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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (the composite tank – claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 3/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the buffer being a stiffener (i.e. a stiffener including a plurality of flow passages) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 currently references “the plurality of flow passage.” The Examiner believes the claim is intended to reference “the plurality of flow passages.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 4, and 6 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the flow structure" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 currently states “the buffer is a stiffener extending from one side of the vessel wall to an opposite side of the vessel wall.” This appears to contradict Paragraph [0074] of the specification, which states that flow passages are omitted from the stiffeners, as claim 1 has the buffer including flow passages. The claim has been examined below as best the Examiner can understand. Further correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the gap" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 currently states “the receiver comprises a first L-shaped bracket positioned opposite a second L-shaped bracket”. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 which states the receiver is integrally formed with the vessel wall. According to Paragraph [0082] of the specification, the first and second brackets are “placed”, and not integral. As such, claim 6 appears to directly contradict claim 5. For purposes of further consideration, claim 6 is being interpreted as depending from claim 1 and referencing “a receiver”. Further correction and/or clarification is required.
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, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sheu et al. (US 6668561) (hereinafter Sheu).
Regarding Claim 1
Sheu teaches a composite storage tank (below – Fig. 1 and 3) for liquid hydrogen, the composite storage tank comprising: a vessel wall (20/30) defining a chamber to hold liquid hydrogen; and a buffer (40) located in the chamber, the buffer including a first side (at top end of tank) and a second side (at bottom end of tank), and including a plurality of flow passages (46) that fluidly connect the first side with the second side, each flow passage of the plurality of flow passages is a microchannel (Col. 2, Ln. 28 – Col. 3, Ln. 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
281
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2
Sheu teaches a flow structure includes a central chamber (i.e. within 42d, above) fluidly connected to one or more flow passages (46) of the plurality of flow passages.
Regarding Claim 3
Sheu teaches the plurality of flow passages (46) is interconnected.
Regarding Claim 4
Sheu teaches the buffer (40) is a stiffener (inasmuch as Applicant shows) extending from one side of the vessel wall to an opposite side of the vessel wall, as can be seen in Fig. 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7
Sheu teaches the plurality of flow passages (46) is formed in a flow structure, the flow structure including a plurality of flow channels directing liquid hydrogen toward at least one flow passage of the plurality of flow passages, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 8
Sheu teaches the plurality of flow channels includes at least one of rectilinear flow channels or curvilinear flow channels, depending on which two flow passages (46) (shown above) are in communication at any given time.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stout (US 1616008).
Regarding Claim 5
Sheu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Sheu teaches the buffer is adhered, bonded, molded, and/or otherwise coupled to the vessel wall. Sheu does not teach the buffer is connected to the vessel wall by a receiver integrally formed in the vessel wall.
Stout teaches a storage tank for liquid fuel (below – Fig. 1 and 3), the storage tank comprising: a vessel wall (1) defining a chamber to hold liquid; and a buffer (11) located in the chamber, the buffer including a first side and a second side, and including a plurality of flow passages (20) that fluidly connect the first side with the second side; and wherein the buffer is connected to the vessel wall by a receiver (14) integrally formed in the vessel wall (Pg. 1, Ln. 97 – Pg. 2, Ln. 63).
PNG
media_image3.png
304
647
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
308
362
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sheu and Stout are analogous inventions in the field of liquid fuel tanks. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the tank of Sheu with the teachings of the buffer being connected to the vessel wall by an integral receiver in order to secure the buffer to the wall without the need for extra steps like riveting, welding, etc. (Pg. 2, Ln. 33-38).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Linde et al. (US 2024/0359809) (hereinafter Linde).
Regarding Claim 6
Sheu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Sheu teaches the buffer is adhered, bonded, molded, and/or otherwise coupled to the vessel wall. Sheu does not teach the buffer is connected to the vessel wall by a receiver comprising a first L-shaped bracket positioned opposite a second L-shaped bracket to form a gap therebetween.
Linde teaches a storage tank for liquid hydrogen (below – Fig. 1a and 1b), the storage tank comprising: a vessel wall (15) defining a chamber to hold liquid hydrogen; and a buffer (12b) located in the chamber, the buffer including a first side and a second side, and including a plurality of flow passages (shown at O1) that fluidly connect the first side with the second side; wherein the buffer is connected to the vessel wall by a receiver comprising a first L-shaped bracket (13b – lower) positioned opposite a second L-shaped bracket (13b – upper, not shown) to form a gap therebetween (Paragraphs [0050] and [0054]).
PNG
media_image5.png
333
545
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
390
521
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Sheu and Linde are analogous inventions in the field of liquid hydrogen tanks. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the tank of Sheu with the teachings of the buffer being connected to the vessel wall a pair of L-shaped brackets of Linde in order stabilize the buffer within the tank (Paragraph [0054]).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheu as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Newhouse (US 10088110).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10
Sheu teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as shown above. Sheu does not teach each flow channel of the plurality of flow channels has a rough surface, wherein the roughness of the rough surface is from 5 microns to 20 microns.
Newhouse teaches a composite storage tank for liquid hydrogen, the composite storage tank comprising: a vessel wall defining a chamber to hold liquid hydrogen; and a plurality of flow channels has a rough surface, wherein the roughness of the rough surface is from 5 microns to 20 microns (Col. 4, Ln. 54-65 and Col. 7, Ln. 11-44).
Sheu and Newhouse are analogous inventions in the field of tanks for liquid hydrogen. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the flow channels of Sheu with the teachings of the roughness of Newhouse in order to provide a surface that allows liquid to float though with gas being able to pass through the valleys of the roughened surface (Col. 7, Ln. 34-44).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 25 June 2026
Prosecution Insights