Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/871,596

MULTIPLE-SHELL TANK AND HEAT INSULATION MATERIAL SUPPLY METHOD FOR MULTIPLE-SHELL TANK

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 04, 2024
Examiner
CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Kawasaki Jukogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% of resolved cases
65%
Career Allow Rate
790 granted / 1217 resolved
-5.1% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1256
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1217 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 states in line 2, “further comprising an outer communication part …” There is no distinction from the “communication part” introduced in line 7 of claim 1. The metes and bounds are undetermined because it is not understood if the claim 6 communication part is a wholly different communication part or if the same communication part of claim 1 is being further defined to be an outer part. Note that claim 2 takes the communication part and further defines the components thereof as outer and inner parts and this is absolutely clear and appropriate. 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Uraguchi et al. (US 2016/0137272) (Uraguchi) (cited by applicant). Uraguchi discloses a multiple-shell tank (ship 1 with tank cover 11 and double-shell tank as shown in Fig. 1) comprising: an inner tank 3 that stores a liquefied gas; an intermediate tank 4 that covers the inner tank and forms a first heat insulating space (vacuum space 20) between the intermediate tank and the inner tank; an outer tank (ship and tank cover 11) that covers the intermediate tank and forms a second heat insulating space (space 10) between the outer tank and the intermediate tank; and a communication part (dome 42 and similarly shaped portion of tank cover 11 that project upwardly) enabling an external space and the first heat insulating space 20 to communicate with each other, the external space being a space outside the multiple- shell tank. Re claim 2, wherein the communication part includes: an outer communication part (upwardly projecting portion of tank cover 11) that extends along a first center line and is disposed at the outer tank so as to allow the external space and the second heat insulating space 10 to communicate with each other; and an inner communication part (dome 42) that is disposed to be opposed to the outer communication part, extends along a second center line, and is disposed at the intermediate tank so as to allow the first heat insulating space and the second heat insulating space to communicate with each other. Re claim 3 the first center line and the second center line are disposed on a straight line substantially parallel to a vertical line. The domes 32, 42 and the upwardly projecting portion of tank cover 11 all are aligned along a center line which is straight and vertical, see Fig. 1. Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Lewis (US H80) (this is a statutory invention registration (SIR)). Lewis discloses a multiple-shell tank 10 comprising: an inner tank (bladder 13 and inner shell 17) that stores a liquefied gas 12; an intermediate tank (thin shell 23) that covers the inner tank and forms a first heat insulating space 24 between the intermediate tank and the inner tank; an outer tank (insulative foam layer 39) that covers the intermediate tank and forms a second heat insulating space (gas, air or vacuum space within foam) between the outer tank and the intermediate tank; and a communication part (tubes 27, 28, 29, 30) enabling an external space and the first heat insulating space 24 to communicate with each other, the external space being a space outside the multiple- shell tank. Re claim 4, the communication part includes a connecting part (the tubes 27, 28, 29 and 30) that connects the outer tank and the intermediate tank to each other so as to allow the external space and the first heat insulating space 24 to communicate with each other. 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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 3119238) (Chamberlain). Re claim 5, Lewis discloses that the connecting part (tubes 27, 28, 29, 30) has a proximal end portion (end positioned inwardly and connected to intermediate tank) connected to the intermediate tank and a distal end portion (end positioned outwardly) disposed in the external space on a side opposite to the proximal end portion. Lewis fails to disclose the expandable part. Chamberlain teaches distendable bellow 29 as an expandable part placed over a communications part (neck 16). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add an expandable part as taught by Chamberlain to the communication part that connects the distal end portion of the connecting part and the outer tank to each other and is expandable with respect to the outer tank to alleviate stress from thermal expansion when a severe temperature difference is present between the communication part (tube) and the outer tank. Re claim 6, Lewis fails to disclose an outer communication part to allow the external space and the second heat insulating space to communicate. Chamberlain teaches an inner tank 19, an intermediate tank 23 and an outer tank 24 with (1) a communication part (tube 34, see column 3, lines 66-69) enabling an external space and the first heat insulating space (space between 19 and 23) to communicate with each other, the external space being a space outside the multiple-shell tank, the communication part includes a connecting part (thermal insulating cap 28) that connects the outer tank and the intermediate tank to each other so as to allow the external space and the first heat insulating space to communicate with each other; and (2) an outer communication part (tube 37, see column 4, lines 1-4) disposed at the outer tank at a position different from the connecting part so as to allow the external space and the second heat insulating space (space between 24 and 23) to communicate with each other. Note that dewar 11 of Chamberlain is located within and supported by outer casing 12. 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 construction of the outer tank to be like the flask 24 of Chamberlain with a hollow, vacuum insulated interior and to add an outer communication part (tube 37 as taught by Chamberlain) to allow a vacuum to be withdrawn in order to insulate the container. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uraguchi in view of Sano et al. (US 2016/0280335) (Sano). Uraguchi fails to disclose either framework. Sano teaches a liquefied gas tank with a frame (frame members 19 provided on underside surface of top wall, see paragraph [33]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify both the outer tank and the intermediate tank to have a framework added to their respective top walls at the underside surface to reinforce these walls to prevent collapse. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the frameworks in such manner so that communication with the tank ports is not disrupted or interfered by disposing the frameworks so as to surround the communication part in plan view. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uraguchi in view of Koji et al. (JP 2008-11917) (Koji) (cited by applicant). Uraguchi discloses the multi-shell tank as previously stated for claim 1. However, Uraguchi fails to disclose the method of use and the supplying heat insulating material step. Koji teaches a similar tank wherein heat insulating material (perlite) is added through perlite manhole 15 in the top of the outer tank and teaches the method of use step of supplying heat insulating material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the tank in the manner claimed by supplying heat insulating material so that the tank is properly insulated and performs acceptably in storing cryogenic liquids. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 04, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603485
UNDERGROUND ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLY AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12578061
SEALED AND THERMALLY INSULATING TANK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571219
DRYWALL MUD PAN CONFIGURATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571502
WALL FOR A LEAKTIGHT AND THERMALLY INSULATING VESSEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570141
VEHICLE FUEL STORAGE SYSTEM INCLUDING BLADDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.0%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1217 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month