DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-6 and 8-20 in the reply filed on 03/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the preliminary amendment filed on June 9, 2023 established unity of invention. This is not found persuasive. As was established in the Restriction requirement, the claims did not meet the requirement for unity of invention because at least one claim was not inventive and therefore there was no single general inventive concept. The rejection below describes how the claims are not inventive
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method claim, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/17/2026.
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 1-6 and 8-20 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 contains language directed to the method of designing the air circulation channels for the foundation. Claims 8 describes the method steps of a bottom-up construction sequence of the foundation. The incorporation of method steps into a product claim is improper. In a product claim, the final product is afforded patentable weight, not the process that is used to produce it. When such steps are improperly incorporated into a product claim is renders the scope of the claim indefinite. An appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8 and 15-19, state that “in case foundation with piles is necessary”. Are the foundation piles being claimed or not. This lack of clarity renders the scope of the claim indefinite. An appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5, 10, 11, and 20, requires a channel with a prismatic shape and a nominal longitudinal slope in order to enhance the stack effect. A prismatic shape has two identical parallel bases that are connected by sides that are either parallelograms or rectangles. A channel just has a bottom and sides. It is therefore not prismatic. What is a nominal slope? What does that mean and how does it enhance the stack effect. What is the stack effect? This lack of clarity renders the scope of the claim indefinite. An 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) 1-6 and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagschitz (U.S. 1,525,242) in view of Kuntz (U.S. 4,031,687).
In re Claim 1, Jagschitz teaches Foundation, comprising a reinforced concrete ribbed slab (2,3) structure at grade level, where the clear spaces in between the parallel webs (3) of said ribbed slab. The ribbed slab is supported by a foundation ring (4). (Figures 1,2, annotated figures)
PNG
media_image1.png
552
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jagschitz does not teach that the spaces between the webs are air circulation channels provide ambient air circulation suitable to prevent the ground underneath the foundation itself from reaching freezing temperatures.
The limitations “for cylindrical refrigerated tanks for liquified gas storage, at locations where the minimum ambient temperature is always greater than 0*C” is functional limitation directed to the intended use of the invention and is afforded only limited patentable weight in a product claim. The tanks have not been positively claimed and therefore are not afforded patentable weight.
Kuntz teaches a foundation (10) that supports a tank (16) where the foundation is elevated above the ground (14)and supported by piles (12). (Figures 1-8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jagschitz with the teachings of Kuntz. This would involve substituting one know foundation support, a foundation ring, for another know foundation support, pilings. Pilings are advantageous in areas where the underlying ground is uneven and can be driven deeply to bedrock if the surface is unsuitable to support a ring foundation. In the combination, the pilings elevate the parallel webs (2 and the channel between the above the ground, allowing access to ambient air and therefore providing ambient air circulation. Tis circulation of ambient air is further encouraged by the removal of the foundation ring at the perimeter of the ribbed base (3). In this combination, the air circulation channels [space between the webs (2)] are within the thickness of said reinforced concrete ribbed slab structure of the foundation.
Since the combination meets all the positively claim limitations of the clam , it is capable of providing the necessary bearing and structural capacity as well as preventing the ground underneath the foundation from reaching freezing. Again however, the refrigerated tank has not been positively claimed so even the limitation directed to the prevention of ground freezing temperature is only afforded limited weight.
With regard to the remaining claim limitations directed to the method of design of the air channels, as was noted above, these method step render the scope of the claim indefinite. Furthermore, In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Therefore, this methodology is not considered in the examination of the product claim
In re Claim 2, Jagschitz modified by Kuntz has been previously discussed. In the combination the air circulation channels between the webs (2) are elevated by the Kuntz pilings (12) and therefore are open to the outside ambient to allow the continuous heat transfer from ambient air - which temperature is always greater than 0C - to the inside of the foundation. Again, the tank containing the liquified gas has not been positively claimed. Had such a tank been positively claimed, the combination which meets the positively claimed limitations, would be capable of preventing the freezing of soil underneath the foundation itself.
In re Claim 3, Jagschitz modified by Kuntz has been previously discussed. Figures 1 and 2 of Jagschitz show air circulation channels [spaces between web (2)] are evenly distributed in plan and are substantially parallel to each other and to the upper face of the foundation supporting the tank bottom; where said air circulation channels are crossing the foundation from one side to the opposite one. The webs appear to be uniformly spaces so that could be considered an even distribution.
In re Claims 4 and 9, Jagschitz modified by Kuntz has been previously discussed but does not teach that the air circulation channels have a 600mm minimum dimension of their cross section to facilitate inspection and cleaning. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art made to have air circulation channels with a 600mm minimum dimension, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This spacing would assure adequate web (2) placement to assure a degree of structural reinforcement of the foundation slab.
In re Claims 5, 10, 11, and 20, Jagschitz modified by Kuntz has been previously discussed. A prismatic shape has two identical parallel bases that are connected by sides that are either parallelograms or rectangles. As was stated in the 112-Rejection above, this limitation makes no sense for a channel. The examiner notes that Figure 2 of Jagschitz does teach channels with rectangular cross sections. Further, it appears that some webs defining the channel may have slopes sides. Again, the nominal slope language mentioned in the claims is unclear, as was stated in the above 112-Rejection.
In re Claims 6 and 12-14, Jagschitz modified by Kuntz has been previously discussed. Figure 2 of Jagschitz shows channels (spaces between the webs (2)) all around the perimeter of the foundation. Therefore, it is likely that channels would be located perpendicular to a direction the wind would flow. However, should the applicant dispute this, the webs are use for structural stiffening and this would likely be needed to deal with a prevailing wind load. As webs in a honeycomb pattern, this would obviously place some webs in a direction perpendicular to the wind. This in tern meant that the space between those perpendicular webs, that channel, would also be perpendicular to the prevailing wind.
In re Claim 8 and 15-19, Jagschitz modified by Kuntz has been previously discussed. As was previously discussed, in the Jagschitz/Kuntz combination the foundation is supported by piles (12) taught by Kuntz. As was noted above these method steps are directed to a bottom up construction sequence of the foundation render the scope of the claim indefinite. Furthermore, In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the method limitations have not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Therefore, this methodology is not considered in the examination of the product claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights