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 § 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroiwa (US2012/0012593).
1. Kuroiwa a tank (Fig. 1) that stores a fluid, the tank comprising a tank body (1) that defines a storage space for the fluid, wherein the tank body includes: a fiber-reinforced plastic layer (12); and a metal layer (11, column 2, lines 53-56) that is in contact with the fiber-reinforced plastic layer (Fig. 1). Kuroiwa DIFFERS in that it does not disclose a liner layer located between the storage space and the fiber-reinforced plastic layer, where the metal layer is located between the storage space and the fiber-reinforced plastic layer; and the metal layer is located between the liner layer and the fiber-reinforced plastic layer. Attention, however is directed to Kuroiwa (column 2, lines 53-56), which discloses that a liner layer could be more than one layer. Additionally see column 11, lines 40-45, which discloses that the invention is not limited to the embodiments described and may be subjected to various modifications within the scope of the technical spirit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art, to have an additional liner layer, in order to further protect the previous layer. This modification would allow the metal layer to be located between the liner layer and the fiber-reinforced plastic layer.
2. The tank according to claim 1, wherein the metal layer is closer to the storage space than a central position (center of fiber layer) in a thickness direction of the fiber-reinforced plastic layer is (this occurs when the reference is modified).
5. The tank according to claim 1, Kuroiwa DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the metal layer includes at least one of aluminum, copper, and gold. However, aluminum is a well known metal layer, therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Kuroiwa, by employing aluminum, in order to use an alternative durable material.
7. The tank according to claim 1, wherein the liner layer is made of resin (this occurs when the reference has been modified, see (column 2, lines 53-56).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 6 and 8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks page 6) that Kuroiwa does not teach the amended claim one. Examiner disagrees, Kurowi does teach the liner can be multi layered (column 2, lines 53-56). Attention, however is directed to Kuroiwa (column 2, lines 53-56), which discloses that a liner layer could be more than one layer. Additionally see column 11, lines 40-45, which discloses that the invention is not limited to the embodiments described and may be subjected to various modifications within the scope of the technical spirit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art, to have an additional liner layer, in order to further protect the previous layer. This modification would allow the metal layer to be located between the liner layer and the fiber-reinforced plastic layer.
Applicant argues (Remarks, page 8), in light of the amendment to claim 1, that claim 4 and 5 are allowable. Examiner agrees that this amendment changing the soap of claim 1 and additionally claim 4, renders claim 4 allowable. Examiner disagrees that claim 5 is allowable. Claim 5 requires that the metal layer is at least one of aluminum, copper and gold; this material is well known in the art and it would have been obvious to modify the metal layer to include one of aluminum, copper or gold, in order to use an alternative durable material.
Applicant argues (Remarks, page 8) that claims 6-8 are allowable. Examiner agrees that claims 6 and 8 are allowable. However, claim 7 is not found allowable, as Kuroiwa discloses the liner can be resin (column 2, lines 53-56).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights