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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant’s arguments are directed at the current amendment. Applicant has amended the claims to present a new combination(s) of limitations for examination, necessitating the new grounds of rejection presented below. However, to the extent that Applicant’s arguments appear relevant to the current rejection, they are addressed below:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that Blalock only teaches a pipeline having a functional section, but not a cladding pipe, when Matlow was relied upon to teach the pipeline and the cladding pipe arrangement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15-17, 20-26, 28, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 and 34 recite the limitation “wherein there is no support extending from the pipeline to the cladding pipe in a section of the pipeline between the first pipeline end and the second cladding pipe end”. The specification does not have support for this limitation as it does not recite that there is “no support” and furthermore page 6 states “The pipeline 5 and the cladding pipe 6 are rigidly connected to one another at the second cladding pipe end 13, for which purpose the cladding pipe 6 may have an end plate 14 in this area”, where end plate 14 may be considered to provide support between the pipeline and the cladding pipe. Therefore, claims 14 and 15 are considered to introduce new matter.
Claims 16-17, 20-26, and 28 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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) 15, 20-21, 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlow (US-3364688-A: previously cited) in view of Blalock (US-20070186925-A1: previously cited).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
927
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Matlow discloses a cryogenic container comprising an inner tank (Fig 1 inner vessel #11, col 2 line 8, Examiner notes that Matlow discusses the inner vessel #11 such that vacuum jacket #21 is a component of #11, however, for purposes of examination inner vessel #11 and vacuum jacket #21 will be considered as separate components as distinguished by the crosshatching in the Figure 1), an outer container vacuum-insulated relative to the inner tank (Fig 1 outer shell #12, col 2 lines 8-9: "an outer shell 12 separated by a vacuum space 13"), and a pipe penetration module for the cryogenic container (combination of vacuum jacket #21 and conduit means, col 2 lines 13-15: "The vessel is provided with conduit means including vent line 22. a fill line 23, and a discharge or withdrawal line 24"), the pipe penetration module comprising a cladding pipe (Fig 1 vacuum jacket #21, col 2 line 21) and a pipeline (Fig 1 combination of vent line #22 and fill line #23, col 2 line 14) at least partially accommodated in the cladding pipe (Fig 1 #22 and #23 partially accommodated in #21), wherein the pipeline passes through a first cladding pipe end of the cladding pipe so that a first pipeline end of the pipeline is rigidly connectible to the outer container (annotated Fig A, first pipeline end is rigidly connectible to #12) and the first cladding pipe end is rigidly connectible to the inner tank (annotated Fig A, first cladding pipe end is rigidly connectible to #11), wherein the cladding pipe protrudes into the inner tank (see Fig 1, #21 protrudes into #11), wherein the pipeline and the cladding pipe are rigidly connected to one another at a second cladding pipe end (annotated Fig A, second cladding pipe end rigidly connected to #22), and with the pipeline and the cladding pipe each having a kink in an area between the first cladding pipe end and the second cladding pipe end (see annotated Fig A), and wherein there is no support extending from the pipeline to the cladding pipe in a section of the pipeline between the first pipeline end and the second cladding pipe end (see annotated Fig A and Fig D: section does not contain any support extending from the pipeline to cladding pipe).
Matlow is silent regarding wherein the pipeline is more flexible across at least one functional section than outside of the at least one functional section, wherein the functional section is provided at least partially within the cladding pipe.
Blalock teaches a cryogenic piping system wherein a pipeline (Blalock Fig 1 and Fig 4 inner pipe #40 including conduit #13) is more flexible across at least one functional section than outside of the at least one functional section (Blalock Fig 1 and Fig 4, section of #40 that includes flexible hose portion #19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Matlow with wherein the pipeline is more flexible across at least one functional section than outside of the at least one functional section, wherein the functional section is provided at least partially within the cladding pipe, as taught by Blalock, as doing so would improve the system of Matlow by permitting gravity to help the end of the pipes reach the liquid within the cryogenic vessel. The purpose of the modification is best achieved by incorporating the flexible hose in both the pipeline and cladding pipe, therefore the modification will result in part of the fill line #23 in a second section of the pipeline (see annotated Fig A) and second section of the cladding pipe (see annotated Fig A) having a flexible hose integrated into the line. It is noted that as modified, Matlow in view of Blalock teach the functional section is provided at least partially within the cladding pipe, since Matlow discloses that the pipeline is within the cladding pipe.
PNG
media_image2.png
542
848
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Modified Matlow further discloses wherein the pipeline has a welding sleeve at the first pipeline end for connection to the outer container (annotated Fig A, Matlow Fig 1 welding sleeve connects #23/#22 to outer shell #12).
Regarding claim 21 Modified Matlow further discloses wherein the cladding pipe has a stiffening ring at the first cladding pipe end for connection to the inner tank (annotated Fig A, Matlow Fig 1 collar/spacer #35, col 2 lines 9-10: “Structural support for the head end of the inner vessel is afforded by the fluid conduits via the member 35”).
Regarding claim 24, Modified Matlow further discloses wherein an intermediate space between the pipeline and the cladding pipe is configured such that the first pipeline end is movable into the cladding pipe by at least one wall thickness of the outer container for an assembly process (Matlow Fig 1, the intermediate space between #22 and #21 is capable of accommodating #22/23 it would therefore be capable of accommodating the first pipeline end when it is movable, annotated Fig A. Furthermore, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (in this case, “the first pipeline end is movable into the cladding pipe by at least one wall thickness of the outer container for an assembly process”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations (in this case, “the intermediate space between the pipeline and the cladding pipe”) of the claim).
Regarding claim 25, Modified Matlow further discloses, wherein the pipe penetration module is connected to the inner tank and the outer container (Matlow Fig 1 vacuum jacket #21, vent line #22, fill line #23, withdrawal line #24 are connected to inner vessel #11 and outer shell #12) in such a way that the pipe penetration module functions as a thermal siphon when the cryogenic container is in an operating position (Matlow col 3 lines 10-22: “causes the inner ends of these conduits to be relatively warm, and this, together with the downwardly extending configuration of the conduits assures that the liquid-gas interfaces within the conduits will be relatively near these inner ends when liquefied gas is stored in the Dewar. Percolation and convection within these conduits is minimized or eliminated, and heat loss is low”. Furthermore, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (in this case, “the pipe penetration module functions as a thermal siphon when the cryogenic container is in an operating position”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations (in this case, “the pipe penetration module is connected to the cryogenic container”) of the claim).
Regarding claim 26, Modified Matlow further discloses wherein the pipe penetration module is passed through a jacket of the cryogenic container (Matlow Fig 1 #22/23/24 passes through vacuum space #13).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlow in view of Blalock, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of White (US-20060054234-A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 16, Matlow discloses a first section of the pipeline or a first section of the cladding pipe (annotated Fig A) and a second section of the pipeline or a second section of cladding pipe (annotated Fig A).
Matlow alone is silent regarding wherein the kink of the pipeline and the kink of the cladding pipe are configured in such a way that a first section of the pipeline or the first section of the cladding pipe is at an angle of 30° to 150° relative to a second section of the pipeline or a second section of the cladding pipe.
White teaches wherein a kink of a pipeline and a kink of the cladding pipe (see annotated Fig B: labeled as ‘kinks’ corresponding to inner pipe #8 and outer jacket #10 of White Fig 1) are configured in such a way that a first section of the pipeline or a first section of the cladding pipe is at an angle of 30° to 150° relative to a second section of the pipeline or a second section of the cladding pipe (annotated Fig B, first section is at approximately 90 degrees relative to elbow assembly #3 (second section) as evidenced in White Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Matlow with wherein the kink of the pipeline and the kink of the cladding pipe are configured in such a way that a first section of the pipeline or a first section the cladding pipe is at an angle of 30° to 150° relative to a second section of the pipeline or a second section the cladding pipe, as taught by White, since the system of Matlow would not operate differently with an angle of 90 degrees. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating kink angles deviating therefrom are also possible so as to achieve the advantages that have been explained above (specification page 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
398
882
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlow in view of Blalock, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Immel (US-20070068953-A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 17, Matlow does not disclose wherein the pipeline has a thinner wall thickness across the at least one functional section than outside of the at least one functional section with the at least one functional section being located at least partially within a cladding pipe.
However, wall thickness of pipes of cryogenic storage tanks is a results effective variable, as recognized by Immel (see paragraph(s) 0048: corrugated and non-corrugated portions, where the type of corrugation on the corrugated portions can vary in wall thickness dependent on the desired orientation or ability to bend for assembly in a storage tank).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Modified Matlow with wherein the pipeline has a thinner wall thickness across the at least one functional section than outside of the at least one functional section, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)). Examiner notes that Modified Matlow teaches the limitation with the at least one functional section being located at least partially within a cladding pipe since Matlow teaches the pipeline (Matlow vent line #22/fill line #23) located at within the cladding pipe (Matlow #21) and Blalock teaches the functional section (see rejection of claim 15 above).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlow in view of Blalock, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Rafael (US-3132762-A: previously cited).
Regarding claim 22, Modified Matlow does not disclose wherein the cladding pipe has an end plate at the second cladding pipe end for connection to the inner tank.
Rafael teaches a container for holding a supply of liquefied gas wherein a tubular chamber (Fig 3 tubular chamber #54, col 4 lines 27-28) within said container has an end plate (Fig 3 plate of bracket #55) at an end of the tubular chamber for connection to the inner tank (Rafael col 4 lines 29-31: “The inner end of the tube 51 is welded to a tubular chamber 54 which extends inwardly and downwardly in the liquid space of the vessel. The lower end of the chamber is gas tightly closed and is supported by a bracket 55 to the wall of the vessel 110”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Modified Matlow with wherein the cladding pipe has an end plate at the second cladding pipe end for connection to the inner tank, as taught by Rafael, as doing so would improve the system of Modified Matlow by providing structural support for the cladding pipe. The modification would result in the addition of bracket #55 of Rafael at the lower end #33 of vacuum jacket #21 of Matlow.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlow in view of Blalock, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Emmer (US-6257282-B1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 23, Modified Matlow is silent regarding wherein the pipeline is equipped with an internal thread at the first pipeline end.
Emmer teaches wherein a pipeline is equipped with an internal thread at a first pipeline end (Emmer col 3 lines 5-7: “The inner pipes of the prefabricated pipe sections are joined by brazing or butt-welding. Alternatively, the inner pipes may be joined via threaded ends”, it is understood that when joining pipe ends that one pipe will have a male thread (external thread) and the other pipe will have a female thread (internal thread) as is known in the art).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Modified Matlow with wherein the pipeline is equipped with an internal thread at the first pipeline end, as taught by Emmer, as doing so would improve the system of Modified Matlow by facilitating the connection from the pipeline to exterior supply pipes. The modification would result in the addition of an internal thread at the end of fill line #23 located outside of the vessel of Matlow.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlow in view of Blalock, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Fournel (US-20160238162-A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 28, Matlow does not disclose wherein the pipeline comprises a bellows pipe across the at least one functional section, with the at least one functional section being located at least partially within the cladding pipe.
Fournel teaches a device for transferring fluid wherein a pipeline (Fournel Fig 1 inner duct #3, par 0053) comprises a bellows pipe across at least one functional section (annotated Fig C, flexible unit #14, Fournel par 0060: “each flexible unit 14 can comprise for example bellows”), with the at least one functional section being located at least partially within a cladding pipe (Fournel Fig 1 outer envelope #2, par 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Modified Matlow with wherein the pipeline comprises a bellows pipe across the at least one functional section, with the at least one functional section being located at least partially within the cladding pipe, as taught by Fournel, as doing so would improve the system of Modified Matlow by preventing rupture as a result of relative displacements generated by displacements of end anchorage points or as a result of contractions caused by cold (see Fournel par 0006). The modification will result in part of the fill line #23 in a second section of the pipeline (see annotated Fig A) having a bellows pipe integrated into the line.
PNG
media_image4.png
487
823
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlow (US-3364688-A: previously cited) in view of Blalock (US-20070186925-A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 29, Matlow discloses a cryogenic container comprising an inner tank (Fig 1 inner vessel #11, col 2 line 8, Examiner notes that Matlow discusses the inner vessel #11 such that vacuum jacket #21 is a component of #11, however, for purposes of examination inner vessel #11 and vacuum jacket #21 will be considered as separate components as distinguished by the crosshatching in the Figure 1), an outer container vacuum-insulated relative to the inner tank (Fig 1 outer shell #12, col 2 lines 8-9: "an outer shell 12 separated by a vacuum space 13"), and a pipe penetration module for the cryogenic container (combination of vacuum jacket #21 and conduit means, col 2 lines 13-15: "The vessel is provided with conduit means including vent line 22. a fill line 23, and a discharge or withdrawal line 24"), the pipe penetration module comprising a cladding pipe (Fig 1 vacuum jacket #21, col 2 line 21) and a pipeline (Fig 1 combination of vent line #22 and fill line #23, col 2 line 14) at least partially accommodated in the cladding pipe (Fig 1 #22 and #23 partially accommodated in #21), wherein the pipeline passes through a first cladding pipe end of the cladding pipe so that a first pipeline end of the pipeline is rigidly connectible to the outer container (annotated Fig A, first pipeline end is rigidly connectible to #12) and the first cladding pipe end is rigidly connectible to the inner tank (annotated Fig A, first cladding pipe end is rigidly connectible to #11), wherein the cladding pipe protrudes into the inner tank (see Fig 1, #21 protrudes into #11), wherein the pipeline and the cladding pipe are rigidly connected to one another at a second cladding pipe end (annotated Fig A, second cladding pipe end rigidly connected to #22), and with the pipeline and the cladding pipe each having a kink in an area between the first cladding pipe end and the second cladding pipe end (see annotated Fig A).
Matlow is silent regarding wherein the cladding pipe is more flexible across at least one functional section than outside of the at least one functional section, wherein the functional section is provided on a section of the cladding pipe that surrounds the pipeline.
Blalock teaches a cryogenic piping system wherein a pipe (Blalock Fig 1 and Fig 4 inner pipe #40 including conduit #13) is more flexible across at least one functional section than outside of the at least one functional section (Blalock Fig 1 and Fig 4, section of #40 that includes flexible hose portion #19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Matlow with wherein the cladding pipe is more flexible across at least one functional section than outside of the at least one functional section, wherein the functional section is provided on a section of the cladding pipe that surrounds the pipeline, as taught by Blalock, as doing so would improve the system of Matlow by permitting gravity to help the end of the pipes reach the liquid within the cryogenic vessel. The purpose of the modification is best achieved by incorporating the flexible hose in both the pipeline and cladding pipe, therefore the modification will result in part of the fill line #23 in a second section of the pipeline (see annotated Fig A) and second section of the cladding pipe (see annotated Fig A) having a flexible hose integrated into the line. It is noted that as modified, Matlow in view of Blalock teach that the functional section is provided on a section of the cladding pipe that surrounds the pipeline, since Matlow discloses that the cladding pipe surrounds the pipeline.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlow in view of Blalock, as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Immel (US-20070068953-A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 30, Matlow does not disclose wherein the cladding pipe has a thinner wall thickness across the at least one functional section than outside of the at least one functional section.
However, wall thickness of pipes of cryogenic storage tanks is a results effective variable, as recognized by Immel (see paragraph(s) 0048: corrugated and non-corrugated portions, where the type of corrugation on the corrugated portions can vary in wall thickness dependent on the desired orientation or ability to bend for assembly in a storage tank).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Modified Matlow with wherein the cladding pipe has a thinner wall thickness across the at least one functional section than outside of the at least one functional section, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim(s) 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlow in view of Blalock, as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Fournel (US-20160238162-A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 31, Matlow does not disclose wherein the cladding pipe comprises a bellows pipe across at least one functional section.
Fournel teaches a device for transferring fluid wherein a cladding pipe (Fournel Fig 1 outer envelope #2, par 0054) comprises a bellows pipe across at least one functional section (annotated Fig C, second flexible portion #13, Fournel par 0054: “second flexible and resilient portion 13 of the outer envelope 2 can comprise one and preferably two bellows 130, 131”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Modified Matlow with wherein the cladding pipe comprises a bellows pipe across at least one functional section, as taught by Fournel, as doing so would improve the system of Modified Matlow by preventing rupture as a result of relative displacements generated by displacements of end anchorage points or as a result of contractions caused by cold (see Fournel par 0006). The modification will result in part of the vacuum jacket #21 in a second section of the pipeline (see annotated Fig A) having a bellows pipe integrated into the line, the functional section being the part of #21 that has the bellows pipe.
Regarding claim 32, Matlow does not disclose wherein an axial reinforcement is spanned across the at least one functional section.
Fournel teaches wherein an axial reinforcement (Fournel Fig 1 mechanism #17, par 0053) is spanned across the at least one functional section (Fournel see Fig 1 #17 spans across flexible area #13/#14, par 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Modified Matlow with wherein an axial reinforcement is spanned across the at least one functional section, as taught by Fournel, as doing so would improve the system of Modified Matlow by permitting rotation of the piping around the direction y and the direction z ensuring the stability and absorption of forces of this part while preventing expansion according to a longitudinal direction (see Fournel par 0055 and 0057). The modification will result in the mechanism #17 of Fournel be on opposite sides of the cladding pipe spanning the location of where the bellows pipe is located in Modified Matlow.
Regarding claim 33, Modified Matlow further discloses wherein the axial reinforcement is formed by two stiffening rods running in parallel to the cladding pipe and located on opposite sides of the cladding pipe (Fournel Fig 1 mechanism #17 on opposite ends of pipe).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlow (US-3364688-A: previously cited) in view of Blalock (US-20070186925-A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 34, Matlow discloses a cryogenic container comprising an inner tank (Fig 1 inner vessel #11, col 2 line 8, Examiner notes that Matlow discusses the inner vessel #11 such that vacuum jacket #21 is a component of #11, however, for purposes of examination inner vessel #11 and vacuum jacket #21 will be considered as separate components as distinguished by the crosshatching in the Figure 1), an outer container vacuum-insulated relative to the inner tank (Fig 1 outer shell #12, col 2 lines 8-9: "an outer shell 12 separated by a vacuum space 13"), and a pipe penetration module for the cryogenic container (combination of vacuum jacket #21 and conduit means, col 2 lines 13-15: "The vessel is provided with conduit means including vent line 22. a fill line 23, and a discharge or withdrawal line 24"), the pipe penetration module comprising a cladding pipe (Fig 1 vacuum jacket #21, col 2 line 21) and a pipeline (Fig 1 combination of vent line #22 and fill line #23, col 2 line 14) at least partially accommodated in the cladding pipe (Fig 1 #22 and #23 partially accommodated in #21), wherein the pipeline passes through a first cladding pipe end of the cladding pipe so that a first pipeline end of the pipeline is rigidly connectible to the outer container (annotated Fig A, first pipeline end is rigidly connectible to #12) and the first cladding pipe end is rigidly connectible to the inner tank (annotated Fig A, first cladding pipe end is rigidly connectible to #11), wherein the cladding pipe protrudes into the inner tank (see Fig 1, #21 protrudes into #11), wherein the pipeline and the cladding pipe are rigidly connected to one another at a second cladding pipe end (annotated Fig A, second cladding pipe end rigidly connected to #22), and with the pipeline and the cladding pipe each having a kink in an area between the first cladding pipe end and the second cladding pipe end (see annotated Fig A), and wherein there is no support extending from the pipeline to the cladding pipe in a section of the pipeline between the first pipeline end and the second cladding pipe end (see annotated Fig A and annotated Fig D: section does not contain any support extending from the pipeline to cladding pipe).
Matlow is silent regarding wherein the cladding pipe is more flexible across at least one functional section than outside of the at least one functional section, wherein the functional section is provided on a section of the cladding pipe that surrounds the pipeline.
Blalock teaches a cryogenic piping system wherein a pipe (Blalock Fig 1 and Fig 4 inner pipe #40 including conduit #13) is more flexible across at least one functional section than outside of the at least one functional section (Blalock Fig 1 and Fig 4, section of #40 that includes flexible hose portion #19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Matlow with wherein the cladding pipe is more flexible across at least one functional section than outside of the at least one functional section, wherein the functional section is provided on a section of the cladding pipe that surrounds the pipeline, as taught by Blalock, as doing so would improve the system of Matlow by permitting gravity to help the end of the pipes reach the liquid within the cryogenic vessel. The purpose of the modification is best achieved by incorporating the flexible hose in both the pipeline and cladding pipe, therefore the modification will result in part of the fill line #23 in a second section of the pipeline (see annotated Fig A) and second section of the cladding pipe (see annotated Fig A) having a flexible hose integrated into the line. It is noted that as modified, Matlow in view of Blalock teach that the functional section is provided on a section of the cladding pipe that surrounds the pipeline, since Matlow discloses that the cladding pipe surrounds the pipeline.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESMERALDA ARREGUIN-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on (571) 270-7740. 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.
/ESMERALDA ARREGUIN-MARTINEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights