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 .
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 container having reinforcing rings and a support element as well as an insulating element enveloping the inner container 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 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) 1-6, 9-12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patterson et al. (US 4579249) (hereinafter Patterson).
Regarding Claim 1
Patterson teaches a storage container (below – Fig. 2, 10) for storing a cryogen (F), comprising an inner container (1) for receiving the cryogen and an outer container (2) in which the inner container is accommodated, wherein the outer container has reinforcing rings (3) for reinforcing the outer container, and the outer container has a support element (6) which is made of a composite material and of which at least some portions are arranged within a gap between two neighboring reinforcing rings, in order to support the reinforcing rings, as can be seen in Fig. 2 below (Col. 4, Ln.52 – Col. 5, Ln. 68).
PNG
media_image1.png
298
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2 and 3
Patterson teaches the inner container (1) is arranged within the reinforcing rings (3); and the inner container (1) is arranged within the support element (6), as can be seen in Fig. 2 above.
Regarding Claim 4
Patterson teaches the outer container (2) envelops the support element (6), as can be seen in Fig. 2 above.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6
Patterson teaches the reinforcing rings (3) and the support element (6) are attached to the inside of the outer container (2); and the outer container has an inner surface facing the inner container (1), and wherein the reinforcing rings (3) and the support element (6) are at least partially materially connected to the inner surface.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10
Patterson teaches a gap (9) subjected to a vacuum is provided between the inner container (1) and the outer container (2), wherein the reinforcing rings (3) and the support element (6) are arranged within the gap; and an insulating element (4) enveloping the inner container (1) is arranged in the gap, as can be seen in Fig. 2 above.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12
Patterson teaches the composite material (6) is long-fiber reinforced or short-fiber reinforced; or a laminate or a casting compound (Col. 5, Ln. 58-68).
Regarding Claim 14
Patterson teaches the inner container (1) and the outer container (2) are made of stainless steel.
Regarding Claim 15
Patterson teaches the outer container (2) has a cylindrical base portion to which the reinforcing rings (3) are attached, as can be seen in Fig. 2 above.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aceves et al. (US 10082246) (hereinafter Aceves).
Regarding Claim 13
Patterson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Patterson does not specifically teach the reinforcing rings are made of an aluminum alloy or a composite material.
Aceves teaches a storage container (below – Fig. 4, 400) for storing a cryogen, comprising an inner container (404) for receiving the cryogen and an outer container (402) in which the inner container is accommodated, wherein the outer container has reinforcing rings (415) for reinforcing the outer container; and the reinforcing rings are made of a composite material (Col. 6, Ln. 25-63).
PNG
media_image2.png
279
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Patterson and Aceves are analogous inventions in the field of cryogen containers having reinforcing rings. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the reinforcing rings of Patterson with the teachings of the reinforcing rings being made of a composite material of Aceves in order to provide reinforcing rings which have the strength to withstand a vacuum between the inner and outer containers.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a second embodiment of Aceves et al. (US 10082246) (hereinafter Aceves2).
Regarding Claim 1
Aceves2 teaches a storage container (below – Fig. 3A and B, 300) for storing a cryogen, comprising an inner container (304) for receiving the cryogen and an outer container (302) in which the inner container is accommodated, wherein the outer container has a reinforcing ring (314) for reinforcing the outer container, and the outer container has a support element (316a/b) which is made of a composite material and supports the reinforcing ring.
PNG
media_image3.png
245
469
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
352
313
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Aceves2 does not teach multiple reinforcing rings, and the support element arranged within a gap between two neighboring reinforcing rings.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have multiple reinforcing rings in order to further strengthen the outer container – see for example the embodiment shown in Fig. 4 of Aveces. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
With the modified embodiment of Aceves2, it would further appear obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the support element (316a/b) would be arranged within a gap between two neighboring reinforcing rings.
As such, the claim of the container having multiple reinforcing rings, and the support element arranged within a gap between two neighboring reinforcing rings does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3
Modified Aceves2 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Aceves2 further teaches the inner container (304) is arranged within the reinforcing rings (314); and the inner container (304) is arranged within the support element (316a/b), as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8
Modified Aceves2 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Aceves2 further teaches the reinforcing rings (314) and the support element (316a/b) are attached to the outside of the outer container (302); and the outer container (302) has an outer surface facing away from the inner container (304), and wherein the reinforcing rings (314) and the support element (316a/b) are materially connected to the outer surface, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 14
Modified Aceves2 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Aceves2 further teaches the inner container (304) and the outer container (304) are made of stainless steel.
Regarding Claim 15
Modified Aceves2 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Aceves2 further teaches the outer container (304) has a cylindrical base portion to which the reinforcing rings (314) are attached, as can be seen in the figures above.
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 1 April 2026