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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/02/26, 2/18/26, and 4/03/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 “first fiber-reinforced polymer layer and second fiber-reinforced polymer layer are interwoven” of claim 20. Examiner notes that while Figure 16 illustrates interwoven fibers, it is unclear to the Examiner how the layers are interwoven. Figure 16 appears to illustrate a cross pattern between the layers or potentially an interweaving of the fibers, but does not show both. 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
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, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0026547 (hereinafter “Kim”).
In Reference to Claim 1:
Kim discloses an energy storage system comprising: a container (100) having a base pressure (See, Figure 2: step 1 inject air into storage tank); a pressurizing pump (410) configured to pump a liquid (W) to the container (100); a liquid source configured to supply the liquid through the pressurizing pump to the container so that the gas pressure is increased (see, Figure 2: Step 2)_ from the base pressure to a first level pressure.
In Reference to Claim 2:
Kim further discloses further comprising a generator (420) configured to receive the liquid discharged from the container to generate electricity by reducing the gas pressure from the first level pressure to be a lower second level. See, Figure 2 as well. In Reference to Claim 4:
Kim further discloses wherein the base pressure is a baseline pressure as a default pressure of the energy storage system. See, Figure 2 which illustrates Air I injected into the system for a baseline and then step 2 is compressing the air beyond the baseline to store energy.
In Reference to Claim 5:
Kim further discloses wherein the container (100) is on the seabed and placed underground. See, Paragraph [00016]:” The reservoir may be sea, and the storage tank (100) may be provided under the ground below a bottom of the sea.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dufaure et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0103345 (hereinafter “Dufaure”).
In Reference to Claim 18:
Dufaure discloses a method of manufacturing a storage container: a container with an interior layer made of a polymer; winding a fiber-reinforced polymer around an outer surface of the container to form a fiber-reinforced polymer layer; coating a resin on the outer surface of the container to form a resin layer covering the fiber-reinforced polymer layer; and curing the resin layer. See, Paragraphs [0020-0022] which discloses each layer and curing the thermoplastic resin by heating.
Examiner notes that as the claim is currently constructed the claim is merely claiming a container and does not need to be in the field of a pressure vessel (although Dufaure is within the same sort of field of endeavor). To properly claim an energy storage the method of storing said compressed gas should be included.
In Reference to Claim 19:
Dufaure further discloses wherein the fiber-reinforced polymer layer is a first fiber-reinforced polymer layer, the resin layer is a first resin layer, and the method further comprises winding the fiber-reinforced polymer around the first resin layer to form a second fiber-reinforced polymer layer; coating the resin on the outer surface of the container to form a second resin layer covering the second fiber-reinforced polymer layer; and curing the second resin layer. See, Paragraph [0020-0022] and
Claim(s) 18, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nouwen et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0247025 (hereinafter “Nouwan”).
In Refence to Claim 18:
Nouwen discloses a method of manufacturing a storage container (See, Paragrpah [0049] which discloses the vessel is for storing gas) : a container (Figure 1-2) with an interior layer made of a polymer; winding a fiber-reinforced polymer (Figure 7b) around an outer surface of the container to form a fiber-reinforced polymer layer; coating a resin on the outer surface of the container to form a resin layer covering the fiber-reinforced polymer layer; and curing the resin layer (via heat as it’s a thermoset resin) (See, Paragraph [0006-0007] and [0053]).
Examiner notes that as the claim is currently constructed the claim is merely claiming a container and does not need to be in the field of a pressure vessel (although Dufaure is within the same sort of field of endeavor). To properly claim an energy storage the method of storing said compressed gas should be included.
In Reference to Claim 19- 20:
Nouwen further discloses wherein the fiber-reinforced polymer layer is a first fiber-reinforced polymer layer, the resin layer is a first resin layer, and the method further comprises winding the fiber-reinforced polymer around the first resin layer to form a second fiber-reinforced polymer layer; coating the resin on the outer surface of the container to form a second resin layer covering the second fiber-reinforced polymer layer; and curing the second resin layer. See, Figure 7b which shows a fiber reinforced polymer layer being run in a cross hatch pattern along the pressure vessel (despite not being technically interwoven upon review of Applicant’s Figures and Specification the broadest reasonable interpretation for interwoven is actually said crossing of the layers to create said cross hatch pattern.
In reference to Claim 21:
Nouwen further discloses wherein the polymer is polyvinyl chloride and polyethelyne. See, Claim 16 which discloses the use of PVC and See also Table 1 which discloses the liner being composed of polyethelyne.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0026547 (hereinafter “Kim”).
In Reference to Claim 3:
Kim fails to explicitly disclose wherein the base pressure ranges from 5 to 20 atmosphere.
However it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the pressure range from 5 to 20 atmospheres as such range is merely a design choice and Applicant has failed to disclose any criticality to said pressure range.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0026547 (hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Von Herzen et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0012276 (hereinafter “Von Herzen”).
In Reference to Claim 6 and 7:
Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but remains silent as to the tanks material composition and therefore fails to explicitly, disclose wherein the tank is but fails to disclose wherein the container is selected from petrol tank, gas tank, stainless steel tank, concrete tank or plastic tank, and the container is wound with a fiber-reinforced polymer and the fiber is encapsulated.
However, in the same field of endeavor, compressed gas energy storage system, Von Herzen discloses a mixed media storage container for storage of compressed gas and liquid (as shown in Figure 1) wherein the container is made of a plurality of layers, wherein the plastic tube container 120 (via thermoplastic layer 134 inner layer) is supported by a plastic fiber reinforced polymer layer 160 and then proceeded with a top coat 162 to fully encapsulate the fibers of 158 via thermoplastic layer 126 See, Paragraph [0058].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kim to replace the tank 100 with a storage container of Von Herzon because such a modification is a simple substitution of one known container for another providing the identical function of storing compressed air that is compressed via water. In addition, the modification of Kim with the teachings of Von Herzon also would be obvious because the container of Ver Herzon provides the distinct advantage of better thermal insulation and therefore provides a quasi isothermal environment improving energy recovery.
In Reference to claim 8:
Kim as modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein the polymer material has a thickness of 0.5 to 5 centimeters.
However it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Kim such that the polymer material has a thickness of .5 to 5 centimeters as such range is merely a design choice and Applicant has failed to disclose any criticality to said thickness.
Claim 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bachli, U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0348637 (hereinafter “Bachli”) in view of Frazier et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2011/00700031.
In Reference to Claim 9:
Bachli discloses a energy storage apparatus comprising: a liquid source (5); a gas tank (2.1); and a mixing tank (1) communicated with the liquid source and the gas tank.
Bachli fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the gas tank and the mixing tank comprises a polymeric inner layer disposed on an inner surface of the gas tank or the mixing tank.
However, in the same field of endeavor, compressed gas energy storage system, Von Herzen discloses a mixed media storage container for storage of compressed gas and liquid (as shown in Figure 1) wherein the container is made of a plurality of layers, wherein the plastic tube container 120 (via thermoplastic layer 134 inner layer) is supported by a plastic fiber reinforced polymer layer 160 and then proceeded with a top coat 162 to fully encapsulate the fibers of 158 via thermoplastic layer 126 See, Paragraph [0058].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Bachli to replace the mixing tank 1 with the storage container of Von Herzon because such a modification is a simple substitution of one known container for another providing the identical function of storing compressed air that is compressed via water. In addition, the modification of Bachli with the teachings of Von Herzon also would be obvious because the container of Ver Herzon provides the distinct advantage of better thermal insulation and therefore provides a quasi isothermal environment improving energy recovery.
In Reference to Claim 10:
Bachli as modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein the polymer inner material has a thickness of at least 1 cm
However it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Bachli such that the polymer material has a thickness of at least 1 centimeter as such range is merely a design choice and Applicant has failed to disclose any criticality to said thickness.
In Reference to claim 11:
Bachli as modified further discloses wherein the thermoplastic container containing a polymeric layer is made of polyvinyl chloride. See, Paragraph [0058] of Von Herzon.
In Reference to claim 14 and 15:
Bachli as modified fails to disclose wherein t least one of the gas tank and the mixing tank has a length of 7 to 20 meters and height of 1 to 2 meters.
However it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Bachli such that at least one of the gas tank and the mixing tank has a length of 7 to 20 meter and a height of 1 to 2 meter as such dimensions are merely a design choice and Applicant has failed to disclose any criticality to the claimed dimensions.
Claim 9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brachli, U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0348637 (hereinafter “Brachli”) in view of Dufaure et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0103345 (hereinafter “Dufaure”).
In Reference to Claim 9, 12 and 13 :
Bachli discloses a energy storage apparatus comprising: a liquid source (5); a gas tank (2.1); and a mixing tank (1) communicated with the liquid source and the gas tank.
Bachli fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the gas tank and the mixing tank comprises a polymeric inner layer disposed on an inner surface of the gas tank or the mixing tank and further comprising an external protection layer disposed on an outer surface of at least one of the gas tank and the mixing tank, wherein the external protection layer comprises a fiber-reinforced polymer layer formed by winding a fiber-reinforced polymer around the outer surface and wherein the external layer further comprises a cured resin layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, compressed gas storage containers, Dufaure disclose a container for storing a compressed gas of hydrogen, the container containing a multilayer structure of a surface structure, followed by a composite polymer reinforcement layer which would around, followed by a sealing layer consisting of a thermoplastic poyamide layer with an expoxised resin on the outermost structure to bind. See, Paragraph [0021].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Bachli with the teachings of Dufaure, specifically to modify the gas storage vessel of Bachli with the storage vessel of Defaure because it is a simple substitution of one gas storage container for another providing the same predictable results of holding the pressurized gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights