or more through holes or channels for gas to escape in case of leak form the tank.
Sharp teaches an access tube 30 which serves to indicate a leak via detecting liquid which can provide a visual indicator (col. 5, lines 16-32). There is no reasonable teaching, suggestion, or motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add holes or channels to the tank wall 11 without hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 6/12/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights