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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species A (encompassing claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, under the "Unity of Invention" standard, dependent claims may not be restricted from each other unless it is first shown that the independent claim from which they depend has no special technical feature, and features recited in all of the pending claims qualify as a "special technical feature" as defined in MPEP § 1850, and therefore, Unity of Invention exists between the pending claims. The traversal is found persuasive and the restriction requirement dated 09/11/2025 is fully withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wall" in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. Should read –the plurality of walls--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the blocks of polymer foam of the second portion” in line 10 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the blocks of polymer foam” in line 11 lacks proper antecedent basis. It is not clear if it is referring back to “a block of polymer” in line 7 or “the blocks of polymer” in line 10.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the density of the blocks of polymer foam” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the density of the blocks of polymer foam of the self-supporting heat-insulating panels of the first portion being substantially equal to the density of the blocks of polymer foam of the self-supporting heat-insulating panels of the side walls and substantially equal to the density of the blocks of polymer foam of the self-supporting heat-insulating panels of the upper wall” renders the claim indefinite because the term “substantially equal" is relative term and the specification fails to make determine the scope of the term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the leak-tight membrane” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. The limitation should read –the at least one leak-tight membrane--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the upper wall” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a plurality of second portions” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the plurality of second portions relates to the second portion of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a liquefied gas storage tank” in line 1-2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a tank for transporting and/or storing a liquefied gas” in claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a liquefied gas” in line 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a liquefied gas” in line 1 of claim 1. The limitation should read --the liquefied gas--.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the system” lacks proper antecedent basis. The limitation should read –the transfer system--.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a gravity platform” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a gravity platform” in claim 14. For examination purposes, examiner read the limitation as –the gravity platform--.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the support structure” in line 3-4 lacks proper antecedent basis. The limitation should read –a support structure—or the claim should be dependent upon claim 15.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a pump” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a pump” in claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “liquefied gas” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a liquefied gas” in line 1 of the claim. For examination purposes, examiner read the limitation as –the liquefied gas--.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a gravity platform” in line 1-2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a gravity platform” in claim 14. For examination purposes, examiner read the limitation as –the gravity platform--.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a liquefied gas” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a liquefied gas” in claim 14. For examination purposes, examiner read the limitation as –the gravity platform--.
Claims 4-6, 8-11 and 15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1, 2, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhellemmes et al. (US 6,035,795) in view of Sassi et al. US 2017/0152993).
In regard to claim 1, Dhellemmes teaches a tank for transporting and/or storing a liquefied gas (Abstract), comprising;
a plurality of walls (walls 1, see fig. 10 that show the side and bottom view of tank 1) each comprising, in a direction of the thickness (see the annotated figure below) of the wall, a thermally insulating barrier (108) and at least one leak-tight membrane (119) that rests against the thermally insulating barrier (108) and is intended to be in contact with the liquefied gas inside the tank (see fig. 8, 10, col. 10, line 33-42; col. 11, line 46-62),
the thermally insulating barrier (108) comprising a plurality of self-supporting heat-insulating panels (108, 115, 143) which each comprise a block of polymer foam (insulating barriers are made of polyurethane foam reinforced with glass fibers, col. 12, line 23-25) and at least one plate (109) (see fig. 8, 10; col. 11, line 46-51),
Dhellemmes teaches a storage tank comprising a plurality of walls including a bottom wall, but does not explicitly teach the bottom wall comprises at least one first portion at least partially surrounding a second portion of the bottom wall, the second portion comprising at least one drain.
However, Sassi teaches a tank for storing and/or carrying an NLG comprises a bottom wall (2), wherein the bottom wall (see the annotated figure below) comprises at least one first portion (See the annotated figure below) at least partially surrounding a second portion (see the annotated figure below) of the bottom wall, the second portion comprising at least one drain (sump 10) (see ¶ 0061-0069; see also fig. 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bottom wall of Dhellemmes to have at least one first portion and second portion, wherein the first portion partially surrounding the second portion of the bottom wall, the second portion comprising at least one drain/sump space, in view of the teachings of Sassi, for the purpose of increasing the economic efficiency of the tank by reducing unpumpable volume, allowing the operator to extract more LNG than would be possible with a flat tank floor.
Dhellemmes, as modified by Sassi, further teaches a blocks of polymer foam of the second portion (see the annotated figure above, the area wherein Insulating materials are housed in the gap 35, 30) have a density greater than a density of the blocks of polymer foam of the first portion (portion where insulation 4 and 6 are located, on opposite sides of the drain 10) (¶ 0081-0084). Furthermore, official notice is taken that it is well known in the cryogenic storage tank art that the bottom wall of a storage tank is subject to greater compressive loads due to the hydrostatic head of the stored liquid, it is further well known that a sump region located in the bottom wall of a storage tank experiences localized stress concentrations and structural loading due to liquid collection and drainage geometry, and it is well known in the polymer foam insulation art that increasing foam density increases compressive strength and load-bearing capability. Therefore, it is well known engineering practice to vary insulation density locally to accommodate differing mechanical loads within a structure, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified first and second portions of wall of Dhellemmes to have a greater density at the second portions of blocks of polymer foam than the first portion, in order to provide a superior structural integrity to withstand high, concentrated stress loads, prevents fatigue from pump operations, and protects against leak risks in the most vulnerable area of the tank.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, the modified Dhellemmes teaches the tank (21) according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of walls comprises an upper wall and side walls connecting the bottom wall to the upper wall (it is considered inherently obvious and standard engineering practice for the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) storage tank of Dhellemmes to comprise an inner tank, an upper roof/wall, side walls, and a bottom wall/slab), but does not explicitly teach the density of the blocks of polymer foam of the self-supporting heat-insulating panels decreasing from the bottom wall to the upper wall. However, Examiner takes Official Notice of the following facts, which are well known in the art that hydrostatic pressure in a liquefied gas storage tank increases with depth, the bottom wall of such a tank is subjected to greater compressive loads than upper wall regions and compressive strength of polymer foam increases with increasing density. Therefore, it is a well-known engineering practice to select higher density (higher strength) materials in regions subjected to higher loads and lower density materials in regions subjected to lower loads in order to optimize structural performance, weight, and cost. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the insulation panels of Dhellemmes such that the density of the polymer foam is higher at the bottom wall and lower toward the upper wall, as a matter of routine engineering optimization based on known load distribution, in order to withstand higher hydrostatic and compressive loads at the bottom of the tank while reducing material usage and weight at the upper regions.
In regard to claim 7, the modified Dhellemmes teaches the tank according to claim 1, wherein the leak-tight membrane (119) is a primary leak-tight membrane and the thermally insulating barrier (108) is a primary thermally insulating barrier, and wherein the bottom wall (1) comprises a secondary leak-tight membrane (106) and a secondary thermally insulating barrier which comprises a plurality of self-supporting heat-insulating blocks (104) comprising tiles of polymer foam (insulating barriers are made of polyurethane foam reinforced with glass fibers, panel 102) and at least one plate (103), the secondary leak-tight membrane (106) rests against the secondary thermally insulating barrier (104), the primary thermally insulating barrier (108) rests against the secondary leak-tight membrane (106) and the primary leak-tight membrane (119) rests against the primary thermally insulating barrier (108) (see fig. 8, 10).
In regard to claim 13, the modified Dhellemmes teaches the tank according to claim 1, wherein Dhellemmes, as modified by Sassi, the bottom wall comprises a plurality of second portions (see the annotated figure of Sassi above comprising plurality of second portions).
Claim(s) 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sassi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dubar et al. (US 6,250,244 B1).
In regard to claim 14, the modified Dhellemmes teaches and a pump suction member (pump 1) configured to discharge the liquefied gas contained inside the tank from the drain (10) (see Siassi ¶ 0039, 0063), but does not explicitly teach a gravity platform comprising the liquefied gas storage tank.
However, Dubar teaches a gravity platform (601, 610, 610’) comprising a support structure for the tank (603), the support structure being made of concrete (See col. 21, line 64 to col. 22, line 31; fig. 11, 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified the storage tank system of Dhellemmes by including a concrete gravity platform to comprise the storage storage tank, in view of the teachings of Dubar, in order to provide a superior, maintenance-free durability in harsh marine environments, high resistance to fire/explosions, and excellent cryogenic performance.
In regard to claim 15, the modified Dhellemmes in view of Dubar teaches the gravity platform (601, 610, 610’) according to claim 14, comprising a support structure of the tank, the support structure being made of concrete (See Dubar col. 21, line 64 to col. 22, line 31; fig. 11, 12).
In regard to claims 16 and 17, the modified Dhellemmes in view of Dubar teaches the gravity platform according to claim 14, and a pump (1) for driving a flow of liquefied gas, but does not explicitly teach a transfer system insulated pipes arranged so as to connect the tank installed in the support structure of the gravity platform to a ship and the pump for driving a flow of liquefied gas through the insulated pipes from the tank of the gravity platform to the ship.
However, Sassi teaches a transfer system comprising insulated pipes (73, 76, 81) arranged so as to connect the tank (77) installed in the support structure to a ship (70) and a pump (1/62) for driving a flow of liquefied gas through the insulated pipes (73, 76, 81) from the tank (77) to the ship (70) (see fig. 12; ¶ 0119-0122).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified the storage tank system of Dhellemmes by including insulated pipes to transfer the liquefied gas from the tank of the gravity platform to a ship, in view of the teachings of Siassi, in to provide a means to transfer the liquefied gas to any transporting ship.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 and 8-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-6 are dependent upon claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763