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 Status
Claims 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 24 and 28-30 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12, 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 25-27 and 31-32 are pending.
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, 2, 12, 15 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Strack et al. (US 9074685) (Strack).
Strack discloses a multi-layered vessel comprising: a first vessel layer (with barrier layers 22, 32), wherein the first vessel layer comprises two or more first vessel layer components (barrier layers 22, 32 as shown in Fig. 1a) that are welded (see end cap welding of end cap 14 to vessel liner 12 as stated in column 4, line 66 to column 5, line 2) together to form the first vessel layer; and a retaining vessel layer (inside layers 20, 30) configured to strengthen the first vessel layer, wherein the retaining vessel layer is secured to outer walls and/or inner walls of the first vessel layer by welding (see layer-to-layer welding of barrier layer 20 to barrier layer 20, column 4, lines 34-40), the retaining vessel layer comprises two or more retaining vessel layer components (20, 30 as shown in Fig. 1a), and each of the retaining vessel layer components is secured to the first vessel layer.
Re claim 2, the first vessel layer forms a sealed vessel.
Re claim 12, the retaining vessel layer is secured to the first vessel layer by spot welding and/or plug welding (welding along a longitudinal axis (column 4, line 38) or along a circumferential edge (column 4, line 36) are essentially spot or plug welds having continuous weld points.
Re claim 15, each retaining vessel layer component is secured to a first vessel layer component of the two or more first vessel layer components.
Re claim 22, the multi-layered vessel is a first multi-layered vessel; and a second vessel (vessel having outside layers 18, 28 as shown in Fig. 1a), wherein the first multi-layered vessel is arranged within the second vessel.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clarke et al. (US 2022/0136656) (Clarke).
Clarke discloses a method comprising: pressing (pressing as an assembly process wherein two components are pressed together) two or more first vessel layer components (142b, 144b); pressing (pressing as an assembly process wherein two components are pressed together) two or more retaining vessel layer components (142a, 142b); welding the two or more first vessel layer components together to form a first vessel (see welding discussed in paragraph [74], lines 1-6); securing each of the two or more retaining vessel layer components to a first vessel layer component of the two or more first vessel layer components (see Fig. 7, 11B, 12, 13 for securement of the components) wherein the secured two or more retaining vessel layer components form a retaining vessel component secured to inner and/or outer walls of the first vessel layer.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2019/0107251) (Zhao), cited by applicant in view of Strack.
Zhao discloses a multi-layered vessel comprising: a first vessel layer (liner 28 and end cap 50), wherein the first vessel layer comprises two or more first vessel layer components (28, 50) to form the first vessel layer; and a retaining vessel layer (outer layer 90) configured to strengthen the first vessel layer, wherein the retaining vessel layer is secured to outer walls of the first vessel layer by forming, the retaining vessel layer comprises two or more retaining vessel layer components (composite matrix and reinforcing fibers), and each of the retaining vessel layer components is secured to the first vessel layer. Zhao fails to disclose that the first vessel layer components are welded together. Strack teaches end cap welding (see end cap welding of end cap 14 to vessel liner 12 as stated in column 4, line 66 to column 5, line 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to weld the first vessel layer components (end cap 50 and liner 28) to prevent separation during manufacturing and to provide a good seal to prevent end cap seam leaks from developing.
Re claim 2, the first vessel layer forms a sealed vessel with liner 28 and end caps 50, 52.
Re claim 5, the retaining vessel layer comprises a strengthening structure, (1) reinforcing fibers in spray chop fiber/resin and material listed in paragraph [44], (2) junction 92 (see Fig. 5), (3) extra liners 30, 32.
Re claim 6, the one or more strengthening structures comprise one or more strengthening beams (junctions 92 are elongated beams and triangular in cross section and extra liners 30, 32 are elongated beams).
Re claim 7, at least one of the one or more strengthening beams comprises a trench in one of the first vessel layer and the retaining vessel layer that is closed by the other of the first vessel layer and the retaining vessel layer. The first vessel layer includes all of the liners 28, 30, 32 and includes the strengthening structure (both liners 30, 32 act as a beam) and the beam comprises a trench (valley between liners 30, 32) in the first vessel is closed by the junction 92 and outer layer 90 of the retaining vessel layer.
Re claim 8, the one or more strengthening structures comprise raised features (the junction 92 and the beams are raised features).
Re claim 9, the retaining vessel layer comprises one or more openings (see openings in end caps as shown in Fig. 8).
Re claims 15, each retaining layer component (composite matrix and reinforcing fibers) is secured to a first vessel layer component.
Claim(s) 10, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strack in view of Aceves et al. (US 2018/0224064) (Aceves).
Re claim 10, the 4 mm or less thickness is not stated in Clarke. Aceves teaches a similarly constructed vacuum jacket, multi-layered vessel with a 3 mm thick vacuum jacket, see paragraph [34], last sentence and paragraph [89], last sentence. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of all components to be 3mm as an optimum thickness for providing proper structural support without unnecessarily wasting wall material which adds cost and vessel weight.
Re claim 16, the structure of all components of Strack is consistent with pressed components, as pressing is a product-by-process step of forming. However, the 3 mm thickness is not stated. Aceves teaches a similarly constructed vacuum jacket, multi-layered vessel with a 3 mm thick vacuum jacket, see paragraph [34], last sentence and paragraph [89], last sentence. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of all components to be 3mm as an optimum thickness for providing proper structural support without unnecessarily wasting wall material which adds cost and vessel weight.
Re claim 19, each of the two or more retaining vessel layer components is secured to a first vessel layer component of the two or more first vessel layer components after the two or more first vessel layer components are sealed to form the first vessel layer.
Re claim 20, one or more of the two or more retaining vessel layer components is secured to a first vessel layer component of the two or more first vessel layer components before the two or more first vessel layer components are sealed to form the first vessel layer.
Claim(s) 22-23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strack in view of Clarke.
The modification in these claims will reject claim 22 with a modification taught by Clarke because the first and second vessels are spaced from each other to establish a vacuum gap (Claim 26).
Clarke teaches a storage tank comprising a first vessel arranged within a second vessel and with a vacuum space therebetween, see Fig. 5c. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the second vessel taught by Clarke, then to place the first vessel within the second vessel, then add the vacuum space (claim 26) to provide vacuum insulation typically used for cryogenic substances and gaseous fuel, like methane to inhibit thermal energy intrusion and loss of heated fuel.
Re claim 23, Clarke teaches hydrogen storage for various vehicle, including aircraft, see paragraph [3], lines 1-2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to mount the storage tank in a vehicle and connect the tank to an engine to provide fuel to an engine.
Re claim 25, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teachings of Strack to the second multi-layered vessel of Clarke and to make the two vessels correspond to each other in construction to eliminate deficiency in construction and performance.
Claim(s) 27, 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strack in view of McCrink et al. (US 2007/0045384) (McCrink).
Strack discloses a method comprising: providing two or more first vessel layer components (22, 32); providing two or more retaining vessel layer components (20, 30); welding the two or more first vessel layer components together to form a first vessel (see end cap welding of end cap 14 to vessel liner 12 as stated in column 4, line 66 to column 5, line 2); securing each of the two or more retaining vessel layer components to a first vessel layer component of the two or more first vessel layer components wherein the secured two or more retaining vessel layer components form a retaining vessel component secured to inner walls of the first vessel layer. The components of the first vessel layer and the retaining vessel layer of Strack are not pressed formed components. Manufacturing components from a die press, mold press, drawing press, or other type of pressing procedure is well known. McCrink teaches pressing or press forming as one forming technique. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to manufacture the first vessel layer and the retaining vessel layer components by pressing as a reliable and quick forming process to save time in manufacture of the multi-layered vessel.
Re claim 31, the retaining vessel layer is secured to the inner walls of the first vessel layer by welding (see layer-to-layer welding of barrier layer 20 to barrier layer 20, column 4, lines 34-40).
Re claim 32, Strack fails to disclose thicknesses. McCrink teaches steel blank thickness of 0.5 – 5.0 mm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the thickness of the formed components such that (a) the pressed two or more first vessel layer components and the pressed two or more retaining vessel layer components each have a material thicknesses of 3mm, or (b) the pressed two or more first vessel layer components each have a material thicknesses of 2mm, and the pressed two or more retaining vessel layer components each have a material thicknesses of 4mm to save material, material cost and reduce energy to form the components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights