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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 17 constitutes new matter as the limitation of “at least 20m3” is not supported by the originally filed specification. Page 10 of the specification teaches and MDI tank container wherein 30m3 is loaded in one hour.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-2, 4, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lisen et al. (RU 2683742C1; Machine Translation).
Re claim 1, Lisen et al. teaches a method of cleaning deposits from an inner surface of a steel tank for storing oil (water sensitive and/or temperature sensitive compound in liquid form), wherein the tank is coated with a water-soluble coating (i.e. methyl cellulose; page 1 of the description), and the coating is solved with water (paragraph 2, steam exposure) for cleaning the tank after handling of the oil. Specifically, paragraphs 1, 16, 45, teaches that oil is pumped out of the tank, and additional cleaning is carried by steaming and checking the residual fire load of the hazardous material on the inner surface of the tank. Paragraph 17 further teaches that additional cleaning is done using an aqueous water-soluble dispersant. In reference to the coating is solved with water, the limitations are met since the prior art teaches coating with a water-soluble coating of methyl cellulose, removing the oil, and cleaning with steam. Applicant’s own specification teaches the same water-soluble coating and treating with steam (pages 5 and 8). Re claim 2, paragraph 16 for example teaches pumping oil out of the tank prior to cleaning with steam. Re claim 4, the limitations are met as the invention is directed to the storage of oil. Re claim 16, Lisen in paragraph 2 teaches introducing steam in the tank for cleaning under pressures of 1.0 MPa, which is equivalent to 10 bar. Re claim 18, Lisen teaches cleaning steel tanks.
6. Claims 1-4, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cotter (US2010/0032337A1).
Cotter teaches a method for handling a water sensitive and/or temperature sensitive compound in liquid within the container receptacle, wherein a surface of the device is in contact with a water sensitive and/or temperature sensitive compound in liquid form (i.e. hazardous materials, organic chemicals in liquid form, paragraphs 4 and 18), wherein the container is coated with a water soluble coating (PVA, paragraph 24), wherein the coating is solved with water (paragraphs 23, 31-32) for cleaning the container (paragraph 32). Paragraph 20 teaches that other container configurations can be used including bulk or mini-bulk tanks, or any suitable container for the transportation and storage of hazardous materials. Re claim 2, the limitations are met since Cotter teaches removing residual present in the container by dissolving the PVA inner layer, inherently the hazardous materials are removed prior to removing residual material in the container. Re claim 3, refer to paragraph 10. Re claim 4, refer to Fig. 1 and paragraph 1, which teaches receptacles for storage and transportation of materials. Re claim 7, refer to paragraphs 31-32. Re claim 9, refer to paragraph 32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claim(s) 5, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter (US2010/0032337A1) in view of Hiroshi et al. (JP2002053196A) as evidenced by Lange (5321151).
Re claim 5, Cotter teach the receptacles for hazardous materials, but fails to teach isocyanates. Hiroshi et al. teach an isocyanate transport tank container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cotter to include transport containers for transporting isocyanate, as taught by Hiroshi et al., since Cotter teaches the receptacles for use in transporting hazardous materials and it is well known in the art, as evidenced by Lange, that isocyanates are generally toxic and hazardous for handling. Re claim 8, paragraph 14 of Hiroshi et al. teach the use of steam to assist in the dissolution of isocyanate residue in the tank. Re claim 10, paragraph 3 of Hiroshi et al. teach a temperature means to order to maintain the viscosity of the liquid during transport. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cotter to include steam and temperature means, as taught by Hiroshi et al., in order to assist the dissolution of isocyanate residue and to control the viscosity of the isocyanate during transport.
11. Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter (US2010/0032337A1).
Re claim 15, Cotter do not specifically teach repeating the steps of applying, introducing, handling and cleaning steps. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method to include repeating the above process steps, for purposes of cleaning deposits on the inner surface of the steel tanks in order to achieve the desired level of cleanliness. Re claim 17, Cotter et al. do not teach a tank container having a capacity of at least 20m3. However, paragraph 20 of Cotter et al. teach other container configurations are contemplated such as bulk or mini-bulk tanks, or any suitable container for transportation and storage of hazardous materials. In view of the teachings of Cotter et al. and in the absence of a showing criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan to configure containers having a tank capacity of at least 20m3 since Cotter et al. teach other containers including bulk or mini-bulk tanks.
12. Claim(s) 7-8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lisen et al. (RU 2683742C1; Machine Translation).
Re claims 7-8, Lisen et al. do not specifically teach the coating being removed. However, Lisen et al. teach carboxy methyl cellulose. Applicant’s specification, page 5, lines 20-30 teaches water soluble coatings include carboxy methyl cellulose. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected the carboxy methyl cellulose to be solved in water, since the prior art teaches the same water-soluble coating as applicant’s instant invention. Re claim 8, applicant is directed paragraphs 16-17 which teaches steaming followed by additional cleaning with an aqueous mixture of dispersants. Re claim 15, Lisen do not specifically teach repeating the steps of applying, introducing, handling and cleaning steps. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method to include repeating the above process steps, for purposes of cleaning deposits on the inner surface of the steel tanks in order to achieve the desired level of cleanliness.
Response to Arguments
13. The rejection of claim 10, under 112, second paragraph is withdrawn in view of the newly amended limitations.
14. The rejection of the claims, as being anticipated by Tsukamoto et al. is withdrawn in view of the newly amended limitations.
15. The rejections of the claims as being unpatentable over Lisen et al. or Cotter et al. in view of the secondary references are maintained for the reasons set forth above.
16. Applicant argues that the prior art of Lisen et al. or Cotter et al. do not teach a “tank container”, wherein the tank container is an intermodal container for the transport of liquids, gases, and powder as bulk cargo, built to ISO standards, making it suitable for different modes of transportation, with standard frame dimensions most commonly 20 ft by 8 ft by 8.5 ft, fitting standard intermodal transport, with an internal tank varying in capacity from 14,000 to 27,000 liters. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the instant specification has not specifically defined a tank container, according to the parameters argued by applicant. Additionally, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the instantly claimed invention. Page 3 of the instant specification, line 35 teaches that devices of the instant invention include any functional equipment that comes into contact with the compounds handled including containers, tanks, pipes, valves and/or a combination hereof. The term “tank container” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, to include any equipment for handling of compounds, and therefore, “tank container” reads broadly on any type of vessel, reservoir or container capable of handling compounds. In an interview of 3/10/2026 with Ms. Katelyn Bernier, the examiner suggested the filing of Declaration showing factual evidence of how the tank container of the instant invention distinguishes over the tank containers of the prior art.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc