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 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 and 18-22 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 capsize. 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. Claim 9 discusses 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 with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection are now provided. The primary reference of Baysinger is now modified in view of Kane and modified in view of Yuan to address the oblate semi-ellipsoid shape of the shell and to modify the internal radii to match the “second radius is greater than the first radius” limitation as stated in claims 18 and 23.
Conclusion
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