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 Status
Claims 1, 17 and 25-43 have been canceled. Claims 2-16, 18-24 and 44-62 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
A plain and ordinary dictionary definition is being used for semi-ellipsoidal. A semi-ellipsoidal shape would include any part of an ellipsoid.
An ellipse is the path of a point that moves so that the sum of its distances from two fixed points, the foci, is constant; closed curved formed by the section of a cone cut by a plane less steeply inclined than the side of the cone. A circle is an ellipse.
An ellipsoid is a solid formed by rotating an ellipse around either axis; its plane sections are all ellipses or circles. A sphere is an ellipsoid.
Ellipsoidal is an adjective meaning shaped like an ellipsoid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 2-6, 8, 10-13, 15-16, 18-23, 44-48, 50, 52-55 and 57-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baysinger (US 4181235) in view of Kane (US 4095546).
Re claim 18, Baysinger discloses a tank (liquified natural gas tank), comprising: a semi-ellipsoidal (shaped as part of a sphere) shell (the shell claimed is top cap 14 and top three annular wall segments including P5, P4, P3) including: a cap (top cap 14); an annular wall (made from plate members 10); and a latitudinal cap weld (latitudinal weld joint J’) joining the cap to the wall; wherein the cap and the wall are sheet metal components that are co-axially aligned relative to a first semi-axis (vertical central axis through cap) of the shell; wherein the wall is longitudinally segmented so as to include a plurality of annular wall segments; wherein each of the plurality of annular wall segments is joined to an adjacent wall segment by a respective latitudinal wall weld (latitudinal weld joint J’); wherein an internal surface of the cap defines a first radius (radius of curvature or another radius, e.g., radius of cap circumference) of the shell in a direction (vertical direction) of the first semi-axis; wherein an internal surface of the wall defines a second radius (radius of curvature or another radius, e.g., radius of top circumference) of the shell in a direction (horizontal direction) of a second semi-axis of the shell that is perpendicular to the first semi-axis. Baysinger fails to disclose that (1) the semi-ellipsoidal shell is oblate (flatter than a sphere) and (2) that the second radius is greater than the first radius (as these two internal radii would be equal for a spherical tank). Kane teaches a modification from a tank design having vertical profile lines 18 of “circles truncated at selected points in their lower halves” as stated in column 4, lines 17-19 (all internal radii are the same for circle) to a modified tank design which favors a broader beam, lesser depth ship, wherein the selected contour can be an oblate ellipse, truncated in similar fashion as stated in column 4, lines 22-26. A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a ship with a broader beam and a lower center of gravity is a more stable design, less susceptible to rolling side-to-side motion and less susceptible to capsizing. The first (internal) radius of the cap stays unchanged. While the second (internal) radius of the wall is increased to match the width of the ship’s broader beam. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the second radius to be greater than the first radius so that the width of the tank and the ship can be increased to provide broader bean, lower center of gravity and greater stability in heavy seas.
Re claims 2-5 and 44-47, the shell claimed is cap 14 and top three annular wall segments including P5, P4, P3.
Re claims 6, 8, 48 and 50, the different thicknesses smallest for P5 and largest for P3, is shown in Fig. 7c and the associated drawing description (column 5, line 52).
Re claims 10 and 52, each of the plurality of annular wall segments includes at least one longitudinal weld (longitudinal weld joint J).
Re claims 11 and 53, the plurality of annular wall segment includes at least a first wall segment that is latitudinally segmented into a plurality of sub-segments, and each of the plurality of sub-segments is joined to an adjacent sub-segment by a respective longitudinal weld (longitudinal weld joint J).
Re claims 12 and 54, Baysinger fails to disclose the D/t ratio above 500 wherein D is the largest diameter and t is the thickness of at least one of the cap and the wall. Official notice is taken that it is well known that an increase in the diameter of a sphere shaped tank will increase the capacity of the tank and propellant tank diameters could be 5-20 feet in diameter. Official notice is taken that it is well known that a wall thickness decrease will decrease the weight of a tank of a given volume and decrease the amount of wall material need and lead to a cost savings by decreasing wall material cost and decreasing the amount of fuel, propellant and thrust needed to propel the rocket due to the decrease in weight of wall material. Wall thicknesses of sheet metal tanks could be one-hundredths or even one-thousands of an inch. A 5 foot diameter tank with a 0.01 inch thickness would have a D/t ratio of 6000 and well above the 500 ratio. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the D/t ratio to be above 500 to provide a low weight and more economical for the saving in transport weight than in material cost when building a propellant tank to fuel a rocket or another aeronautical vehicle.
Re claims 13 and 55, the cap and the wall are stainless steel sheet metal components. See column 1, line 25 for “stainless and nickel alloy steels.”
Re claims 15 and 57, Baysinger fails to disclose the stretch hardened sheet metal components. Official notice is taken that stretch hardening is well known to increase a metals hardness and strength but sacrifices ductility. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the sheet metal to be stretch hardened steel to provide an increase in hardness and strength (yield strength and tensile strength) and to resist deformation and denting from impact.
Re claims 16 and 58, the cap is domed.
Re claims 19 and 59, further comprising a port (tower 54 and cap 56 define a port) through which a fluid medium flows between an exterior of the tank and an interior cavity defined by the tank.
Re claims 20 and 60, the semi-ellipsoidal shell is a first semi-ellipsoidal shell, and the tank further comprises a second semi-ellipsoidal shell (shell formed by the bottom half of the tank) joined to the first semi-ellipsoidal shell to provide the tank with an ellipsoidal shape (spherical shape).
Re claims 21, 22, 61 and 62, further comprising a non-ellipsoidal shell joined to the semi-ellipsoidal shell, wherein the non-ellipsoidal shell is a semi-spherical shell (bottom hemisphere shell of tank).
Re claim 23, Baysinger states that the LNG tank relates to transportation and fails to state the type of vehicle. Kane teaches containers for “shipboard transportation” in column 1, line 6 and Fig. 3 discloses a liquified natural gas (LNG) carrier (see Fig. 3 description in column 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to mount the Baysinger LNG tanks on an LNG tanker to transport LNG over an ocean.
Claim(s) 7 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baysinger in view of Kane as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Semenov et al. (US 6107596) (Semenov).
Baysinger fails to disclose that a first thickness is the same as a second thickness. Semenov teaches wall segment welded together with a top wall segment (part 4 without spacer 17) having a first thickness and the bottom wall segment (part 5 without spacer 17) having a second thickness the same as the first thickness. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the wall thicknesses to be the same to provide an equalization of the strength of the two parts.
Claim(s) 14 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baysinger in view of Kane as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Ishizuka (US 4441925).
Baysinger discloses stainless steel but doesn’t specify martensitic stainless steel. Ishizuka teaches SUS 410 stainless steel, a martensitic stainless steel, see column 8, lines 45-48. The 410 alloy is used for highly stressed parts and provides good corrosion resistance plus high strength and hardness. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the grade or alloy of the stainless steel to be alloy 410 or martensitic stainless steel to provide the strength and corrosion resistance necessary for propellant tanks and rocket fuel engines.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baysinger (US 4181235) in view of Yuan et al. (US 2021/0130016) (Yuan).
Baysinger discloses a tank (liquified natural gas tank), comprising: a semi-ellipsoidal (shaped as part of a sphere) shell (the shell claimed is top cap 14 and top three annular wall segments including P5, P4, P3) including: a cap (top cap 14); an annular wall (made from plate members 10); and a latitudinal cap weld (latitudinal weld joint J’) joining the cap to the wall; wherein the cap and the wall are sheet metal components that are co-axially aligned relative to a first semi-axis (vertical central axis through cap) of the shell; wherein the wall is longitudinally segmented so as to include a plurality of annular wall segments; wherein each of the plurality of annular wall segments is joined to an adjacent wall segment by a respective latitudinal wall weld (latitudinal weld joint J’); wherein an internal surface of the cap defines a first radius (radius of curvature or another radius, e.g., radius of cap circumference) of the shell in a direction (vertical direction) of the first semi-axis; wherein an internal surface of the wall defines a second radius (radius of curvature or another radius, e.g., radius of top circumference) of the shell in a direction (horizontal direction) of a second semi-axis of the shell that is perpendicular to the first semi-axis. Baysinger fails to disclose a vehicle and that (1) the semi-ellipsoidal shell is oblate (flatter than a sphere) and (2) that the second radius is greater than the first radius (as these two internal radii would be equal for a spherical tank). Yuan teaches use of a tank in the aerospace field for use as a launch vehicle (rocket) and an oblate ellipsoid structure of shape as shown, for example, in Fig. 3 (see paragraph [2], lines 8-11). A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the oblate shape requires the second (internal) radius to increase as shown in Fig. 3 about the horizontal axis or equator while the first (internal) radius at, for example, the top pole remains unchanged. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second radius to be greater than the first radius and defining an oblate semi-ellipsoid shell so that the tank is adapted to use as a launch vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 51 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. Claims 9 and 51 discuss that different wall segments have different hardness. This concept was searched but the Office failed to find sufficient prior art or any sufficient reason to provide different hardness. Applicant provides different hardness because the amount of deformation among the wall segments is desired to be different such that certain wall segments deform to a greater degree than other wall segments to achieve a desired shape without compromising the structural integrity of the whole shell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim interpretation, the Office has no difference in opinion with applicant that “an oblate semi-ellipsoidal shell” is not a perfect sphere having one outer radius of curvature because “oblate” would indicate that a spherical shape is being deformed to a squatter or shorter profile. This squatter profile would compare much like pressing or squeezing a filled balloon downward from top. The equator bulges outward and radius of curvature in a latitudinal direction is slightly increased near equator and the longitudinal radius of curvature is slightly reduced near equator while the pole regions are flattened and radius of curvature is slightly increased near poles. There is no indication that applicant used special definitions for specific terms within the specification.
In response to applicant’s argument that Baysinger teaches away from the proposed modification, the Office does not agree. For sure, Baysinger is teaching a spherical shape and repeatedly states “spherical” and “sphere.” However, this does not expressly prohibit modification of the shape and applicant has not pointed to anything within Baysinger that expressly precludes a change of shape.
Applicant states that there is nothing in Baysinger or Kane that prompts the modification. This is treated as a nonanalogous art argument. In response to applicant's argument that Kane is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kane is (1) within the exact same field of endeavor as Baysinger. The field of constructing LNG tanks of welded design. Kane is (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. The particular problem is to provide a tank profile that is squatter or shorter than the sphere, in other words, an oblate ellipsoid or oblate semi-ellipsoidal shell. Kane is concerned with lowering the height profile of the tanks to the extent of fitting within smaller cargo holds and being contained completely below deck as stated in column 2, lines 29-39 and column 2, lines 60-64 and as indicated by table that compares Kane’s design “A” with a spherical tank design “B” see column 2, lines 52-59 of Kane. Also, see Fig. 3 for tanker with tanks 10 all contained below deck.
The Office understands and appreciates that the designs of Baysinger and Kane are different in many respects, different in octagonal shape, different in manufacturing methods, different in cut, curvature and shape of the wall sections that are welded together and different in weld direction, latitudinal welds instead of longitudinal or vertical welds. However, this doesn’t preclude the shape modification from perfect sphere to oblate semi-ellipsoidal shape.
In response to applicant’s argument that the proposed modification would render Baysinger’s fabrication method (welding) inoperable is not well understood. It suggests that a skilled artisan would not know that the individual wall sections would need to be changed in dimension and curvature before being welded so that the overall tank shell is an oblate semi-ellipsoid. Applicant’s statement is speculative and conclusory. It seems somewhat common that one would expect that dimensional changes would be needed. For example, the equatorial sections would need to be increased in length in the latitudinal direction, the equatorial sections would need an increase in radius of curvature in the latitudinal direction, the latitudinal welds near the equator would need to be increased in length, etc.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
