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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is less than 50 words and does not include the technical disclosure of that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of unit bands” in lines 18 and 19. It is unclear whether this is referring to the plurality of unit bands recited in line 14, a subset of the plurality of unit bands recited in line 14, or a separate limitation.
Claim 1 recites “in a state that an imaginary straight line passing through a center portion of the liner and extending in the longitudinal direction is defined as a reference straight line” in lines 10-12. It is unclear what is meant by “in a state.” Are there other states of the pressure vessel? The unclear “in a state” phrase is also present in claims 4 and 6-11.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of unit bands having an annular shape” in lines 13-14. It is unclear what is meant by “annular shape.” The specification explains that “The unit band may have an annular shape that surrounds the cylinder portion 11, the dome portion 12, and the connection portion 13. In other words, one unit band may define one closed curve that surrounds the liner 10 once. Furthermore, a plurality of unit bands may define a portion of one continuous band-type based material. In other words, all of the plurality of unit bands may be integrally formed” (para. [0041]). It is unclear whether “annular shape” here means “surrounds the cylinder portion and dome portion” or whether it means “defines a closed curve.” To the extent annular shape means a closed curve, this definition would be at odds with dependent claims, such as claim 13, which recites “the first helical layer and the second helical layer define one band-type base material extending continuously”.
Claim 1 recites “a dome portion connected to opposite sides of the cylinder portion in a longitudinal direction of the pressure vessel” in lines 8-9. It is unclear whether there is a single dome portion somehow connected to opposite sides, or two dome portions, with one at each of the opposite sides of the cylinder portion. To the extent there are two dome portions, it is unclear whether later recitations of “the dome portion” (see e.g., line 15) would refer to both dome portions or not.
Claim 2 recites “sizes of angles defined by the first cylinder layer areas” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claims. Claim 1 recites a single “first cylinder layer area” (line 21) and a single “size of an angle defined by the first cylinder layer area” (line 24). It is unclear whether this is referring to the angle and first cylinder layer area introduced in claim 1, or whether it is further introducing additional angles and first cylinder layer areas. To the extent there are multiple “first cylinder layer areas,” it is not clear whether they are all defined as “an area surrounding the cylinder portion” as recited in claim 1 or not.
Claim 2 recites “sizes of angles defined by the second cylinder layer areas” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claims. Claim 1 recites a single “second cylinder layer area” (lines 22-23) and a single “size of an angle defined by the second cylinder layer area” (line 25). It is unclear whether this is referring to the angle and second cylinder layer area introduced in claim 1, or whether it is further introducing additional angles and second cylinder layer areas. To the extent there are multiple “second cylinder layer areas,” it is not clear whether they are all defined as “an area surrounding the cylinder portion” as recited in claim 1 or not.
Claim 3 recites “the first cylinder layer areas” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claims. Claim 1 recites a single “first cylinder layer area” at line 21.
Claim 3 recites “the first cylinder layer area” in line 7. To the extent there are plural first cylinder layer areas (see line 1), it is unclear which first cylinder layer area this limitation is referring to.
Claim 3 recites “a thickness of the first cylinder layer area in the radial direction is less than or equal to cylinder thicknesses being thicknesses of two different first unit bands of the first cross area in the radial direction” in lines 7-9. It is unclear what this means. Is the “thicknesses of two different first unit bands of the first cross area” referring to the sum of the thicknesses of two different unit bands? Is this referring to the total thickness at the first cross area?
Claim 5 recites “each of the first unit bands further includes: a first dome layer area…wherein the first dome layer area includes: a first ring area, in a state that one side of the dome portion in the longitudinal direction is viewed in parallel to the longitudinal direction, having an annular shape surrounding the reference straight line” in lines 2-8. That is, the first ring area is a part of a single first unit band. It is unclear how the portion of a first unit band that is in the dome portion could have an annular shape, as each first unit band also includes a first cylinder layer area.
Claim 6 recites “each of the second unit bands further includes: a second dome layer area…wherein the second dome layer area includes: a second ring area, in a state that one side of the dome portion in the longitudinal direction is viewed in parallel to the longitudinal direction, having an annular shape surrounding the reference straight line” in lines 2-8. That is, the second ring area is a part of a single second unit band. It is unclear how the portion of a second unit band that is in the dome portion could have an annular shape, as each second unit band also includes a second cylinder layer area.
Claim 6 recites “a size of an angle defined by the first cylinder layer area” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to the same “size of an angle defined by the first cylinder layer area” recited in claim 1 at line 24, or something else.
Claim 6 recites “a size of an angle defined by the second cylinder layer area” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to the same “size of an angle defined by the second cylinder layer area” recited in claim 1 at line 25, or something else.
Claim 7 recites “an end portion of the first dome layer area” in line 7. It is unclear whether this is referring to the “end portion of the first dome layer area” recited in line 6, or something else.
Claim 7 recites “an end portion of the first cylinder layer” in line 13. It is unclear whether this is referring to the “end portion of the first cylinder layer” recited in line 12, or something else.
Claim 7 recites a largest thickness in the first dome layer area “is defined as a first dome thickness” and a largest thickness in the first cylinder layer area is “defined as a first cylinder thickness,” and “the first dome thickness is less than or equal to twice the first cylinder thickness.” Claim 7 depends from claim 5, which recites “each of the first unit bands further includes: a first dome layer area.” That is, a separate first dome layer area appears to be defined for each of the first unit bands. It is unclear how a single first unit band could have a first dome layer area and a first cylinder thickness that are different.
Claim 8 recites “the first ring area is located in the connection portion” at line 6. Claim 8 depends from claim 5, which recites “the first dome layer area includes: a first ring area” at lines 5-6. It is unclear how the first ring area could be located in the connection portion when it is already recited as being in the first dome layer area.
Claim 9 recites “the first cylinder layer areas” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claims. Claim 1 recites a single “first cylinder layer area” at line 21.
Claim 9 recites “the second cylinder layer areas” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 1 recites a single “second cylinder layer area” at lines 22-23.
Claim 9 recites “the first cylinder layer areas provided in the plurality of first unit bands, respectively, are classified into a plurality of first areas along the longitudinal direction” in lines 3-4. It is unclear whether each first unit bands defines its own first cylinder layer area. It is further unclear whether each first area is associated with a first cylinder layer, or whether each first cylinder layer can have more than one first area.
Claim 9 recites “the second cylinder layer areas provided in the plurality of second unit bands, respectively, are classified into a plurality of second areas along the longitudinal direction” in lines 7-9. It is unclear whether each second unit band defines its own second cylinder layer area. It is further unclear whether each second area is associated with a second cylinder layer, or whether each second cylinder layer can have more than one second area.
Claim 12 recites “the overlapping surfaces” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 12 depends from claim 11, which recites a single “overlapping surface” at line 4.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected through their dependence on a rejected parent claim (details above).
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2020/0139610 to Otsubo (hereinafter, “Otsubo”).
Regarding claim 1, Otsubo discloses a pressure vessel (tank 10, Fig. 1) comprising: a liner (liner 20, Fig. 1) configured so that a pressure is applied to an internal surface of the liner (para. [0021]); and a composite material (reinforcing layer 30, Fig. 1) surrounding an external surface of the liner (liner 20, see Fig. 1; para. [0023]), wherein the liner (liner 20) includes: a cylinder portion (cylinder portion 21, Fig. 1) defining a central area of the external surface of the liner (see Fig. 1); and a dome portion (dome portions 22, 23, Fig. 1) connected to opposite sides of the cylinder portion (cylinder portion 21) in a longitudinal direction (direction along central axis AX, see Fig. 1; para. [0021]) of the pressure vessel (tank 10), wherein in a state that an imaginary straight line (central axis AX) passing through a center portion of the liner (central axis AX extends through a center of the liner) and extending in the longitudinal direction is defined as a reference straight line (central axis AX, see Fig. 1), the composite material includes a plurality of helical layers (helical layers 34, Fig. 1; paras. [0029]-[0030]) including a plurality of unit bands (fiber bundles FB, Figs. 4-5) having an annular shape (see Figs. 4-5; see also Applicant’s specification at para. [0041]) surrounding the cylinder portion (cylinder portion 21) and the dome portion (dome portions 22, 23), two arbitrary ones (layers shown in Figs. 4 and 5) of the plurality of helical layers (helical layers 34) are defined as a first helical layer (high-angle helical winding layer shown in Fig. 5; para. [0033]) and a second helical layer (low-angle helical winding layer shown in Fig. 4; para. [0031]), respectively, and a plurality of unit bands (fiber bundles FB) provided in the first helical layer (see Fig. 5) are defined as a plurality of first unit bands (see Fig. 5) and a plurality of unit bands (fiber bundles FB) provided in the second helical layer (see Fig. 4) are defined as a plurality of second unit bands (see Fig. 4), the first unit bands include a first cylinder layer area (annotated Fig. 5 below) being an area surrounding the cylinder portion (cylinder portion 21), and the second unit bands include a second cylinder layer area (annotated Fig. 4 below) being an area surrounding the cylinder portion (cylinder portion 21), and wherein a size of an angle defined by the first cylinder layer area (winding angle β, see Fig. 5) and the reference straight line (central axis AX), and a size of an angle defined by the second cylinder layer area (winding angle α, see Fig. 4) and the reference straight line (central axis AX) are different (Figs. 4-5; paras. [0031]-[0033]).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
1075
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Otsubo Annotated Figures 4 and 5
Regarding claim 2, Otsubo further discloses sizes of angles (winding angle β) defined by the first cylinder layer areas (annotated Fig. 5) provided in the plurality of first unit bands (fiber bundles FB in high-angle helical winding layers), respectively, and the reference straight line (central axis AX) are the same (para. [0033]), and wherein sizes of angles (winding angle α) defined by the second cylinder layer areas (annotated Fig. 4) provided in the plurality of second unit bands (fiber bundles FB in low-angle helical winding layers), respectively, and the reference straight line are the same (para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Otsubo further discloses the first cylinder layer areas (annotated Fig. 5) provided in the plurality of first unit bands (fiber bundles FB in high-angle helical winding layers), respectively, include: a first cross area (area where fiber bundle FB crosses over itself, see Fig. 5) having a shape, in which two different first unit bands cross each other (see Fig. 5), and wherein in a state that a direction being perpendicular to the reference straight line (central axis AX) is defined as a radial direction (see Fig. 5), a thickness of the first cylinder layer area (annotated Fig. 5) in the radial direction (see Fig. 5) is less than or equal to cylinder thicknesses (see Fig. 5) being thicknesses of two different first unit bands (fiber bundles FB) of the first cross area in the radial direction (see Fig. 5; see also Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Otsubo further discloses a plurality of first cross areas (see Fig. 5; annotated Fig. 6 below) are provided, and wherein the first cylinder layer area (annotated Fig. 5) further includes: a first extension area (annotated Fig. 6) extending between first and second adjacent ones (annotated Fig. 6) of the plurality of first cross areas (annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
375
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Otsubo Annotated Figure 6
Regarding claim 5, Otsubo further discloses each of the first unit bands (fiber bundles FB in high-angle helical winding layers) further includes: a first dome layer area (annotated Fig. 5) surrounding an external surface of the dome portion (dome portion 23), and wherein the first dome layer area (annotated Fig. 5) includes: a first ring area (annotated Fig. 5), in a state that one side of the dome portion (dome portion 23) in the longitudinal direction (direction of central axis AX) is viewed in parallel to the longitudinal direction (direction of central axis AX), having an annular shape surrounding the reference straight line (fiber bundle FB forms an annular shape surrounding the central axis AX, see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Otsubo further discloses each of the second unit bands (fiber bundles FB in low-angle helical winding layers) further includes: a second dome layer area (annotated Fig. 4) surrounding an external surface of the dome portion (dome portion 23), and wherein the second dome layer area (annotated Fig. 4) includes: a second ring area (annotated Fig. 4), in a state that one side of the dome portion (dome portion 23) in the longitudinal direction (direction of central axis AX) is viewed in parallel to the longitudinal direction (direction of central axis AX), having an annular shape surrounding the reference straight line (see Fig. 4), and wherein in a state that a direction being perpendicular to the reference straight line is defined as a radial direction (radial direction relative to central axis AX), and in a state that a size of an angle defined by the first cylinder layer area (winding angle β) and the reference straight line (central axis AX) is greater (paras. [0031]-[0033]) than a size of an angle defined by the second cylinder layer area (winding angle α) and the reference straight line (central axis AX), a spacing distance between the first ring area (annotated Fig. 5) and the reference straight line (central axis AX) in the radial direction (see Fig. 5) is greater than a spacing distance between the second ring area (annotated Fig. 4) and the reference straight line (central axis AX) in the radial direction (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Otsubo further discloses the liner (liner 20) further includes: a connection portion (annotated Fig. 1 below) connecting the cylinder portion (cylinder portion 21) and the dome portion (dome portions 22, 23), and wherein in a state that one side of the liner (liner 20) in the longitudinal direction is viewed in parallel to the longitudinal direction (direction of the central axis AX), the first ring area is located in the connection portion (see annotated Figs. 1, 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
416
702
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Otsubo Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 10, Otsubo further discloses in a state that one side of the dome portion (dome portions 22, 23) in the longitudinal direction is viewed in parallel to the longitudinal direction (direction of the central axis AX), the plurality of helical layers (helical layers 34) have a shape being rotation-symmetrical with respect to the reference straight line (see Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 11, Otsubo further discloses in a state that a direction being perpendicular to the reference straight line is defined as a radial direction (radial direction relative to central axis AX), an external surface of the cylinder portion (cylinder portion 21) includes: an overlapping surface (annotated Fig. 6 above) overlapping the first cylinder layer area (see annotated Fig. 6) in a state that the cylinder portion is viewed from an external side in the radial direction (radial direction relative to central axis AX); and a non-overlapping surface (annotated Fig. 6) not overlapping the first cylinder layer area (see annotated Fig. 6) in a state that the cylinder portion is viewed from the external side in the radial direction (radial direction relative to central axis AX), and wherein the overlapping surface (annotated Fig. 6) has a shape surrounding the non-overlapping surface (see annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Otsubo further discloses a plurality of non-overlapping surfaces are provided (annotated Fig. 6), and wherein the plurality of non-overlapping surfaces (annotated Fig. 6) are arranged to be spaced apart from each other while the overlapping surfaces (annotated Fig. 6) being interposed therebetween (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13, Otsubo further discloses the first helical layer (high-angle helical winding layer shown in Fig. 5) and the second helical layer (low-angle helical winding layer shown in Fig. 4) define one band-type base material extending continuously (see Figs. 4-5; paras. [0031]-[0033]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Otsubo.
Regarding claim 7, Otsubo further discloses in a state that a direction, in which a pressure is applied to an internal surface of the dome portion is defined as a pressing direction (outward direction relative to a center of the tank 10), and an opposite direction to the pressing direction is defined as an opposite pressing direction (inward direction relative to a center of the tank 10), in a state that a thickness, in the pressing direction, of an area, of which a spacing distance, in the pressing direction, between an end portion of the first dome layer area in the pressing direction and an end portion of the first dome layer area in the opposite pressing direction, is largest is defined as a first dome thickness (see annotated Fig. 1 above), in a state that a direction being perpendicular to the reference straight line is defined as a radial direction (radial direction relative to central axis AX), and in a state that a thickness, in the radial direction, of an area, of which a spacing distance, in the radial direction (radial direction relative to central axis AX), between an end portion of the first cylinder layer area in the radial direction, and an end portion of the first cylinder layer area in an opposite direction to the radial direction is largest is defined as a first cylinder thickness (annotated Fig. 1), the first dome thickness is less than or equal to twice the first cylinder thickness (first dome thickness is less than twice the first cylinder thickness, see Fig. 1).
Thus, Otsubo anticipates claim 7. To the extent it could be argued that Otsubo does not expressly disclose the first dome thickness is less than or equal to twice the first cylinder thickness, this would be obvious. Otsubo does teach that the thickness of the helical layer is “appropriately set according to a pressure resistance and a strength required for the high pressure tank” (para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure vessel of Otsubo to have the first dome thickness be less than twice the first cylinder thickness for the purpose of appropriately setting the pressure resistance and strength of the tank, as recognized by Otsubo (para. [0026]), and because it has been held that changes in size or proportion do not patentably distinguish over the prior art where the claimed dimensions would not perform different than the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed arrangement (see Applicant’s specification at para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Otsubo further discloses in a state that a direction being perpendicular to the reference straight line is defined as a radial direction (radial direction relative to central axis AX), in a state that the first cylinder layer areas (annotated Fig. 5) provided in the plurality of first unit bands (fiber bundles FB in Fig. 5), respectively, are classified into a plurality of first areas along the longitudinal direction (there are a plurality of first areas spaced along the longitudinal direction), an average value of thicknesses of the plurality of first areas in the radial direction is defined as a first average value (see Fig. 5), in a state that the second cylinder layer areas (annotated Fig. 4) provided in the plurality of second unit bands (fiber bundles FB in Fig. 4), respectively, are classified into a plurality of second areas along the longitudinal direction (there are a plurality of second areas spaced along the longitudinal direction), an average value of thicknesses of the plurality of second areas in the radial direction is defined as a second average value (see Fig. 4), and in a state that a size of an angle defined by the first cylinder layer area (winding angle β) and the reference straight line (central axis AX) is greater than a size of an angle defined by the second cylinder layer area (winding angle α) and the reference straight line (central axis AX), the first average value is greater than the second average value (Although Otsubo is silent regarding the different thicknesses, Applicant’s specification explains that the different thicknesses is because of the different angles, which are disclosed in Otsubo (Otsubo at paras. [0031]-[003]; Applicant’s specification at para. [0064]).
Thus, Otsubo anticipates claim 9. To the extent it could be argued that Otsubo does not expressly disclose the first average value is greater than the second average value, this would be obvious. Otsubo does teach that the thickness of the helical layer is “appropriately set according to a pressure resistance and a strength required for the high pressure tank” (para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure vessel of Otsubo to form the first average value of first areas in the first cylinder layer areas to be greater than the second average value of second areas in the second cylinder layer for the purpose of appropriately setting the pressure resistance and strength of the tank, as recognized by Otsubo (para. [0026]), and because it has been held that changes in size or proportion do not patentably distinguish over the prior art where the claimed dimensions would not perform different than the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed arrangement (see Applicant’s specification at paras. [0063]-[0064]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pub. 2023/0358361 to Lee et al. discloses a pressure vessel comprising a liner and a composite material, the composite material having a plurality of unit bands forming an angle (see Figs. 1-11).
U.S. Pub. 2020/0141538 to Umetsu discloses a pressure vessel comprising a liner and a composite material, the composite material including a plurality of unit bands forming different angles and thicknesses (see Figs. 1-7).
U.S. Pub. 2022/0282834 to Park et al. discloses a pressure vessel comprising a liner and a composite material, the composite material including a plurality of helical layers formed from unit bands arranged at different angles (see Figs. 1-6).
U.S. Pub. 2005/0260373 to DeLay et al. discloses a pressure vessel comprising a liner and a composite material, the composite material including a plurality of helical layers formed from unit bands arranged at different angles (see Figs. 1-11).
U.S. Pub. 2018/0292047 to Lanzl et al. discloses a pressure vessel comprising a liner and a composite material, the composite material having a plurality of unit bands forming an angle (see Figs. 1-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights