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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/8/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 38, 41- 43, and 45-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owenamoy (IES20050397A2) in view of Kodama et al. (CN1281651C).
Regarding claim 38, the Morrison et al. (hereinafter Morrison) reference discloses a panel (35,40) capable of forming at least a part of a wall of a sectional tank, the panel comprising:
a base member (base of 35,40) comprising at least one of fiberglass, concrete, cement, and steel (Abstract);
a polymeric coating (15), completely encapsulating the base member, and
a mating surface (e.g. mating surfaces of each panel), coplanar with a surface face (e.g. surface opposite the mating surface) of the panel (Fig. 3), extending along at least one edge of the panel and forming part of a surface of the panel which is configured to form at least a part of a wall of a sectional tank (Fig. 3), the mating surface comprising a plurality of through holes (e.g. through holes accommodating 2), wherein the through holes are configured to receive fasteners (2) such that the panel can be secured directly to an adjacent panel in the absence of a skeletal framework of the sectional tank (Fig. 3) by overlaying the mating surface with a mating surface of an adjacent panel (Fig. 3).
However, the Owenamoy reference fails to explicitly disclose a polymer used in the polymeric coating has an elongation at rupture of at least 25%.
The Kodama et al. (hereinafter Kodama) reference discloses that polyurethane and polyester coatings are known equivalents (Para. [004]) and the have the claimed elongation of rupture (Table 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the fiberglass coating of the modified Morrison reference with polyurethane in the view of the teachings of the Kodama reference in order to reduce manufacturing costs.
Regarding claim 41, the Owenamoy reference, as modified in claim 38, discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 38.
However, the modified Owenamoy reference fails to explicitly disclose the one or more polymers comprise a polyurethane or a polyurea or a polyurethane/polyurea hybrid elastomer.
The Kodama reference discloses the claimed material (Para. [004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the claimed material in the modified Owenamoy reference in view of the teachings of the Kodama reference in order to provide a longer lasting seal.
Regarding claim 42, the Owenamoy reference, as modified in claim 38, discloses the coating. MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims states that "If the product in the product-by-process claim is that same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process." Claim 42 is anticipated by the modified Owenamoy reference. The process by which the coating is made is not a patentable distinction.
Regarding claim 43, the modified Owenamoy reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 38.
However, the modified Morrison reference fails to explicitly disclose the polymer used in the coating has, at room temperature, a gel time of less than 120 minutes
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a claimed material for the anchor formations, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter mechanical expedience, and in order to provide a longer lasting gasket. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 45 and 46, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide one or more plastic or steel anchor formations, where each anchor formation is partwise anchored in the coating and partwise anchored to the base member in order to secure the seal member.
Regarding claim 47, the modified Owenamoy reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 38.
However, the modified Owenamoy reference fails to explicitly disclose the one or more anchor formations comprise a generally cruciform-shaped profile.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to change the shape of the anchor formations to be a generally cruciform-shaped profile, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art and in order to provide a more secure attachment. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 48, the Owenamoy reference, as modified in claim 38, discloses the coating comprises a single layer of elastomer (Owenamoy, Figs. 8,9).
Regarding claims 49 and 50, the modified Owenamoy reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 38.
However, the modified Owenamoy reference fails to explicitly disclose the coating comprises multiple layers and being of the same material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide multiple coatings, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and in order to provide optimum protection to the panel. St. Regis Paper Col. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 51, the modified Owenamoy reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 38.
However, the modified Morrison reference fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the thickness between 0.1mm and 10mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and in order to provide longer life to the seal. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 38, 41- 43, and 45-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owenamoy (IES20050397A2) in view of Moon et al. (WO2015016395) and Kodama et al. (CN1281651C).
Regarding claim 38, the Morrison et al. (hereinafter Morrison) reference discloses a panel (35,40) capable of forming at least a part of a wall of a sectional tank, the panel comprising:
a base member (base of 35,40) comprising at least one of fiberglass, concrete, cement, and steel (Abstract);
a polymeric coating (15), completely encapsulating the base member, and
a mating surface (e.g. mating surfaces of each panel) extending along at least one edge of the panel and forming part of a surface of the panel which is configured to form at least a part of a wall of a sectional tank (Fig. 3), the mating surface comprising a plurality of through holes (e.g. through holes accommodating 2), wherein the through holes are configured to receive fasteners (2) such that the panel can be secured directly to an adjacent panel in the absence of a skeletal framework of the sectional tank (Fig. 3) by overlaying the mating surface with a mating surface of an adjacent panel (Fig. 3).
However, the Owenamoy reference fails to explicitly disclose , the mating surface being coplanar with a surface face (e.g. surface opposite the mating surface) of the panel and a polymer used in the polymeric coating has an elongation at rupture of at least 25%.
The Moon et al. (hereinafter Moon) reference, tank panels, discloses that panels can be joined with surface perpendicular to an outer surface of a panel (400) or can be joined by overlapping panels (200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the mating surface and the outer surface be coplanar in the Owenamoy reference in view of the teachings of the Moon reference in order to provide a proper seal to tanks that use either connection method.
The Kodama et al. (hereinafter Kodama) reference, coatings, discloses that polyurethane and polyester coatings are known equivalents (Para. [004]) and the have the claimed elongation of rupture (Table 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the fiberglass coating of the modified Morrison reference with polyurethane in the view of the teachings of the Kodama reference in order to reduce manufacturing costs.
Regarding claim 41, the Owenamoy reference, as modified in claim 38, discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 38.
However, the modified Owenamoy reference fails to explicitly disclose the one or more polymers comprise a polyurethane or a polyurea or a polyurethane/polyurea hybrid elastomer.
The Kodama reference discloses the claimed material (Para. [004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the claimed material in the modified Owenamoy reference in view of the teachings of the Kodama reference in order to provide a longer lasting seal.
Regarding claim 42, the Owenamoy reference, as modified in claim 38, discloses the coating. MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims states that "If the product in the product-by-process claim is that same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process." Claim 42 is anticipated by the modified Owenamoy reference. The process by which the coating is made is not a patentable distinction.
Regarding claim 43, the modified Owenamoy reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 38.
However, the modified Morrison reference fails to explicitly disclose the polymer used in the coating has, at room temperature, a gel time of less than 120 minutes
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a claimed material for the anchor formations, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter mechanical expedience, and in order to provide a longer lasting gasket. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 45 and 46, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide one or more plastic or steel anchor formations, where each anchor formation is partwise anchored in the coating and partwise anchored to the base member in order to secure the seal member.
Regarding claim 47, the modified Owenamoy reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 38.
However, the modified Owenamoy reference fails to explicitly disclose the one or more anchor formations comprise a generally cruciform-shaped profile.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to change the shape of the anchor formations to be a generally cruciform-shaped profile, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art and in order to provide a more secure attachment. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 48, the Owenamoy reference, as modified in claim 38, discloses the coating comprises a single layer of elastomer (Owenamoy, Figs. 8,9).
Regarding claims 49 and 50, the modified Owenamoy reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 38.
However, the modified Owenamoy reference fails to explicitly disclose the coating comprises multiple layers and being of the same material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide multiple coatings, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and in order to provide optimum protection to the panel. St. Regis Paper Col. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 51, the modified Owenamoy reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 38.
However, the modified Morrison reference fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the thickness between 0.1mm and 10mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and in order to provide longer life to the seal. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/26have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the applicant’s argument of the rejection of claim 38, the argument is not persuasive because the “face surface” of the panel is not defined in the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 38, 41- 43, and 45-51 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERT Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached on (571)272-8322. 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.
/GILBERT Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
