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 § 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.
Claims 8 and 13 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 claim 8: the claim recites, “the outer bottom insulation layer includes a solid insulation material that is stronger in strength than a general part of the outer bottom insulation layer that is located inside the intermediate tank side plate in a place that bears a load from the intermediate tank side plate (emphasis added).”
It is not clear if “that is” is referring to the solid insulation material or the general part of the insulation material. In other words, it is not clear if it is the solid insulation material or the general part of the insulation material that is “located inside the intermediate tank side plate in a place that bears a load from the intermediate tank side plate.”
Also, it is not clear from the figures or specification what arrangement the applicant is attempting to claim. The examiner believes that figure 2 is the relevant embodiment and it shows bottom insulation layer has three distinguishable parts, 25, 26 and 27. And the specification describes 27 as being the solid insulation material at the location at the place that directly bear the load of the intermediate tank side plate (¶0030). The specification, and figure 2, describe/show 25 as being inside the intermediate tank. There does not appear to be any single disclosed element that is, “located inside the intermediate tank side plate in a place that bears a load from the intermediate tank side plate.”
For at least these reasons, it is not clear what the applicant considers to be their claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13: parent claim 12 requires that a width of the outer insulation layer be wider than a width of the inner insulation layer.
Claim 13 recites, “wherein a ratio of the width of the outer insulation layer to the width of the inner insulation layer is set in a range of 1 : 1.5 to 5.”
As written, this would mean that the width of the outer insulation is smaller than the width of the inner insulation layer. But this would contradict parent claim 12 which requires the opposite. The examiner assumes that claim 13 was drafted in error and that the applicant intended the opposite of what is being claimed.
The examiner will interpret the claims as, “wherein a ratio of the width of the inner insulation layer to the width of the outer insulation layer is set in a range of 1 : 1.5 to 5.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2018194117 (‘117) (of record in IDS dated 12/20/2024, including English translation).
Regarding claim 1: ‘117 discloses a cryogenic liquefied gas storage tank (¶0001, 1, fig 1) having a flat bottom cylindrical triple shell structure (figs 1-2), the cryogenic liquefied gas storage tank comprising: an inner tank (7, figs 1 and 2) that stores cryogenic liquefied gas (¶0001); an intermediate tank (2) that encloses the inner tank with an inner insulation layer (11, 13, fig 2) therebetween; and an outer tank (3) that encloses the intermediate tank with an outer insulation layer (5, fig 2) therebetween, wherein the intermediate tank is formed using cryogenic steel (¶0020, 304 stainless steel is known in the art to be a “cryogenic steel.”
Regarding claim 5: ‘117 discloses wherein the outer insulation layer includes a seal gas including an inert gas (i.e., nitrogen gas, ¶0031), and pressure in the outer insulation layer is lower than the pressure in the inner insulation layer (“maintaining nitrogen gas substantially at the air pressure (¶0031).”
Regarding claim 6: ‘117 discloses a pressure regulating tank (i.e., breathing tank 9, ¶¶0031-0034, fig 1) that communicates with the outer insulation layer and stores the inert gas, wherein the pressure regulating tank adjusts the pressure in the outer insulation layer by letting the inert gas in and out according to pressure fluctuation in the outer insulation layer (¶0031).
Regarding claim 9: ‘117 discloses wherein the intermediate tank includes an intermediate tank side plate (i.e., vertical wall at lead line 2, fig 2) that forms a side surface of the intermediate tank, and a reinforcement material that includes a rib-like member protruding from the intermediate tank side plate (i.e., 15a, fig 2, ¶0025).
Regarding claim 12: ‘117 discloses wherein the outer insulation layer includes a seal gas including an inert gas (i.e., nitrogen, ¶0031), and a width of the outer insulation layer is wider than a width of the inner insulation layer (as clearly depicted in fig 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2,124,743 (‘743) (of record in the IDS dated 08/13/2025) in view of JP2018194117 (‘117).
Regarding claim 1: ‘743 discloses a cryogenic liquefied gas storage tank (abstract, fig 1) having a flat bottom cylindrical triple shell structure (fig 1), the cryogenic liquefied gas storage tank comprising: an inner tank (4) that stores cryogenic liquefied gas; an intermediate tank (2) that encloses the inner tank with an inner insulation layer (3) therebetween; and an outer tank (1) that encloses the intermediate tank with an outer insulation layer (3) therebetween.
‘743 does not disclose that the intermediate tank is formed using cryogenic steel. ‘117, however, discloses a similar tank wherein the intermediate tank is formed using cryogenic steel (see the above discussion of claim 1). Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the intermediate tank of ‘743 from a cryogenic steel, as taught by ‘117, because it is a known material that is useful for the intended use of containing cryogenic liquified gasses.
Regarding claim 2: ‘743 discloses wherein the inner insulation layer includes a seal gas including a gas of an identical type to the cryogenic liquefied gas stored in the inner tank dues to the fact that the intermediate tank is in fluid communication with the inner tank (fig 1, page 1 ll. 75-90).
Regarding claim 3: ‘743 discloses wherein pressure in the inner insulation layer is set to be substantially identical to vapor phase pressure in the inner tank, this would be so because the inner tank is open at the top and in fluid communication with the intermediate tank (fig 1, page 1 ll. 75-90).
Regarding claim 9: ‘743 discloses wherein the intermediate tank includes an intermediate tank side plate (i.e., vertical wall at lead line 2, fig 2) that forms a side surface of the intermediate tank, and a reinforcement material that includes a rib-like member protruding from the intermediate tank side plate (see the 3 ‘L’ shaped bracket protruding inwards from the vertical wall of the intermediate plate, fig 1).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018194117 (‘117), as applied to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 13: see the above §112 discussion. ‘117 discloses that the outer insulation width is wider than the width of the inner insulation layer, as discussed above for claim 12, but ‘117 does not explicitly disclose “wherein a ratio of the width of the inner insulation layer to the width of the outer insulation layer is set in a range of 1 : 1.5 to 5.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank of ‘117 to have a ratio of 1:1.5 to 5 since it would be a simple change in proportion that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and because the applicant has not disclosed any criticality and/or unexpected results to the claimed ratio/range (see MPEP 2144.03IV A). Further, there would be a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would only require changing the thickness of already existing insulation layers.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2,124,743 (‘743), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Light (US 2023/0067726).
Regarding claim 10: ‘743, as applied above, discloses all of the claimed limitations except that a safety valve that regulates an increase in internal pressure of the intermediate tank.
Light discloses a liquid cryogen storage tank (title, abstract, fig 12, ¶0132) that includes a safety valve (i.e., pressure relief valve 65, fig 12, ¶0132) that regulates an increase in internal pressure of the storage tank. Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the storage tank of ‘743 to include a safety valve that regulates an increase in internal pressure of the intermediate tank, as taught by Light, so that the pressure would not increase above an unsafe or undesired level.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 11 and 14 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 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4: the closest prior art of record is GB 2,124,743 (‘743) but it does not disclose or render obvious the limitation of a communication pipe that causes inner space of the inner tank and the inner insulation layer to communicate with each other. The inner tank is open at the top and there is no reference of record that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified ‘743 to include said limitation.
Regarding claim 7: GB 2,124,743 (‘743) nor JP2018194117 (‘117) disclose wherein the intermediate tank includes an intermediate tank bottom plate that forms a bottom surface of the intermediate tank, the intermediate tank bottom plate includes an intermediate tank annular plate that constitutes an annular part near outer periphery of the intermediate tank bottom plate, and a bottom plate general part inside the intermediate tank annular plate, and the intermediate tank annular plate is thicker than the bottom plate general part. And there is no reference of record that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the references to include said limitations.
Regarding claim 11: GB 2,124,743 (‘743) nor JP2018194117 (‘117) disclose a thermal reinforcement material disposed at least inside a bottom part and a side part of the outer tank. And there is no reference of record that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the references to include an additional layer of insulation as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 14: GB 2,124,743 (‘743) nor JP2018194117 (‘117) disclose wherein the outer insulation layer includes an outer bottom insulation layer that is disposed between a bottom plate of the outer tank and a bottom plate of the intermediate tank, the inner insulation layer includes an inner bottom insulation layer that is disposed between a bottom plate of the intermediate tank and a bottom plate of the inner tank, and a thickness of the outer bottom insulation layer is greater than a thickness of the inner bottom insulation layer. And there is no reference of record that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the references to include said limitations.
Regarding claim 8: GB 2,124,743 (‘743) nor JP2018194117 (‘117) disclose wherein the intermediate tank includes an intermediate tank side plate that forms a side surface of the intermediate tank, the outer insulation layer includes an outer bottom insulation layer that constitutes a bottom part of the outer insulation layer, and the outer bottom insulation layer includes a solid insulation material that is stronger in strength than a general part of the outer bottom insulation layer that is located inside the intermediate tank side plate in a place that bears a load from the intermediate tank side plate. And there is no reference of record that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the references to include said limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4923. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, 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.
/DON M ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733