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 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 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chitwood et al. (ES 2822949 T3). Chitwood et al. teaches a gas storage system, shown in figure 12, which stores large volumes of a gas (“various liquids or gases that may be stored in the at least one interior tank of the present disclosure…”; see translation) in a structure at a relatively low to moderate pressure ranging from about 3 atmospheres to about 50 atmospheres (capable of storing gas at low pressure; “low pressure subsea tank”).
Regarding claim 2, the structure comprises a skeleton 110 with a skin 120 (figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, the gas is contained within an interior collapsible bladder (various liquids or gases that may be stored in the at least one interior tank of the present disclosure…”; see translation).
Regarding claim 5, the structure is part of a water collection system (the vessel is capable of being used as part of a water collection system). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the skin 120 resides within the skeleton 110 (figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, the gas storage vessel with a volume greater than 10 m³ (“793 m3”) operating in a pressure range between 3 and 50 atmospheres (capable of operating in a pressure range between 3 and 50 atmospheres) and a temperature range between -40 and 100 degrees centigrade (“10C” is disclosed), which comprises a skin 120 to contain the pressure and limit leakage of the stored gas.
Regarding claim 9, said skin 120 comprises a flexible, multi-layer membrane (PVC “coated fabrics”).
Regarding claim 15, water injection system by which the pressure in the vessel may be adjusted to compensate for gas additions or withdrawals (see balancing assembly 135).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arney (U.S. 4,640,328). Arney teaches a gas storage system 12, shown in figure 2, which stores large volumes of a gas (capable of storing gas) in a structure at a relatively low to moderate pressure ranging from about 3 atmospheres to about 50 atmospheres (capable of storing gas at low pressure).
Regarding claim 3, the structure is shaped like a Tipi, as shown in figure 2.
Claims 1, 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitlitsky et al. (U.S. 6,017,600). Mitlitsky et al. teaches a gas storage system, shown in figure 12, which stores large volumes of a gas (lines 1-2 of Abstract) in a structure at a relatively low to moderate pressure ranging from about 3 atmospheres to about 50 atmospheres (capable of storing gas at low pressure since it is capable of storing gas as high pressures).
Regarding claim 2, the structure comprises a skeleton 125, 126, 127 with a skin 120 (figure 12).
Regarding claim 7, the skin 120 covers the skeleton 125, 126, 127 (figure 12).
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitwood et al. (ES 2822949 T3) in view of McAlister (U.S. 6,015,065).
Regarding claim 10, Chitwood et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the adhesive coatings. McAlister teaches that it is known to provide a flexible storage system with adhesive coatings (see col. 8 lines 55-62). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tank of Chitwood et al. with the membrane material taught by McAlister, in order to strengthen the matrix of the fiber, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, said base fabric layer comprises polyester yarn (taught by McAlister; col. 8 lines 55-62) and is knit or woven or a hybrid construction, as modified by McAlister.
Regarding claim 12, said coatings include an adhesive coat that penetrates and encapsulates the yarns, as modified by McAlister (col. 8 lines 55-62 of McAlister).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitwood et al. (ES 2822949 T3) in view of McAlister (U.S. 6,015,065), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mann (WO 2022/172243A1).
Regarding claim 13, Chitwood et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the a polyethylene interpolymer alloy. Mann teaches that it is known use a polyethylene interpolymer alloy in a storage system (see paragraph [0091]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified tank of Chitwood et al. with the membrane material having a polyethylene interpolymer alloy, as taught by Mann, as it is considered a high performing geomembrane, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitwood et al. (ES 2822949 T3) in view of Yang (CN110410661A).
Regarding claim 14, Chitwood et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the ballonet. Yang teaches that it is known to provide a storage system with a ballonet (see element 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tank of Chitwood et al. with a ballonet, as taught by Yang, in order to better control dispensing and filling of the tank.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art is cited for the bladder and skeleton structure.
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736