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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 12/27/2024, 06/10/2025 and 07/22/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species l, claim 15, in the reply filed on 07/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 are generic to all species. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hatta (US 2021/0299977A1).
With respect to claim 1, Hatta teaches a method of manufacturing a composite storage tank for liquid hydrogen (“a method for manufacturing a high-pressure tank”, Pa [0011]; “that can hold the contents (e.g., hydrogen)”, Pa [0039]), the method comprising:
placing a port on a layup tool, the port including a flange portion and a conduit portion projecting from the flange portion, the conduit portion including a passage extending through the conduit portion (“The caps 16 are members attached to two open ends of the liner 11… The caps 16 also function as attachment portions for attaching the liner 11 to a multiple filament winder, which will be described later, when forming the reinforcing layer 12.”, Pa [0047] and Figs. 2A, 6A-6B);
laying up a plurality of reinforcing fiber tows on the layup tool to integrate the flange portion of the port with the plurality of reinforcing fiber tows, the plurality of reinforcing fiber tows being laid up to form at least a portion of a preform including the port for the composite storage tank (“In step S11 of forming a fiber layer (hereinafter also referred to as “step S11”), the fiber layer 13 is formed on the outer periphery of the liner 11 to produce the preform 30.”, Pa [0050]);
introducing a matrix material to the preform (“In step S13 of supplying and stopping a resin composition (hereinafter also referred to as “step S13”), the resin composition before curing is supplied to the fiber layer 13 of the preform 30 placed in the mold 45”, Pa [0064]); and
curing the preform including the matrix material to generate the composite storage tank (“the curing is facilitated by applying a current”, Pa [0068]; “The resin-impregnated preform 30 is produced by the manufacturing method including the steps described above. A high-pressure tank is manufactured by further forming a resin-impregnated glass fiber layer on the resin-impregnated preform 30 etc.”, Pa [0071]).
With respect to claim 2, Hatta as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the plurality of reinforcing fiber tows includes prepreg fiber tows to introduce the matrix material (“the fiber layer 13 is formed on the outer periphery of the liner 11 to produce the preform 30.”, Pa [0050]).
With respect to claim 3, Hatta as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that introducing a matrix material includes injecting the matrix material into the preform to generate an infiltrated preform (“the resin composition before curing is supplied to the fiber layer 13 of the preform 30 placed in the mold 45… The fiber layer 13 is thus impregnated with the resin composition.”, Pa [0064]), and
wherein curing the preform includes curing the infiltrated preform (“Facilitation of curing can thus be started after confirming that the fiber layer 13 has been impregnated with the resin composition enough for heat to be conducted to the liner 11 side.”, Pa [0069]).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatta (US 2021/0299977A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holt (US 3,372,075A).
With respect to claim 4, Hatta as applied to claim 1 above teaches that the fiber layer 13 is formed on the outer periphery of the liner 11 to produce the preform 30 (Pa [0050]), and the glass fibers for the protective layer 15 may then be wound around the fiber layer 13 (Pa [0055]), but is silent to adding insulation to an outer surface of the composite storage tank formed during curing the preform.
In the same field of endeavor, a method of manufacturing an insulated storage tank, Holt teaches that in order to provide this increased insulation and strength, the invention provides a storage tank utilizing helically wound glass fibers bonded with a suitable resin for inner and outer shells and having a suitable insulating material positioned therebetween (co 1 li 27, 31-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Hatta with the teachings of Holt and provide the insulating material between the fiber layer 13 and the protective layer 15 in order to provide the increased insulation and strength in the storage tank.
With respect to claim 5, Hatta as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the layup tool is a mandrel and laying up the plurality of reinforcing fiber tows includes applying the plurality of reinforcing fiber tows to the mandrel (“the fiber layer 13 is formed on the outer periphery of the liner 11 to produce the preform 30.”, Pa [0050]), and the fiber layer 13 is formed using a single multiple filament winder (hereinafter also referred to as the “multiple FW machine”) having a plurality of fiber bundle bobbins 40 arranged around the outer periphery of the liner 11 (Pa [0051]), but does not explicitly teach that the mandrel rotates.
In the same field of endeavor, a method of manufacturing an insulated storage tank, Holt teaches that the outer shell 14 is conventionally wound over the insulation core 12 under tension by helically winding a plurality of glass fibers 66 relative to the tank while it is suitably rotated (co 5 li 18-23 and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Hatta with the teachings of Holt and perform rotating the liner 11 in order to form the fiber layer 13 over the liner 11 under tension by winding a plurality of fiber relative to the liner 11 while it is rotated.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatta (US 2021/0299977A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 10, Hatta as applied to claim 1 above teaches providing the port (“the caps 16”) including a flange portion and a conduit portion projecting from the flange portion (Fig. 2A), but is silent to forming the port by forming the conduit portion and forming the flange portion. However, one would have found it obvious to form the port in order to provide the port to two open ends of the liner 11.
Claims 6-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatta (US 2021/0299977A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Carter (US 2005/0006393A1).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Hatta as applied to claim 1 above teaches the port (“the caps 16”) including a flange portion and a conduit portion projecting from the flange portion (Fig. 2A), but does not explicitly teach that the port is a preform comprising a plurality of reinforcing fiber tows.
In the same field of endeavor, a fitting assembly that is adapted for efficient sealing attachment to a composite pressure vessel, Carter teaches that fitting assembly 102 comprises a first fitting portion 110 and a second fitting portion 112 (Pa [0027]), and the first fitting portion and the second fitting portion are formed of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic material (Pa [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Hatta with the teachings of Carter and substitute the fitting assembly of Carter for the caps 16 for the purpose of efficient sealing attachment to a composite pressure vessel.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Hatta as applied to claim 1 above teaches the port (“the caps 16”) including a flange portion and a conduit portion projecting from the flange portion (Fig. 2A), but does not explicitly teach that the port includes inward facing surfaces having a hydrogen barrier layer formed thereon.
In the same field of endeavor, a fitting assembly that is adapted for efficient sealing attachment to a composite pressure vessel, Carter teaches that fitting assembly 102 comprises a first fitting portion 110 and a second fitting portion 112 (Pa [0027]), and the first and second fitting portions 110, 112 are both preferably formed of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic materials, and optional metal reinforcements 116, such as shown in Fig. 3d, can be used to increase the strength of the first fitting portion 110 and/or the second fitting portion 112 to increase the fitting assembly's hoop strength (Pa [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Hatta with the teachings of Carter and substitute the fitting assembly of Carter for the caps 16 for the purpose of efficient sealing attachment to a composite pressure vessel with increasing strength. One would have appreciated that the metal reinforcements 116 placed inside the first and second fitting portions 110, 112 can act as a hydrogen barrier layer.
With respect to claims 11 and 14, Hatta as applied to claim 10 above teaches providing the port (“the caps 16”) including a flange portion and a conduit portion projecting from the flange portion (Fig. 2A), but does not explicitly teach that the conduit portion is a conduit preform comprising a plurality of reinforcing fiber tows and the flange portion is a flange preform comprising a plurality of reinforcing fiber tows, and wherein, before placing the port on the layup tool, the method further comprises: introducing a matrix material to the conduit preform and the flange preform; and curing the conduit preform and the flange preform including the matrix material to form the port.
In the same field of endeavor, a fitting assembly that is adapted for efficient sealing attachment to a composite pressure vessel, Carter teaches that fitting assembly 102 comprises a first fitting portion 110 and a second fitting portion 112 (Pa [0027]), and the first fitting portion and the second fitting portion are formed of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic material (Pa [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Hatta with the teachings of Carter and substitute the fitting assembly of Carter for the caps 16 for the purpose of efficient sealing attachment to a composite pressure vessel.
Carter does not explicitly teach introducing a matrix material to the conduit preform and the flange preform; and curing the conduit preform and the flange preform including the matrix material to form the port. Hatta teaches that the high-pressure tank manufacturing method S10 includes step S11 of forming a fiber layer by a filament winding process, step S12 of placing a preform in a mold and evacuating a mold cavity, step S13 of supplying and stopping supplying a resin composition, step S14 of applying a current, and step S15 of releasing the preform (Pa [0049], [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to form Carter’s fitting assembly according to the method of Hatta, such that the preform of fitting assembly is formed by a filament winding process, placed in a mold, impregnated by supplying a resin, and cured in order to form the fitting assembly of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic material.
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Hatta as applied to claim 10 above teaches the port (“the caps 16”) including a flange portion and a conduit portion projecting from the flange portion (Fig. 2A), but does not explicitly teach that the port includes inward facing surfaces and the method further comprises applying a hydrogen barrier layer to the inward facing surfaces/ placing a metallic insert between the inward facing surfaces of the port and the layup tool, the metallic insert forming a hydrogen barrier layer.
In the same field of endeavor, a fitting assembly that is adapted for efficient sealing attachment to a composite pressure vessel, Carter teaches that fitting assembly 102 comprises a first fitting portion 110 and a second fitting portion 112 (Pa [0027]), and the first and second fitting portions 110, 112 are both preferably formed of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic materials, and optional metal reinforcements 116, such as shown in Fig. 3d, can be used to increase the strength of the first fitting portion 110 and/or the second fitting portion 112 to increase the fitting assembly's hoop strength (Pa [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Hatta with the teachings of Carter and substitute the fitting assembly of Carter for the caps 16 for the purpose of efficient sealing attachment to a composite pressure vessel with increasing strength. One would have appreciated that the metal reinforcements 116 placed inside the first and second fitting portions 110, 112 can act as a hydrogen barrier layer.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatta (US 2021/0299977A1) in view of Carter (US 2005/0006393A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lema (US 4,026,456A).
With respect to claim 15, the combination as applied to claim 14 above does not explicitly teach slitting an end portion of the wall region to form a plurality of tabs; and folding the plurality of tabs to extend outward from the wall region to form the flange portion.
Lema relates to a method of attaching a tube to a wall and teaches that one of the features of this invention is to provide an improved method of attaching a tube to a wall such as a radiator tank wall in a fluid tight seal in which spaced flanges are provided on the end of the tube, slitting the outer or endmost flange and bending one of the portions defined by the slit outwardly to provide a screw thread construction, providing a similar slit in a tube receiving opening in the wall also angled in a similar manner and rotating the tube relative to the wall to "screw" the end flange into the wall opening and receive the wall tube between the flanges followed by flattening the tubes and permanently bonding the tube at the flanges to the wall surrounding the opening (co 1 li 5-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of Lema and perform slitting the outer or endmost flange of the fitting assembly and bending one of the portions defined by the slit outwardly in order to provide a screw thread construction so as to permanently bond the fitting assembly at the flanges to the tank.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights