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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the valves (claim 1) and fastening elements (claim 4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to because they are not proper black and white line drawings. All figures are faded/shaded likely due to poor transmission, and several figures contain improper photographic and/or hand-drawn elements. 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.
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, 2, 4, 8 and 9 (and all claim that depend therefrom) 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 9 all recite “assembling” and “disassembling the temporary cargo system.” There are two issues with this language:
It is unclear which components are intended to be considered part of the “temporary cargo system.” While the claim recites “a temporary cargo system comprising components that include a main deck pipeline to which adapters and portable hoses with shut-off valves are connected,” it is not clear which other components of the system are included, and which components (recited or otherwise) need to be assembled or disassembled to meet the claim as recited.
It is further unclear what level of disassembly is intended. This could cover anything from a breakdown to individual piece parts or a single disconnection.
For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as making any connections or disconnections in the cargo system.
Claim 2 line 2 recites “a flexible insert” and line 3 recites “a cargo tank.” It is unclear if these are the same flexible insert and cargo tank recited in parent claim 1.
Claim 2 line 3 recites “the flexible insert has a shape and size that correspond to those of a cargo tank, and a shape, size, and arrangement of the inlet opening that corresponds to the openings of an upper cargo tank hatch provided with flanges.” It is unclear if the flexible insert or the cargo tank hatch has the flanges.
Claim 4 line 2 recites “the flexible insert comprises flanges” while line 3 recites “corresponding flanges of the opening in an upper cargo hatch.” It is unclear if either of these are the same flanges recited in parent claim 2.
Claim 4 line 4 recites “an upper cargo hatch.” It is unclear if this is the claim “upper cargo tank hatch” recited in parent claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts US 4,230,061 in view of Braaten GB 1,357,999, Hirose US 5,375,549, Hallot US 9,919,911 and Richards US 5,381,751.
Regarding claim 1, Roberts teaches a method of transshipping liquid cargo in cargo tanks of a tanker, the method comprising loading and unloading of the liquid cargo, wherein the loading of the liquid cargo comprises:
arranging flexible inserts 13 in the cargo tanks 12, the flexible inserts having inlet openings 13A provided in an upper part thereof, and being attached at corresponding openings 14 of upper cargo hatches 15 of the cargo tanks, and unfolding the flexible inserts in the cargo tanks (column 3, lines 46-50); and
filling the liquid cargo through the upper cargo hatches of the cargo tanks into the flexible inserts so as to load the liquid cargo into the cargo tanks.
PNG
media_image1.png
284
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Roberts Figure 1
Roberts does not teach that the flexible inserts have inlet openings and outlet openings. Hirose teaches a flexible cargo tank insert 7 comprising separate inlet and outlet opening (with valves 17, 18, 21, 22; column 3 line 50- column 4 line 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport method of Roberts with separate inlet and outlet openings as taught by Hirose in order to allow air to escape through an unobstructed port while material is being introduced through a separate outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport method of Roberts with valves in the filling ports/lines as taught by Hirose in order to ensure supply can be stopped and tanks sealed when desired.
Roberts does not teach lowering the portable hoses into the inlet openings of the flexible inserts arranged inside the cargo tanks; wherein the unloading of the liquid cargo comprises: Utilizing a temporary cargo system including the main deck pipeline to which adapters and portable hoses with shut-off valves are connected, and submersible pumps attached to ends of the portable hoses; lowering the portable hoses with the submersible pumps attached thereto into the flexible inserts through the upper cargo hatches of the cargo tanks; pumping the liquid cargo from the flexible inserts to intended reservoirs at a port using the submersible pumps so as to unload the liquid cargo from the cargo tanks.
Braaten teaches a flexible insert 4 in a cargo tank 3 of a tanker 1, in which the upper cargo hatch 5 has an opening 6, wherein the unloading of the liquid cargo comprises:
utilizing a temporary cargo system including a main deck pipeline (whatever the main feed is coming from) to which adapters (whatever is between the pump, hose or other components) and portable hoses 8 are connected, and submersible pumps 7 attached to ends of the portable hoses;
lowering the portable hoses with the submersible pumps attached thereto into the flexible inserts through the upper cargo hatches 5 of the cargo tanks;
pumping the liquid cargo from the flexible inserts to intended reservoirs at a port using the submersible pumps so as to unload the liquid cargo from the cargo tanks (page 2, lines 43-53).
PNG
media_image2.png
317
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Braaten Figure 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport method of Roberts by lowering a submersible pump on a hose as taught by Braaten in order to effectively remove all contents through the top opening. If applicant does not agree that Roberts teaches an upper cargo hatch, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport method of Roberts with a smaller port inside of a larger hatch as taught by Braaten in order to enable the cargo hold to be opened to a variety of degrees for different access needs.
Roberts does not teach assembling a temporary cargo system comprising components that include a main deck pipeline to which adapters and portable hoses with shut-off valves are connected; or disassembling the temporary cargo system before and after the loading/unloading of the liquid cargo. Hallot teaches a system for transferring fluids between ships in which a series of pipes are assembled for use, then disassembled for cleaning and storage after use (column 4, lines 36-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport method of Roberts by assembling and disassembling the transfer lines as taught by Hallot in order to ensure that they can be cleaned and safely stored between uses.
Roberts does not teach removing the flexible inserts from the cargo tanks and sending the flexible inserts for disposal at the port of unloading. Richards teaches a disposable flexible insert 40 in a cargo tank 14 of a tanker 10 (column 8 line 65- column 9 line 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport method of Roberts by using (and discarding) a disposable insert as taught by Richards in order to reduce the chances of contamination and ensure that the liner is always in good condition.
The combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 2, Roberts, Braaten, Hirose, Hallot and Richards teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Roberts also teaches that when a flexible insert 13 is unfolded, the flexible insert has a shape and size that correspond to those of a cargo tank 12, and a shape, size, and arrangement of the inlet opening 13A that corresponds to the openings 14 of an upper cargo tank hatch 15 provided with flanges 13B, 16.
Regarding claim 3, Roberts, Braaten, Hirose, Hallot and Richards teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Roberts also teaches that the flexible insert 13 is made of a plastic suitable for use with the liquid cargo to be transported (column 3, lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 4, Roberts, Braaten, Hirose, Hallot and Richards teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Roberts also teaches that the flexible insert 13 comprises flanges 13B with openings 13A configured to attach to fastening elements provided in corresponding flanges 16 of the openings 14 of an upper cargo hatch.
Regarding claim 7, Roberts, Braaten, Hirose, Hallot and Richards teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Roberts does not explicitly teach that the flexible inserts are unfolded in the cargo tanks manually, however the examiner is taking official notice that it is well-known in the art that inserts can be installed manually. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to manually install the inserts in order to operate the system without the need to design specialty automation equipment.
Regarding claim 8, Roberts, Braaten, Hirose, Hallot and Richards teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Roberts does not explicitly teach that the temporary cargo system is assembled concurrently with the flexible inserts being arranged in the cargo tanks and attached at the corresponding openings of upper cargo hatches, and the flexible inserts being unfolded in the cargo tanks, however the examiner is taking official notice that it is well-known in the art that multiple tasks can be performed simultaneously. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform separate tasks concurrently in order to reduce the time required to accomplish all steps of the method.
Regarding claim 9, Roberts, Braaten, Hirose, Hallot and Richards teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Roberts does not teach purging one or more of the components of the temporary cargo system after disassembling the temporary cargo system, after the loading of the liquid cargo or after the unloading of the liquid cargo; and placing the components of the temporary cargo system in designated storage areas. Hallot teaches a system for transferring fluids between ships in which a series of pipes are assembled for use, then disassembled, purged and stored after use (column 4, lines 36-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport method of Roberts by assembling and disassembling, purging and storing the transfer lines as taught by Hallot in order to ensure that they are cleaned and safely stored until the next use.
Regarding claim 10, Roberts, Braaten, Hirose, Hallot and Richards teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Roberts also teaches transporting the tanker to the port before the unloading of the liquid cargo, since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Claim 5 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts US 4,230,061 in view of Braaten GB 1,357,999, Hirose US 5,375,549, Hallot US 9,919,911, Richards US 5,381,751 and Grimm US 9,555,870.
Regarding claim 5, Roberts, Braaten, Hirose, Hallot and Richards teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Roberts does not teach that the flexible insert is provided with an integrated cargo heating system. Grimm teaches a cargo barge 20 in which the cargo-carrying volume 221 comprises a heating system 1060. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport method of Roberts with a cargo heating system as taught by Grimm in order to maintain a desired temperature of contents when needed.
Claim 6 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts US 4,230,061 in view of Braaten GB 1,357,999, Hirose US 5,375,549, Hallot US 9,919,911, Richards US 5,381,751, Grimm US 9,555,870 and Legare US 4,996,970.
Regarding claim 6, Roberts, Braaten, Hirose, Hallot and Richards teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Neither Roberts nor Grimm teach that the integrated cargo heating system is a flexible tube integrated in the flexible insert, the flexible tube configured to be connected to an onboard heat transfer system. Legare teaches a heating system for a plastic bladder 16 which comprises a flexible tube 20 integrated in the bladder, the flexible tube configured to be connected to an onboard heat transfer system 26. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the heating system of Roberts and Grimm with a flexible tube integrated into the bladder as taught by Legare in order to apply the closer to the contents and/or enable quick replacement/removal of the heating system when not needed.
Claim 7 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts US 4,230,061 in view of Braaten GB 1,357,999, Hirose US 5,375,549, Hallot US 9,919,911, Richards US 5,381,751 and Jones US 3,167,209.
Regarding claim 7, Roberts, Braaten, Hirose, Hallot and Richards teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Roberts does not explicitly teach that the flexible inserts are unfolded in the cargo tanks manually and/or using portable onboard fans. Jones teaches a method of installing a flexible insert 10 into a cargo tank 12 manually and/or using portable fans 106. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the installation method of Roberts by installing the insert manually and/or using fans as taught by Jones in order to operate the system without the need to design specialty automation equipment, and/or use fans to simplify the process and ensure the insert is properly placed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the fan/compressor on board the vessel in order to be closer to the insert and prevent line losses, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
David US 4,484,533 teaches a flexible tank insert that can be removed and stored when not in use.
Fuquan US 5,921,421 teaches a flexible tank insert that is filled by lowering tubes into the insert.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615