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 .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement has not been received. If the Applicant is aware of any pertinent prior art or any other co-pending applications not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “13” (fig. 4).
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.
Specification
Related to the drawing objection(s) above, the specification is likewise objected to for the inconsistent referencing.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language, and/or format for an abstract of the disclosure:
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
of phrases which can be implied (“is provided”).
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 6 and 16,
the acronym/abbreviation “PTFE” is utilized without first introducing the acronym/abbreviations in the claim, thereby being inconveniently unclear (without rising to the level of a rejection as understood), and the Examiner again suggests that the first instance of an acronym/abbreviation be spelled out, such as “polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)”.
As to claim 8,
“of tank interior” lacks an article, the Examiner suggesting “of the tank interior”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 7-8, 11-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Nadin (US 20020112527 A1; hereafter “Nadin”) in view of newly cited Watson et al (US 20040211245 A1; hereafter “Watson”) with factually cited evidence* of newly cited White (US 5558245 A; hereafter “White”) & newly cited Piehler (US 6431387 B1; hereafter “Piehler”).
*Watson references each of White and Piehler for well-known storage tank sealed internal liner descriptions, see [0003]
Regarding independent claim 1,
Nadin teaches a method of inspecting a tank (storage tank) (Title “Detection Of Fluid Leak Sites In Fluid Containers”; Abstract “A method of locating a potential source of fuel leakage in an aircraft fuel tank”; [0074] “method of detecting the sites of potential leaks could be applied to a variety of containers, other than aircraft wing fuel storage tanks, for containing fluids, other than aviation fuel”) comprising:
positioning a temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16) on the tank (storage tank) near an accessible surface (surface of storage tank) of the tank (storage tank);
sealing (via sealing/tacky tape 22, backing tape, tape pads 21) near edges (edges of film 16; additional obviousness provided for proximity/range of edge) of the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16) against walls (walls of storage tank) of the tank (storage tank) to create a volume (space) between the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16) and the surface (surface of storage tank) ([0036] “Sealing tape 22 extends around the periphery of the vacuum bag 16”; “apply vacuum bag sealant tape ("tacky tape")”; [0042] “taping across two parallel strips at the top and bottom ends of the length”; [0050] “backing tape”);
pumping a vacuum (via vacuum pump) through an opening (opening in film 16 for connector 18) in the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16); and
after pumping the vacuum (via vacuum pump), detecting acoustic noise (via Ultrasonic Leak Detector; not shown) to locate leaks in the surface (surface of storage tank) ([0055] “Using the wandering microphone (not shown) of an Ultrasonic Leak Detector (not shown) carry out full leak checks around the bagged area and around each valve 17. Repeat operation 2.2 until no leaks apparent. The Ultrasonic Leak Detector converts the ultrasonic sound produced by leaking air to an audible frequency and visually displays the amplitude of the sound on a LED meter. The amplitude of the sound increases as the microphone of the Ultrasonic Leak Detector is moved towards an air leak”; [0056] “A suitable Ultrasonic Leak Detector is the VACLEAK LEQ-70 available from Tygavac Advanced Materials Ltd, Kingsway West Business Park, Moss Bridge Road, Rochdale, Lancashire, OL16 5LX”).
The Examiner acknowledges that while Nadin teaches sealing (via sealing/tacky tape 22, backing tape, tape pads 21) near edges (edges of film 16; additional obviousness provided for proximity/range of edge) of the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16), Nadin does not explicitly state item 1) that the utmost edge of the temporary liner is sealed. Nadin is silent to item 2) positioning the liner inside the tank near a surface of the tank interior.
With respect to item 1) and how close to the edge the sealing is placed:
The Examiner notes that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to re/arrange a sealing tape close/r to/at the (very) edge of a liner.
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, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to determine the workable range of where to place the seal and/or how much liner to utilize.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Nadin’s edges of the liner are sealed, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned commonsense and utilize less liner to save on material costs and/or to place Nadin’s seals close/r to/at the edges of Nadin’s liner which would provide additional advantages of providing less lip to be accidently snagged and possibly displace the seal.
Regarding item 2):
It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to re/arrange Nadin’s means of inspecting a tank accessible surface to the inside of a tank near a surface of the tank interior, when and where this interior tank surface is both accessible and in need of inspection, the Examiner noting in particular that the interior surface of tanks are commonly both of a particular concern for inspection and an accessible location (such as when a tank is empty).
Furthermore, and supporting the aforementioned assertion, Watson teaches a method of inspecting a tank (fig. 2, storage tank 1) (Title; Abstract) comprising: positioning a temporary (Examiner notes broad reasonable interpretation as temporary including replaceable as is supported by the cited factual evidence of well-known liners; additional obviousness provided) liner (fig. 2, liner 3) inside the tank (fig. 2, storage tank 1) near a surface (surface of storage tank 1) of the tank (fig. 2, storage tank 1) interior (interior of storage tank 1); positioning a spacer material (fig. 2, transmissible structure 20) inside the tank (fig. 2, storage tank 1) along the surface (surface of storage tank 1), and wherein positioning the temporary liner (fig. 2, liner 3) near the surface (surface of storage tank 1) includes positioning the temporary liner (fig. 2, liner 3) against the spacer material (fig. 2, transmissible structure 20) ([0022] “fluid flow, and thus vacuum distribution, in the interstitial space 4 is further enhanced to ensure leakage detection in remote regions of the liner 3 by the addition of a more highly transmissible structure 20 to the interstitial space 4”; [0023] “A substantially non-collapsible, transmissible structure 20 such as perforated conduit, materials or mesh such as geogrid material, ensures high transmission of vacuum therealong. Geogrids are flexible synthetic meshes, typically produced from plastics or woven polyesters which have transmissibility along the plane of the material. A suitable transmissible structure 20 is an extruded HDPE geogrid material having a rigid structure which is used to enhance fluid transmission in the interstitial space 4 and provides much faster and stronger flow therethrough, distributing consistent vacuum throughout the tank 1 without collapse”; Abstract “geogrid arranged in the interstitial space between the tank and the liner”; [0011]-[0012]; [0023]-[0025]), and wherein the temporary liner (fig. 2, liner 3) at least partially comprises a flexible material ([0003] “sealed internal geosynthetic liners are well known. The liners are described as bladder seals in U.S. Pat. No. 5,558,245 to White and as leakage protection liners in U.S. Pat. No. 6,431,387 to Piehler”; Examiner emphasizes that is flexible material comprising liners are conventionally known, at least as factually evidenced by the aforementioned references), and wherein the spacer material (fig. 2, transmissible structure 20) has a thickness sufficient to prevent the temporary liner (fig. 2, liner 3) from deforming against the surface (surface of storage tank 1) (Examiner notes that where the spacer material is present, the liner is prevented from deforming to be against the surface of the storage tank); sealing edges (edges of liner 3) of the temporary liner (fig. 2, liner 3) against walls of the tank (fig. 2, storage tank 1) to create a volume (fig. 2, interstitial space 4) between the temporary liner (fig. 2, liner 3) and the surface (surface of storage tank 1); pumping a vacuum (via vacuum pump 25) through an opening (fig. 2, vacuum port 21); and after pumping the vacuum (via vacuum pump 25), detecting acoustic noise (via acoustical equipment 30) to locate leaks in the surface (surface of storage tank 1) (Abstract “Vacuum applied to the interstitial space causes fluid to flow through the breaches or leaks in the liner and into the interstitial space. Acoustical equipment is used to detect the sounds of the fluid flow to determine whether the liner and the liner seals are intact”; [0021] “Acoustical equipment 30 (operator not illustrated) is used to provide an effective way to detect the acoustic disturbance of sound of the movement of fluid, typically air, from inside the tank 1, through a breach 3b in the liner 3 and into the interstitial space 4 as a result of the vacuum applied to the interstitial space 4. Known acoustical equipment 30 comprises directional microphones 31 that can detect the sound of air passing through channels or apertures in the liner 3 from a distance, together with sensitive head phones 32 that magnify the flow sounds. Examples of suitable acoustical leak detectors 30 are Fisher Research Laboratory models XLT-30 and M-97, available from Fisher Research Laboratory, Los Banos, Calif., USA”).
The Examiner notes that Watson states that tank liners are well-known and references each of White and Piehler in [0003] (which one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisaged as conventional options for Watson’s liner), however, Watson does not explicitly legally incorporate by reference; nevertheless the Examiner likewise takes Official Notice that tank liners are well-known and explicitly states it would be obvious to combine conventional liners—including White’s or Piehler’s liners—for the expected advantage of using known tank liners with well-known properties that are readily available and that are easily replaced.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Watson’s application of leak detection to internal interstitial space within a fluid storage tank (including the aforementioned Official Notice pertaining to Watson’s statement of well-known replaceable liners which lacked explicit legal incorporation by reference) with Nadin’s leak inspection method of interstitial space that could be applied to a variety of containers, thereby providing increased utility and marketability by explicitly including application thereto. Complimentarily, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nadin’s leak inspection method with the conventional tank of Watson for the expected benefit of providing leak inspection of Watson’s tank through use of temporary liners for situations where secondary containment is unnecessary thereby providing a substantially similar leak inspection method meeting substantially similar standards without requiring the costs and robustness of fully installing a secondary containment liner thereby being a cheaper alternative which can be used for spot checking the primary containment internal surfaces.
Regarding independent claim 11,
Nadin teaches a system for inspecting a tank (storage tank) (Title “Detection Of Fluid Leak Sites In Fluid Containers”; Abstract “A method of locating a potential source of fuel leakage in an aircraft fuel tank”; [0074] “method of detecting the sites of potential leaks could be applied to a variety of containers, other than aircraft wing fuel storage tanks, for containing fluids, other than aviation fuel”) comprising:
a temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16) sized (sizable; additional obviousness analysis provided) for positioning on the tank (storage tank) near an accessible surface (surface of storage tank) of the tank (storage tank) and including an opening (opening in film 16 for connector 18) with a nozzle (nozzle of vacuum hose connector 18; see also figs. 5J & 5K);
a seal or a sealing material (figs. 3-4, sealing/tacky tape 22, tape pads 21; see also fig. 5G backing tape), for sealing near edges (edges of film 16; additional obviousness provided for proximity/range of edge) of the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16) against walls (walls of storage tank) of the tank (storage tank) to create a volume (space) between the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16) and the surface (surface of storage tank) ([0036] “Sealing tape 22 extends around the periphery of the vacuum bag 16”; “apply vacuum bag sealant tape ("tacky tape")”; [0042] “taping across two parallel strips at the top and bottom ends of the length”; [0050] “backing tape”);
a pump (vacuum pump) ([0057] “dedicated vacuum pump”) for pumping a vacuum through an opening (opening in film 16 for connector 18) in the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16) ([0014] “removing the air”; [0015] “measuring the vacuum”; [0022]; [0036] “vacuum valves” and “vacuum valve hose connector”) and
an acoustic detector (not shown; ultrasonic leak detector) for detecting acoustic noise to locate leaks in the surface (surface of storage tank) ([0055] “Using the wandering microphone (not shown) of an Ultrasonic Leak Detector (not shown) carry out full leak checks around the bagged area and around each valve 17. Repeat operation 2.2 until no leaks apparent. The Ultrasonic Leak Detector converts the ultrasonic sound produced by leaking air to an audible frequency and visually displays the amplitude of the sound on a LED meter. The amplitude of the sound increases as the microphone of the Ultrasonic Leak Detector is moved towards an air leak”; [0056] “A suitable Ultrasonic Leak Detector is the VACLEAK LEQ-70 available from Tygavac Advanced Materials Ltd, Kingsway West Business Park, Moss Bridge Road, Rochdale, Lancashire, OL16 5LX”).
The Examiner acknowledges that while Nadin teaches sealing (via sealing/tacky tape 22, backing tape, tape pads 21) near edges (edges of film 16; additional obviousness provided for proximity/range of edge) of the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16), Nadin does not explicitly state item 1) that the utmost edge of the temporary liner is sealed. Nadin is silent to item 2) positioning the liner inside the tank near a surface of the tank interior.
With respect to item 1) and how close to the edge the sealing is placed:
The Examiner notes that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to re/arrange a sealing tape close/r to/at the (very) edge of a liner.
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, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to determine the workable range of where to place the seal and/or how much liner to utilize.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Nadin’s edges of the liner are sealed, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned commonsense and utilize less liner to save on material costs and/or to place Nadin’s seals close/r to/at the edges of Nadin’s liner which would provide additional advantages of providing less lip to be accidently snagged and possibly displace the seal.
Regarding item 2):
It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to re/arrange Nadin’s means of inspecting a tank accessible surface to the inside of a tank near a surface of the tank interior, when and where this interior tank surface is both accessible and in need of inspection, the Examiner noting in particular that the interior surface of tanks are commonly both of a particular concern for inspection and an accessible location (such as when a tank is empty).
Furthermore, and supporting the aforementioned assertion, Watson teaches a method of inspecting a tank (fig. 2, storage tank 1) and the associated apparatus therefor comprising: a system for inspecting a tank (fig. 2, storage tank 1) comprising: a temporary (Examiner notes broad reasonable interpretation as temporary including replaceable as is supported by the cited factual evidence of well-known liners; additional obviousness provided) liner (fig. 2, liner 3) sized for positioning inside the tank (fig. 2, storage tank 1) near a surface (surface of storage tank 1) of the tank (fig. 2, storage tank 1) interior (interior of storage tank 1) and including an opening (fig. 2, vacuum port 21) with a nozzle (not shown in fig. 1; see fig. 1, port 10) ( [0019] “As shown in FIG. 2, the vacuum source 25 is in fluid communication with the interstitial space 4 through at least one vacuum port 21 including a pre-existing and conventional monitoring port 10 of FIG. 1"); a spacer material (fig. 2, transmissible structure 20) for separating the temporary liner (fig. 2, liner 3) from the surface (surface of storage tank 1) ([0022] “fluid flow, and thus vacuum distribution, in the interstitial space 4 is further enhanced to ensure leakage detection in remote regions of the liner 3 by the addition of a more highly transmissible structure 20 to the interstitial space 4”; [0023] “A substantially non-collapsible, transmissible structure 20 such as perforated conduit, materials or mesh such as geogrid material, ensures high transmission of vacuum therealong. Geogrids are flexible synthetic meshes, typically produced from plastics or woven polyesters which have transmissibility along the plane of the material. A suitable transmissible structure 20 is an extruded HDPE geogrid material having a rigid structure which is used to enhance fluid transmission in the interstitial space 4 and provides much faster and stronger flow therethrough, distributing consistent vacuum throughout the tank 1 without collapse”; Abstract “geogrid arranged in the interstitial space between the tank and the liner”; [0011]-[0012]; [0023]-[0025]); wherein the temporary liner (fig. 2, liner 3) at least partially comprises a flexible material, and the spacer material (fig. 2, transmissible structure 20) has a thickness sufficient to prevent the temporary liner (fig. 2, liner 3) from deforming against the surface (surface of storage tank 1) ([0003] “sealed internal geosynthetic liners are well known. The liners are described as bladder seals in U.S. Pat. No. 5,558,245 to White and as leakage protection liners in U.S. Pat. No. 6,431,387 to Piehler”; Examiner emphasizes that is flexible material comprising liners are conventionally known, at least as factually evidenced by the aforementioned references); a seal or a sealing material (liner seals), for sealing edges (edges of liner 3) of the temporary liner (fig. 2, liner 3) against walls of the tank (fig. 2, storage tank 1) to create a volume (fig. 2, interstitial space 4) between the temporary liner (fig. 2, liner 3) and the surface (surface of storage tank 1); a pump (fig. 2, vacuum pump 25) for pumping a vacuum through an opening (fig. 2, vacuum port 21); and an acoustic detector (fig. 2, acoustical equipment 30) for detecting acoustic noise to locate leaks in the surface (surface of storage tank 1) (Abstract “Vacuum applied to the interstitial space causes fluid to flow through the breaches or leaks in the liner and into the interstitial space. Acoustical equipment is used to detect the sounds of the fluid flow to determine whether the liner and the liner seals are intact”; [0021] “Acoustical equipment 30 (operator not illustrated) is used to provide an effective way to detect the acoustic disturbance of sound of the movement of fluid, typically air, from inside the tank 1, through a breach 3b in the liner 3 and into the interstitial space 4 as a result of the vacuum applied to the interstitial space 4. Known acoustical equipment 30 comprises directional microphones 31 that can detect the sound of air passing through channels or apertures in the liner 3 from a distance, together with sensitive head phones 32 that magnify the flow sounds. Examples of suitable acoustical leak detectors 30 are Fisher Research Laboratory models XLT-30 and M-97, available from Fisher Research Laboratory, Los Banos, Calif., USA”).
The Examiner notes that Watson states that tank liners are well-known and references each of White and Piehler in [0003] (which one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisaged as conventional options for Watson’s liner), however, Watson does not explicitly legally incorporate by reference; nevertheless the Examiner likewise takes Official Notice that tank liners are well-known and explicitly states it would be obvious to combine conventional liners—including White’s or Piehler’s liners—for the expected advantage of using known tank liners with well-known properties that are readily available and that are easily replaced.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Watson’s application of leak detection to internal interstitial space within a fluid storage tank (including the aforementioned Official Notice pertaining to Watson’s statement of well-known replaceable liners which lacked explicit legal incorporation by reference) with Nadin’s apparatus and associated leak inspection method of interstitial space that could be applied to a variety of containers, thereby providing increased utility and marketability by explicitly including application thereto. Complimentarily, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nadin’s apparatus and associated leak inspection method with the conventional tank of Watson for the expected benefit of providing leak inspection of Watson’s tank through use of temporary liners for situations where secondary containment is unnecessary thereby providing a substantially similar leak inspection method meeting substantially similar standards without requiring the costs and robustness of fully installing a secondary containment liner thereby being a cheaper alternative which can be used for spot checking the primary containment internal surfaces.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
Nadin teaches further comprising:
positioning a spacer material (figs. 3-4, breather material 20) inside the tank (storage tank) along the surface (surface of storage tank), and wherein positioning the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16) near the surface (surface of storage tank) includes positioning the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16) against the spacer material (figs. 3-4, breather material 20). The Examiner additionally notes that Watson likewise teaches, see citations for independent claim.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 11,
Nadin teaches further comprising:
a spacer material (figs. 3-4, breather material 20) for separating the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16) from the surface (surface of storage tank). The Examiner additionally notes that Watson likewise teaches, see citations for independent claim.
Regarding claim 3 and claim 13, where claim 3 depends on claim 2 and where claim 13 depends on claim 12,
Nadin teaches wherein:
the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16) at least partially comprises a flexible material, and (wherein) the spacer material (figs. 3-4, breather material 20) has a thickness sufficient (at once so envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided) to prevent the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16) from deforming against the surface (surface of storage tank) (Examiner emphasizes that the film is prevented from deforming to move against the surface by the breather material—i.e., Nadin’s liner and flexible material is operable for the vacuumed interstitial space). The Examiner additionally notes that Watson likewise teaches, see citations for independent claim.
With further respect to the sufficient thickness:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05(I), In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the present it is the Examiner’s position that the claimed sufficient thickness would overlap with the at once envisaged range of thickness of the prior art.
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, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize the thickness of Nadin’s spacer for the intended purpose of the interstitial space being suitable for vacuum pressure inspection.
It has been held that a mere change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCP A 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), and Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to change the size of the thickness of Nadin’s spacer.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Nadin reasonably teaches sufficient thickness, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so optimize the thickness of Nadin’s spacer for the aforementioned motivation of suitably for the inspection.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 14, where claim 4 depends on claim 2 and where claim 14 depends on claim 12,
Nadin does not teach wherein: the spacer material comprises a grid.
Watson teaches wherein: the spacer material (fig. 2, transmissible structure 20) comprises a grid (Abstract “geogrid arranged in the interstitial space between the tank and the liner”; [0011]-[0012]; [0023]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Watson’s grid spacer for Nadin’s spacer thereby being beneficial for the application of leak detection to internal interstitial space within a fluid storage tank by providing increased rigidity and more robust interstitial space within ample space for high transmission of fluid pressure.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1,
Nadin teaches detecting acoustic noise (via Ultrasonic Leak Detector; not shown) to locate leaks in the surface (surface of storage tank) using an ultrasonic microphone positioned outside of the volume (space) ([0055] “Using the wandering microphone (not shown) of an Ultrasonic Leak Detector (not shown) carry out full leak checks around the bagged area and around each valve 17. Repeat operation 2.2 until no leaks apparent. The Ultrasonic Leak Detector converts the ultrasonic sound produced by leaking air to an audible frequency and visually displays the amplitude of the sound on a LED meter. The amplitude of the sound increases as the microphone of the Ultrasonic Leak Detector is moved towards an air leak. This step is not essential but is a useful simple pre-check for air leaks which can be used to determine whether subsequent steps need be carried out”).
Nadin is silent to wherein ultrasonic microphone is directional.
Watson teaches detecting acoustic noise further comprises using a directional ultrasonic microphone (fig. 2, acoustical equipment 30) positioned outside of the volume (fig. 2, interstitial space 4) ([0021] Known acoustical equipment 30 comprises directional microphones 31 that can detect the sound of air passing through channels or apertures in the liner 3 from a distance, together with sensitive head phones 32 that magnify the flow sounds. Examples of suitable acoustical leak detectors 30 are Fisher Research Laboratory models XLT-30 and M-97, available from Fisher Research Laboratory, Los Banos, Calif., USA”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute/combine Watson’s directionality ultrasonic microphone design for Nadin’s ultrasonic microphone, thereby providing directional sensitivity, proximity effect, and/or isolation of a particular leak sound/position from background noise and/or other leak sound/positions and thus saving time and/or making the microphone easier for personnel to utilize with increased confidence and/or less effort.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 7,
Nadin as modified by Watson reasonably suggests wherein:
the surface (surface of storage tank) is a bottom surface (surface of storage tank) of tank (storage tank) interior (interior of storage tank) (Examiner notes in particular that Watson teaches an internal liner, shows in fig. 1 that internal liners include over the bottom surface, shows in fig. 2 a portion of the vacuum transmission path for the bottom surface liner, and further discusses in [0004] that “the potential for a leak is highest at seams and seals around discontinuities, such as support beams, sumps, stands, gauge boards, and other structures supported within the tank or penetrations in the internal floor or walls”; therefore, an ordinary artisan would at once envisage therefrom that the surface may include a bottom surface).
The Examiner acknowledges that neither Watson nor Nadi explicitly states in the written disclosure that the surface is a bottom surface of the tank interior.
However:
It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to re/arrange leak inspection to include the bottom surface of a storage tank.
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, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to include the bottom surface of a storage tank as part of the surface range inspected, the Examiner emphasizing that internal floors are known in the art as a location range that has a known high potential for leaks as evidenced above by Watson.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is conventional to include liners over the bottom internal surface of a storage tank, and that is it likewise conventional to inspect the internal bottom surface of a storage tank for leaks.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that the combined prior art leak inspection includes leak inspection of the bottom internal surface of the storage tank, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conventional knowledge that internal storage tank surfaces are prone to leaks with Nadin’s (and Watson’s) leak inspection thereby providing inspection of a surface that is known to have a high potential for leaks and thereby providing useful feedback therefor for possible needs for remediation before catastrophic failure and thus saving on potential loss of product, reducing possible environmental issues from leakage as well as any associated cleanup, and/or earlier detection enabling simpler repairing instead of full-replacement or more costly intensive repairs thereof.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 11,
Nadin teaches wherein: the acoustic detector (not shown; ultrasonic leak detector) includes frequency translation electronics for translating audio signals detected in the ultrasonic frequency range to within the human audible range ([0055] “Using the wandering microphone (not shown) of an Ultrasonic Leak Detector (not shown) carry out full leak checks around the bagged area and around each valve 17. Repeat operation 2.2 until no leaks apparent. The Ultrasonic Leak Detector converts the ultrasonic sound produced by leaking air to an audible frequency and visually displays the amplitude of the sound on a LED meter. The amplitude of the sound increases as the microphone of the Ultrasonic Leak Detector is moved towards an air leak”; [0056] “A suitable Ultrasonic Leak Detector is the VACLEAK LEQ-70 available from Tygavac Advanced Materials Ltd, Kingsway West Business Park, Moss Bridge Road, Rochdale, Lancashire, OL16 5LX”).
Claim 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Nadin in view of newly cited Watson et al with factually cited evidence of newly cited White & newly cited Piehler and in further view of newly cited Lillywhite et al (US 4971214 A; hereafter “Lilywhite”).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 15, where claim 5 depends on claim 2 and where claim 15 depends on claim 12,
Nadin does not teach wherein: the spacer material comprises sand.
However:
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 of obvious design choice, see MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to choose a material suitable for the intended purpose of filling the void of an interstitial space and which provides support and can be a transmission path for the pressure inspection.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that sand is a conventional material utilized in interstitial bottom spaces of tanks.
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned conventionality of sand in the interstitial bottom space of tanks, Lillywhite teaches wherein the spacer material comprises sand (Title “Double Shell Thickener”; Abstract “A double-walled thickener tank has an outer shell bottom and an inner shell bottom spaced to form interconnected or a discrete void space therebetwee. An incompressible load-carrying permeable material such as oil-impregnated sand is compacted in the void space(s) to provide a support for the inner shell bottom”; second paragraph of Summary of the Invention “sand or other inert granular material is filled and compacted between the radial and annular support bars which space the outer and inner shell bottom from each other”; fourth paragraph of Summary of the Invention “material (such as oil impregnated sand) with or without bearing bars therein”; col. 5, ll. 7-16 “In the event that additional wall strength is required, it is however contemplated that an incompressible yet permeable material such as sand or a perforated honeycomb structural insert could be provided in this void in the wall”; col. 5, ll. 22-42 “use of double-wall construction with sand (or other suitable load-carrying, permeable material) therebetween enables the upper surface 19 of the bottom of the tank to assume the desired shape” and “use of a flowable, yet load-carrying material such as sand between the inner liner and outer shell allows the necessary dimensional accommodation between the desired upper conical surface and lower planar approximation thereto”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute and/or combine Lillywhite’s sand spacer for an interstitial space for/with Nadin’s spacer material for an interstitial space thereby providing Lillywhite’s aforementioned advantages including providing incompressible support and load carrying properties.
Claim 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Nadin in view of newly cited Watson et al with factually cited evidence of newly cited White & newly cited Piehler and in further view of newly cited Textiles Coated International (NPL High Temperature Geomembrane Liners; hereafter “TCI”).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 16, where claim 6 depends on claim 1 and where claim 16 depends on claim 11,
Nadin teaches the temporary liner (figs. 3-4, bagging film 16).
Nadin is silent to wherein the temporary liner comprises PTFE.
However:
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 of obvious design choice, see MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to choose a material suitable for the intended purpose of providing a liner.
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, TCI teaches a temporary (at once envisaged as so usable) liner comprising PTFE (Title “High Temperature Geomembrane Liners”; First paragraph “TCI’s EverLiner™ is a major breakthrough for use as secondary containment liners, geomembrane liners, PFAS Containment Liners, geotextiles, and spill containment materials for corrosive containment and high temperature applications. Unlike competitive materials, this unique, 100% PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) material is guaranteed to be corrosion free, even in the most challenging applications. Some of the benefits of our EverLiner™ material include its multi-directional strength, UV resistance, and stress crack immunity. This rugged material has excellent tear and puncture resistance and it can be easily patched if damaged during installation using a simple and quick sealing process” see also Table comparison to other liners on second page).
In view of the above, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute TCI’s PTFE liner for Nadin’s liner thereby providing a commercially available and well-document product with aforementioned benefits including having multi-directional strength and stress crack immunity and being ruggedly resistant to tear/puncture and/or being able to be simply/quickly sealed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9-10 is/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.
Regarding each of claims 9 and 10,
when this application is finally acted upon and allowed (i.e., the Notice of Allowance), the Examiner will determine, at the same time, whether the reasons why the application is being allowed are sufficiently evident from the record (see MPEP § 1302.14(I)). For now, the Examiner preliminary notes that to meet the claim limitations requires using the invention as a roadmap to find prior art and then further as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention as a whole therefrom requiring more than ordinary skill and knowledge in the art at the time the invention was filed to hindsightly so recreate. See Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005), Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The Examiner further suggests that the subject matter of method claim 9 could be included into the independent apparatus claim as follows: “wherein the seal or sealing material for sealing the edges of the temporary liner includes an applied airtight spray foam that was sprayed along said edges and allowed to dry”. The inclusion of the aforementioned additional limitation in further combination with the remainder of the claim is considered by the Examiner to patentably distinguish the apparatus claim over the art of record in this application and has been presented to Applicant for consideration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 10NOV2025