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 § 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 1-3, 5-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurnhorst (US 2011/0309074) in view of Criel (EP 3,267,091).
Claim 1
Thurnhorst discloses a tank (100) configured to store a cryogenic gas, the tank comprising a cylindrical wall (210) formed into a shape that matches a cylindrical mandrel, the cylindrical wall comprising a neat resin layer (270) comprising a plurality of consolidated neat resin/polymer films (see [0043]), and a thermoplastic composite material layer (230a and/or 230b) comprising a plurality of consolidated fiber-reinforced composite tape layers (233a and /or 233b) (see [0041]), at least one fiber-reinforced composite tape layer consolidated with at least one neat resin film (see figure 3). Thurnhorst discloses layer (230a) formed from polyamide, polyimide or polyethylene fibers (see [0053]) which are thermoplastic material. Thurnhorst does not disclose the fiber-reinforced composite tape layer and the neat resin film attached by auto-adhesion forming a monolithic structure. However, Criel discloses a pressure vessel formed by a liner (20) of thermoplastic material (see [0081]) and a tape-based reinforcement structure (30) comprising thermoplastic material bonded to the liner by auto-adhesion/application of heat and pressure (see [0073]) forming a monolithic structure (see figures 2a and 2b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thurnhorst having the neat resin film and the fiber-reinforced composite tape layer attached to each other by heat and pressure as taught by Criel because it is well-known and common the uses of heat and pressure to attach plastic layers of pressure vessels.
Claim 2
Thurnhorst as modified by Criel discloses the at least one fiber-reinforced composite tape layer is auto-adhesion/application of heat and pressure with at least one neat resin film before another fiber-reinforced composite tape layer is consolidated with the at least one fiber-reinforced composite tape layer. The inner most layer of the fiber-reinforce composite layer (233a) is consolidated to the neat resin film (270) (see figure 3).
Claim 3
Thurnhorst as modified by Criel discloses the at least one neat resin film (270) is auto-adhesion/application of heat and pressure with the at least one fiber-reinforced composite tape layer (233a) before another neat resin film is consolidated with the at least one neat resin film. The inner most layer of the fiber-reinforce composite layer (233a) is auto-adhesion/application of heat and pressure to the neat resin film (270) before any other layer (see figure 3).
Claim 5
Thurnhorst further discloses a resin of the thermoplastic composite material layer comprises a different resin as a resin of the neat resin layer. Thurnhorst discloses the thermoplastic composite layer comprising a fibers of polyethylene or polyimide (see [0053]), while the neat resin layer comprises a polyolefin (see [0043]).
Claim 6
Thurnhorst further discloses the neat resin layer is an innermost layer of the cylindrical wall (see figure 3), and the thermoplastic composite material layer is an outermost layer of the cylindrical wall. Thurnhorst, figure 3, shows layer (28) but that layer is optional (see [0044]).
Claim 7
Thurnhorst as modified by Criel discloses the innermost layer of the plurality of neat resin films is formed into a shape that matches the cylindrical mandrel (see [0022]), and wherein the outermost layer of the plurality of neat resin films is auto-adhesion/application of heat and pressure with an innermost film of the plurality of fiber-reinforced composite tape layer. The outer most layer of the neat resin films (270) is consolidated to the fiber-reinforce composite layer (233a) (see figure 3).
Claim 10
Thurnhorst further discloses the thermoplastic composite material layer is a first composite material layer (230a), and wherein the cylindrical wall further comprises a second composite material layer (230b) see figure 3).
Claims 11 and 12
Thurnhorst further discloses the second composite material layer comprises a same or different composite material as the first composite material layer. Thurnhorst discloses the fibers for the thermoplastic composite material could be any fiber including polyethylene, polyamide, and/or polyimide (see [0053]), wherein the first and second layers of composite material could be either the same or different.
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.
Claims 4, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurnhorst (US 2011/0309074) and Criel (EP 3,267,091) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa (US 2018/0048001).
Claims 4 and 8
Thurnhorst does not disclose a resin of the thermoplastic composite material layer comprises a same resin as the resin of the neat resin layer. However, Yanagisawa discloses a hydrogen gas tank (10) comprising a neat resin layer (14) and a thermoplastic composite layer (18), both comprising high-density polyethylene (HDPE) (see [0036]). Yanagisawa discloses high-density polyethylene (HDPE) is an inexpensive and easily workable material (see [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thurnhorst having the neat resin layer and the thermoplastic composite layer formed from high-density polyethylene as taught by Yanagisawa because high-density polyethylene is known to be an inexpensive and easily workable material. After Thurnhorst is modified by Yanagisawa, the neat resin layer could be considered as the outermost layer, and the thermoplastic composite material layer could be considered as the innermost layer of the cylindrical wall by the fact that both layers are made from same high-density polyethylene material.
Claim 14
Thurnhorst does not discloses a thickness for the neat resin layer. However, Yanagisawa discloses a hydrogen gas tank (10) comprising a neat resin layer (defined by 14 and 16) comprising high-density polyethylene (HDPE) (see [0021]) comprising a thickness of 1.5 mm or less (see [0022]). Yanagisawa discloses the neat resin layer is a barrier layer that can maintain a barrier ability when the thickness satisfies a particular condition (see [0017]), preventing a permeation of hydrogen gas by forming the barrier layer (see [0018] and [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thurnhorst having the neat resin layer with a thickness of 1.5 mm or less as taught by Yanagisawa to form a barrier layer that prevents permeation of gas to the exterior of the gas tank.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurnhorst (US 2011/0309074) and Criel (EP 3,267,091) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 102664906.
Claim 15
Thurnhorst does not discloses the thickness for the thermoplastic composite material. However, KR ‘906 discloses a gas tank comprising a thermoplastic composite layer comprising a thickness between 1 to 5 mm (see page 4 “Tank body”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thurnhorst having the thermoplastic composite layer with a thickness between 1 to 5 mm as taught by KR ‘906 to provide high mechanical strength and light characteristics to the tank.
Claim 16
Thurnhorst discloses the composite material of the thermoplastic comprising polyimide, polyamide or polyethylene (see [0053]). Thurnhorst does not discloses the composite material of the thermoplastic composite material layer comprises polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), or polyetherimide (PEI). However, KR ‘906 discloses polymer resins comprising polyethylene, polyamide, or polyphenylene sulfide are equivalent thermoplastics with high mechanical strength and light characteristics in gas tanks (see pages 3 and 4 “Tank body”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thurnhorst replacing the polyamide, or polyethylene for polyphenylene sulfide as the composite of thermoplastic material as taught by KR ‘906 because those are known as equivalent thermoplastic composite materials with high mechanical strength and light characteristics in a gas tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8,10-12 and 14-16 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
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 RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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. Aviles 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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights