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 .
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) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, 17-19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB2453865 to Cooke (“Cooke”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0233107 to Harnois et al. (“Harnois”).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, Cooke discloses a cover (Fig. 2, Fig. 5-7c) capable for use for a tank shell of a storage tank, the cover including a joint assembly and comprising: a plurality of radial panels 14a, 14b, wherein each panel is configured to be affixed to a compression ring 1 at a first end and is configured to be affixed to an upper edge of the tank shell at a second end; wherein radial edges of adjacent panels (beaded radial edges, see ends of 14a, 14b in Fig. 7a) of the cover are bent outward; a plurality of radial structural members 8a, 13a each comprising a slot (central slot where 8b, 13b is inserted); a plurality of radial battens 8b, 13b, wherein a corresponding batten 8b is configured to fit into the corresponding slot (central slot where 8b, 13b is inserted); and wherein the battens comprise a plurality of screw chases (slots where fasteners are inserted along the batten, pg. 6, ln 17-21); and a plurality of fasteners (not labeled, see Figs. 7a-7c and pg. 6, ln 17-21), wherein the fasteners are configured to be inserted into the structural members and the screw chases, from inner surfaces of the structural members to secure the battens against the structural members, and the fasteners and the screw chases are sized such that the fasteners are contained within the battens.
Cooke does not disclose that radial edges of adjacent panels of the cover are bent inwards and configured to be fitted into a corresponding slot of a corresponding structural member; and wherein the corresponding structural member comprises a corresponding pair of vertical plates extending radially and perpendicular to an inner surface of the corresponding structural member; and wherein the radial edges of the adjacent panels are located between the corresponding batten and the corresponding structural member; and corresponding fasteners are configured to be inserted, into the corresponding structural member and corresponding screw chases, from between the corresponding pair of vertical plates of the corresponding structural member.
Harnois discloses a cover wherein edges (Harnois 250, 252) of adjacent panels of a cover are bent inwards and configured to be fitted into a corresponding slot (Harnois 220) of a corresponding structural member (Harnois 210); and wherein the corresponding structural member comprises a corresponding pair of vertical plates (spaced apart side walls of 210) extending radially and perpendicular to an inner surface (wall defining 220) of the corresponding structural member; and wherein the radial edges of the adjacent panels are located between a corresponding batten (Harnois 230) and the corresponding structural member (Harnois 210); and corresponding fasteners (Harnois 276) are configured to be inserted, into the corresponding structural member and corresponding screw chases, from between the corresponding pair of vertical plates of the corresponding structural member to provide a panel seated into a structural member without protruding thus improving durability.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cover of Cooke to have the radial edges of adjacent panels of the cover bent inwards and configured to be fitted into a corresponding slot of a corresponding structural member; and wherein the corresponding structural member comprises a corresponding pair of vertical plates extending radially and perpendicular to an inner surface of the corresponding structural member; and wherein the radial edges of the adjacent panels are located between the corresponding batten and the corresponding structural member; and corresponding fasteners are configured to be inserted, into the corresponding structural member and corresponding screw chases, from between the corresponding pair of vertical plates of the corresponding structural member as taught in Harnois with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably provide a panel seated into a structural member without protruding thus improving durability by increasing resistance to wind load. Moreover, the method step of claim 17 would necessarily be performed when assembling the structure of claim 1.
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 19, Cooke modified by Harnois discloses that the radial edges of the adjacent panels are formed along a spline.
Regarding claim 5, Cooke modified by Harnois discloses the panels 14a, 14b being configured to be affixed to the upper edge of the tank shell comprises the panels being configured to be affixed to supports on the upper edge of the tank shell.
Regarding claims 6, 14, 21, and 22, Cooke modified by Harnois does not disclose that the plurality of structural members, and the plurality of battens are manufactured from aluminum or wherein the vertical panels are configured to be welded to the structural member.
Harnois discloses a cover wherein a plurality of structural members and plurality of battens are manufactured from aluminum (Harnois, par 0011).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use aluminum, since 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. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Aluminum vertical plates are configured to be welded to an aluminum structural member.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Cooke modified by Harnois does not disclose that the cover is a dome-shaped cover, the plurality of panels, the plurality of structural members, and the plurality of battens are curved, and the plurality of fasteners being affixed from concave surfaces of the structural members.
Harnois discloses a cover (Harnois, Fig. 1) that is a dome-shaped cover, the plurality of panels (Harnois 272), the plurality of structural members (Harnois 210), and the plurality of battens (Harnois 230) are curved, and the plurality of fasteners being affixed from concave surfaces of the structural members.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cover of Cooke to have the cover be a dome-shaped cover, with the plurality of panels, the plurality of structural members, and the plurality of battens being curved, and the plurality of fasteners being affixed from concave surfaces of the structural members as taught in Harnois with a reasonable expectation of success because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the components. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 9, Cooke modified by Harnois discloses that each of the plurality of fasteners is sized to not extend out of exposed surfaces of the battens.
Regarding claim 11, Cooke modified by Harnois discloses that the two panels correspond to: flat, radial panels of a flat, circular cover.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooke in view of Harnois as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,984,843 to Tak (“Tak”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Cooke modified by Harnois does not disclose gaskets in interfaces between the battens and the panels.
Tak discloses a domed cover comprising gaskets (Tak 310) in interfaces between the battens (Tak 300) and the panels (Tak A) to prevent ingress of snow and rainwater from permeating into the cover (Tak col 4, ln 18-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cover of Cooke to have gaskets in interfaces between the battens and the panels as taught in Tak with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably prevent ingress of snow and rainwater from permeating into the cover.
Claim(s) 4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooke in view of Harnois as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GB723894 to McLean et al. (“McLean”).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Cooke modified by Harnois discloses attaching respective second edges of the panels 14a, 14b to supports on an upper edge of the tank shell 11 but does not disclose that the panels being affixed to the compression ring comprise the panels being welded to the compression ring.
McLean discloses a cover wherein panels are affixed to a compression ring comprise the panels being welded to the compression ring (pg 1, ln 21-42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cover of Cooke to have the panels being affixed to the compression ring comprise the panels being welded to the compression ring as taught in McLean with a reasonable expectation of success because it would create a fused connection to create a unitary structure.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooke in view of Harnois as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,433,728 (“Attwell”).
Regarding claim 7, Cooke modified by Harnois does not disclose that at least a portion of an upper surface of the cover comprises a protective panel.
Attwell discloses a cover wherein at least a portion of an upper surface of the cover comprises a protective panel (Attwell 16) to help repel water (Attwell; col 2, ln 40-41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cover of Cooke to have at least a portion of an upper surface of the cover comprise a protective panel as taught in Attwell with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably protect the cover from moisture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 17-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Newly applied reference to Harnois is used to each additional new structure in the amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T CAJILIG whose telephone number is (571)272-8143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/CHRISTINE T CAJILIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633