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 5, 6 and 9-11 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.
The disclosure of the invention includes only one set of end plates for a tank assembly. In claim 5, line 2, “at least one pair of end plates” is claimed. Claim 5 depends from claim 2 which claims in line 1-2, “the at least one support structure comprises at least one end plate.” The structure of claim 5 must have at least three end plates and this is more than the two end plates disclosed. However, this might not have been what applicant intended. If applicant intended to state that the at least one end plate comprises at least one pair of end plates, then claim 5 would be differently interpreted. This would establish proper or corresponding antecedent basis.
The at least one pair of end plates of claim 5 are interpreted as not being part of the support structure. Also, there has been no attempt to differentiate the at least one plate of claim 2 from the at least one pair of plates of claim 5 by referring to the plates as a “first” plate and a pair of “second” plates. Claim 5 is confusing and the metes and bounds of claim 5 are not accurately and precisely claimed. Claim 5 is indefinite.
Bands are being claimed in claims 6 and 9-11. However, applicant has made no attempt to differentiate these bands or indicate that they are the same bands by establishing proper or corresponding antecedent basis. It is not understood that the “at least one band” in claim 9, lines 1-2, is the one of the bands mentioned in claim 6. It is not understood that the “multiple bands” in claim 10, line 1, are the bands mentioned in claims 6 and 9. Claims 9 and 10 are confusing and the metes and bounds of claims 9 and 10 are not accurately and precisely claimed. Claims 9 and 10 are indefinite.
In claim 11, “at least one plate-supporting component” is introduced when claim 11 depends from claim 6 which states “the plate-supporting arrangement comprises components.” Is applicant intending to refer to one of the components of claim 6 or is applicant intending to introduce more plate-supporting components? The intent is unclear. Claim 11 is confusing and the metes and bounds of claim 11 are not accurately and precisely claimed. Claim 11 is indefinite.
The Office believes that applicant intends to claim a support structure having expanded capabilities in claim 13. Bands and a belts are similar. In applicant’s specification bands extend axially and support the cap structures while belts or hoops extend circumferentially and support the vessels circumferentially. Claim 13, line 2, refers back to “the at least one support structure” of claim 1 and claim 13 depends from claim 1. The support structure of claim 1 has the capability of supporting the cap structures. Claim 13 requires the support structure to comprise at least one belt structure provided circumferentially around the plurality of vessels. Essentially, claim 13 requires a support structure that has a first capability of supporting cap structures, e.g., by an axially extending band, and the second capability of providing circumferential support with a belt structure. Nothing is wrong with claim 13. The intent is clear. Claim 13 is definite. Claim 13 is an example of proper antecedent basis.
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) 1-4, 13-14, 16-19 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Shimada et al. (US 2007/0246461) (Shimada).
Note that US 2007/0246461 and WO 2006/004136 are extremely similar disclosures. WO 2006/004136 is cited as reference D1 in the written opinion (PCT/ISA/237) of international application No. PCT/GB2023/051886.
Shimada discloses a storage tank assembly as shown in Fig. 17 for a pressurized fluid, the storage tank assembly comprising a plurality of individual vessels 4 arranged adjacent to each other, such that pressure from adjacent vessels, when pressurized, provides mutual support for vessel wall structures between them, wherein the individual vessels are tubular structures closed with cap structures 6, 41, and wherein the storage tank assembly further comprises at least one support structure (bands 22, 23 and end plate 60) to support the cap structures.
Re claim 2, the at least one support structure comprises at least one end plate 60.
Re claim 3, the at least one end plate comprises a surface profile complementing a surface profile of the cap structures (see Fig. 17).
Re claim 4, the cap structures comprise domed cap structures (see Fig. 17).
Re claim 13, the at least one support structure comprises at least one belt structure 21 provided circumferentially around the plurality of vessels.
Re claim 14, the at least one belt structure surrounds two opposite vessels (two outermost vessels), thereby to allow mutual transfer of loads between the opposite vessels.
Re claim 16, the vessel wall structure is of reinforced composite material form (see fiber reinforced composite materials in claims 21-23 of Shimada).
Re claim 17, the at least one cap structure is integral (connected) with a tubular portion of a vessel.
Re claim 18, the at least one cap structure is a separate component attached (attached by weld 10, see Fig. 17) to a tubular portion of a vessel.
Re claim 19, the vessel comprising a frame structure (end caps, end plates and bands 21, 22, 23 form a frame) in which the vessels are held.
Re claim 24, the assembly forming part of a pressurized fluid container.
Re claim 25,the assembly forming part of a hydrogen fuel tank (see claim 24 of Shimada).
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) 5-6, 9-11, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada.
Shimada Fig. 17 fails to disclose a pair of end plates. Shimada Fig. 18 teaches a pair of end plates (65, 65a). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add a second end plate for the other or second end to provide a corresponding or same support, reinforcement and protection for the second end as the first end plate provides for the first end.
Re claim 5, the end plates of a pair provided with a plate- supporting arrangement thereby to reinforce the cap structures.
Re claim 6, the plate-supporting arrangement comprises components in the form of at least one of bands 22, 23.
Re claim 9, at least one band is anchored to an external structure of at least one end plate.
Re claim 10, multiple bands 21, 22, 23 are anchored to a common external structure.
Re claim 11, at least one plate-supporting component (bands 21) extends along the outside of the laterally outermost vessels.
Re claim 20, same modification to have two end plates, these end plates are part of the frame structure and in abutment with the ends of the vessels.
Re claim 21, the frame structure comprises one or more fluid ports (opening for conduit 7 in the left side end plate in Fig. 18) suitable as at least one of an inlet and an outlet for gas exchange with the vessels. Note this is the end plate added by the obviousness rejection.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada in view of Criel et al. (US 2023/0058291) (Criel).
Shimada fails to disclose a manifold. Criel teaches a manifold (collector duct 5) with two ports (end piece 13 provided with at least one fluid passage, see abstract of Criel) in fluid communication with the manifold. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add the manifold to permit pressure equalization between at least two vessels and to permit the easy discharge of pressurized fluid.
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