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
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) 1-8 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loukus (U.S. Pub. No. 20140224809) in view of Stockfelt (U.S. Patent No. 10731344).
Regarding Claim 1, Loukus discloses a tank (figure 7A) configured to hold a pressurized substance, the tank comprising: a chamber 702 (figure 7A), the chamber configured to enclose the pressurized substance and provide a seal between the pressurized substance and a surrounding atmosphere (figure 7A), an endoskeleton 706 (Figure 7A) arranged within the chamber and being coupled to the chamber to provide structural support to the chamber (Figure 7A), wherein the endoskeleton comprises a plurality of coupled support members (figure 7A), wherein the plurality of coupled support members comprises at least a first set of support members having sides that are formed by sheets (figure 7A). Loukus does not disclose wherein each support member of the support members in the first set comprises interior asymmetric tetrahedral structures formed by the sides, wherein each side of the asymmetric tetrahedral structures is in the shape of a non-equilateral triangle. However, Stockfelt teaches each support member of the support members in the first set comprises interior asymmetric tetrahedral structures formed by the sides, wherein each side of the asymmetric tetrahedral structures is in the shape of a non-equilateral triangle (Column 4, lines 23-45, figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Loukus to include the above, as taught by Stockfelt, in order to conform to a desired geometry.
Regarding Claim 2, Loukus discloses the chamber is configured with a shape that is conformable to a desired exterior geometry intended to surround the chamber (Figure 4C).
Regarding Claim 3, Loukus discloses the endoskeleton further comprises a second set of support members (figure 9D), wherein each of the support members in the second set comprises interior polyhedral structures other than the asymmetric tetrahedral structures (Figure 9D).
Regarding Claim 4, Loukus discloses each of the plurality of coupled support members has an equal exterior size (figure 4C).
Regarding Claim 5, Loukus discloses at least some of the plurality of coupled support members have varying exterior size (figure 4C).
Regarding Claim 6, Loukus discloses the endoskeleton is coupled to the chamber by attaching one or more sheets of the first set of support members to the chamber (figure 7A).
Regarding Claim 7, Loukus discloses the one or more sheets of the first set are attached to the chamber along sides of one or more sheets facing the chamber (figure 7A).
Regarding Claim 8, Loukus discloses the one or more sheets are attached to the chamber by welding and/or gluing and/or brazing and/or fusing and/or additive manufacturing and/or depositioning (product by process).
Regarding Claim 12, Loukus discloses at least the sheets of the first set of support members are provided with openings 720(figure 7A).
Regarding Claim 13, Loukus discloses the sheets of the first set of support members comprises metal (paragraph 50).
Regarding Claim 14, Loukus teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the metal is stainless steel. However, Stockfelt teaches the metal is stainless steel (Column 2, lines 48-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Loukus to include the above, as taught by Stockfelt, in order to provide high durability and corrosion resistance.
Regarding Claim 15, Loukus discloses the sheets of the first set of support members comprises plastic (paragraph 50).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loukus (U.S. Pub. No. 20140224809) in view of Stockfelt (U.S. Patent No. 10731344) and Wang (U.S. Patent No. 3441164).
Regarding Claims 9-11, Loukus and Stockfelt teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a jacket, the jacket being arranged to form a layer enclosing the exterior of the chamber, the jacket forms an exoskeleton configured to provide structural support to the chamber and an insulation layer, the insulation layer being arranged to form a layer enclosing the exterior of the chamber. However, Wang teaches a jacket 20/22 (figure 2), the jacket being arranged to form a layer enclosing the exterior of the chamber (Figure 2), the jacket forms an exoskeleton configured to provide structural support to the chamber and an insulation layer 22 (figure 2), the insulation layer being arranged to form a layer enclosing the exterior of the chamber (Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Loukus and Stockfelt to include the above, as taught by Wang, in order to protect the outer layer of the tank.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loukus (U.S. Pub. No. 20140224809) in view of Stockfelt (U.S. Patent No. 10731344) and Simmons et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150114975).
Regarding Claim 16, Loukus and Stockfelt teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the sheets of the first set of support members comprises carbon fiber. However, Simmons et al. teaches the sheets of the first set of support members comprises carbon fiber (paragraph 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Loukus and Stockfelt to include the above, as taught by Simmons et al., in order to provide a superior strength to weight ratio.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loukus (U.S. Pub. No. 20140224809) in view of Stockfelt (U.S. Patent No. 10731344) and Varrassi (U.S. Pub. No. 20150267866).
Regarding Claim 17, Loukus and Stockfelt teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the sheets of the first set of support members comprises cellulose. However, Varrassi teaches the sheets of the first set of support members comprises cellulose (paragraph 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Loukus and Stockfelt to include the above, as taught by Varrassi, in order to provide high tensile strength.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm est.
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.
/ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights