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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 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.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Connor (WO 2013162965 A1), hereinafter O’Connor, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. over O’Connor, in view of Sun (CN 101629533 A), hereinafter Sun.
Regarding claim 1, O’Connor discloses a method for handling a vent gas mixture comprising fuel vapours of a fuel and inert gas, the vent gas mixture originating from a fuel system (“A blanketing system 314 connected to the tank 310 by way of a blanket line 316 is operative during offloading to backfill the tank 310 with inert blanket gas, and thus the oil 318 in the tank is overlaid by a mixture 320 of blanket gas and VOC. A vapor recovery unit indicated at 322 is connected to the tank 310 by way of a vent line 324 so as to receive vent gas mixture displaced from the tank 310 during loading” paragraph [0057]), the method comprising:
directing the vent gas mixture from the fuel system to a condenser, the condenser condensing at least a majority of the fuel vapours into liquid fuel such that the vent gas mixture comprises liquid fuel and inert gas (“The liquefaction system 326 comprises a liquid ring compressor 344 downstream of the vacuum pump 342 and operative to compress the VOC vapor stripped off by the vacuum pump 342. A condenser 346 such as a mechanical refrigeration condenser is arranged downstream of the compressor 344 to condense the compressed VOC vapor” paragraph [0064]),
separating the liquid fuel and the inert gas of the vent gas mixture from the condenser in a vapour-liquid separator (“Downstream of the condenser 346 is a three-phase separator 348 configured and arranged to separate the condensed VOC from any uncondensed VOC, and a gas return line 350 is configured and arranged to return uncondensed VOC vapor in the separator 348” paragraph [0064]. The examiner notes that “any uncondensed VOC” will be carried in the inert gas from 314),
directing the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture from the vapour-liquid separator to a boiler system, the boiler system being configured to combust the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture when the boiler system is in a hot condition and is ready to combust the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture, and
the directing of the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture from the vapour-liquid separator to the boiler system comprising:
directing the liquid fuel from the vapour-liquid separator to the boiler system when the boiler system is in the hot condition and is ready to combust the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture (“The combustion plant 332 comprises a steam boiler equipped with a dual-fuel burner 354 enabling it to be fuelled with both liquid VOC (delivered from the store 330 by way of the primary fuel line 334)” paragraph [0066]), and
storing the liquid fuel in the vapour-liquid separator and/or in a separate storage tank when the boiler system is not in the hot condition and is not ready to combust the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture, and thereafter directing the liquid fuel from the vapour-liquid separator to the boiler system when the boiler system is in the hot condition and is ready to combust the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture (“From the separator 348, the VOC condensate is passed to the store 330 for storage” paragraph [0065]).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner acknowledges that the applicant has attempted to differentiate from the prior art by including contingent limitations. Specifically, “directing the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture from the vapour-liquid separator to a boiler system, the boiler system being configured to combust the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture when the boiler system is in a hot condition and is ready to combust the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture” and “storing the liquid fuel in the vapour-liquid separator and/or in a separate storage tank when the boiler system is not in the hot condition and is not ready to combust the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture.” The examiner points out that the separated fuel in O’Connor is directed to the boiler at least when the boiler system is in a hot condition, and that the separated fuel is stored in a storage tank at least when it is not being directed to the boiler (i.e. when the boiler is not in the hot condition). The applicant is likely intending to convey that the separated fuel is directed to the boiler only when in the hot condition, and the separated fuel is stored only when the boiler is not in the hot condition. In other words, the claim does not currently prohibit supplying the boiler with separated fuel in a cold condition or storing the separated fuel in the hot condition. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will alternatively be examined as if the claim did prohibit such.
However, Sun teaches directing liquid fuel for combustion only when the system is in a hot condition (“when the engine is started, the engine electrical control unit ECU through the water temperature detected by the water temperature sensor 6 at the outlet of the engine is judged by what way to start, and also can be detected by the environment temperature sensor of environment temperature to select the starting mode, even can be specially set a starting mode switch in the cab for selecting start-up mode depending on the experience of the driver. below only describes detecting the water temperature by the water temperature sensor 6, the engine electrical control unit ECU program selecting start-up mode according to preset condition. The water is higher than 10. C, then directly enter into the methanol fuel starting mode, methanol fuel oil pump 7 operates, a methanol fuel oil tank 8 in the methanol fuel through methanol fuel pump 7 out of oil port through connection pipeline and filter into the methanol fuel oil rail 5, through methanol injector 1 respectively into in methanol engine each cylinder air and ignited in the combustion chamber after being mixed with the air from the intake manifold assembly 15. The water temperature is lower than 10 degrees centigrade, gasoline fuel control system is opened, and the methanol fuel control system is closed” all citations are from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
In view of Sun’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include directing liquid fuel for combustion only when the system is in a hot condition as is taught in Sun, in the method disclosed by O’Connor because Sun states “methanol is known is very promising engine override environment-friendly, clean fuel, but methanol engine with low temperature starting is difficult.” O’Connor discloses use of a VOC fuel (methanol is a VOC) and “a dual-fuel burner.” Therefore, using the VOC fuel of O’Connor only after warm up will overcome starting difficulties.
Regarding claim 4, O’Connor, as modified by Sun, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the vent gas mixture originates from a fuel tank of the fuel system (“into which tank 310 oil or other liquid hydrocarbon is loaded by way of a delivery line 312” paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 6, O’Connor, as modified by Sun, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the vent gas mixture is directed from the fuel system to the condenser in response to a pressure build-up in response to an action of filling fuel to a fuel tank (“A vapor recovery unit indicated at 322 is connected to the tank 310 by way of a vent line 324 so as to receive vent gas mixture displaced from the tank 310 during loading” paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, O’Connor, as modified by Sun, discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising igniting a self-sustained flame of the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture (“The combustion plant 332 comprises a steam boiler equipped with a dual-fuel burner 354 enabling it to be fuelled with both liquid VOC (delivered from the store 330 by way of the primary fuel line 334)” paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 10, O’Connor, as modified by Sun, discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising bypassing the condenser and the vapour-liquid separator by directing the vent gas mixture from the fuel system to the boiler system (“a secondary fuel inlet open to the secondary fuel line 336 to receive thereby weak gas from the vapor recovery unit 322 (the weak gas comprising inert gas, some methane and ethane and, depending upon the source of the oil, probably some hydrogen sulfide)” paragraph [0066]), when the boiler system is in the hot condition and is ready to receive and combust the vent gas mixture (“The combustion plant 332 comprises a steam boiler equipped with a dual-fuel burner 354 enabling it to be fuelled with both liquid VOC (delivered from the store 330 by way of the primary fuel line 334) and weak gas (delivered from the vapor recovery unit 332 by way of the secondary fuel line 336” paragraph [0066]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor, in view of Sun, and further in view of Chen (WO 2015172333 A1), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 2, O’Connor, as modified by Sun, discloses the method according to claim 1.
O’Connor, as modified by Sun, does not disclose wherein the fuel is an alcohol.
However, Chen teaches wherein the fuel is an alcohol (“The fuel may comprise a low-flashpoint liquid, such as an alcohol like methanol or ethanol” abstract).
In view of Chen’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the fuel is an alcohol as is taught in Chen, in the method disclosed by O’Connor because Chen states “Alcohols including methanol are clean burning fuels with no, or at least reduced, issues relating to pollution” (page 6). Therefore, using alcohol as a fuel will reduce pollution.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor, in view of Sun, and further in view of Viland (US 3763901 A), hereinafter Viland.
Regarding claim 3, O’Connor, as modified by Sun, discloses the method according to claim 1.
O’Connor, as modified by Sun, does not disclose directing the inert gas of the vent gas mixture from the vapour-liquid separator to atmosphere.
However, Viland teaches directing the inert gas of the vent gas mixture from the vapour-liquid separator to atmosphere (“From the trap 35 a tube 38 may conduct air and other gas that does not condense at about 10° to 30° F (and therefore is presumably free from the hydrocarbons present in gasoline) to the vacuum power device 26 and from there is safely exhausted to the atmosphere by the vent 39” column 5, line 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
434
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Viland’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include directing the inert gas of the vent gas mixture from the vapour-liquid separator to atmosphere as is taught in Viland, in the method disclosed by O’Connor because the sufficiently cooled gas will be “presumably free from hydrocarbons.” Including the steps of Viland will obviate the need to recirculate and redirect the inert gas as in O’Connor thereby simplifying the method.
Regarding claim 12, O’Connor, as modified by Sun, discloses the method according to claim 1.
O’Connor, as modified by Sun, does not explicitly disclose wherein the inert gas is nitrogen.
However, Viland teaches wherein the inert gas is nitrogen (“a line 52 that is connected to a nitrogen storage tank 53, so as to dilute the mixture to below the limits of flammability” column 3, line 65).
O’Connor, as modified by Sun, does not explicitly disclose nitrogen as the inert gas. Viland teaches nitrogen as the inert gas. The substitution of one known element (the inert gas of O’Connor) for another (the inert gas of Viland) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the nitrogen taught in Viland would have yielded predictable results, namely, preventing a flammable mixture of fuel and air Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Furthermore, the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this regard, it is noted that Viland teaches nitrogen is suitable for the intended purpose of preventing a flammable mixture. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include nitrogen as the inert gas in O’Connor.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor, in view of Sun, and further in view of Kameyama (JP 2009056380 A), hereinafter Kameyama.
Regarding claim 5, O’Connor, as modified by Sun, discloses the method according to claim 1.
O’Connor, as modified by Sun, does not explicitly disclose wherein the vent gas mixture is directed from the fuel system to the condenser in response to an action of emptying a fuel tank which action includes venting fuel vapours from the tank with said inert gas.
However, Kameyama teaches wherein the vent gas mixture is directed from the fuel system to the condenser in response to an action of emptying a fuel tank which action includes venting fuel vapours from the tank with said inert gas (“an inert gas is introduced into the tank container 1 and remains in the tank when the tank container 1 is cleaned. The volatile organic compound (VOC) is purged, and the refrigerant is led to the condenser 7 which forms a closed circuit to be cooled and liquefied. Then, the VOC led to the gas-liquid separator 8 is recovered and gas-liquid separated” All citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
PNG
media_image3.png
436
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Kameyama’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the vent gas mixture is directed from the fuel system to the condenser in response to an action of emptying a fuel tank which action includes venting fuel vapours from the tank with said inert gas as is taught in Kameyama, in the method disclosed by O’Connor because Kameyama teaches that the fuel laden vapor is present during emptying and may be condensed to retrieve fuel. Therefore, including the step taught by Kameyama will improve fuel capture in O’Connor.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor, in view of Sun, and further in view of Rignas (US 20210402872 A1), hereinafter Rignas.
Regarding claim 7, O’Connor, as modified by Sun, discloses the method according to claim 1.
O’Connor, as modified by Sun, does not disclose wherein the vent gas mixture is directed from the fuel system to the condenser in response to a leakage in the fuel system.
However, Rignas teaches wherein the vent gas mixture is directed from the fuel system to the condenser in response to a leakage in the fuel system (“The fuel vapour cooling arrangement is arranged to receive fuel vapour evaporated from the fuel in the fuel tank. In the fuel vapour cooling arrangement, the evaporated fuel is condensed into liquid fuel” paragraph [0006]).
PNG
media_image4.png
324
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of the teachings of Rignas, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the vent gas mixture is directed from the fuel system to the condenser in response to a leakage in the fuel system as is taught in Rignas, in the method disclosed by O’Connor because Rignas teaches “In a fuel tank of a vehicle, fuel vapour can for instance be generated during refueling or when fuel is heated due to that the vehicle stands in the sun. The fuel vapours need to be removed from the tank in order for the pressure inside the tank to not exceed a design pressure. However, the fuel vapours cannot be vented directly into the atmosphere, causing pollution, due to emission regulations” (paragraph [0003]). Therefore, including the step of condensing in response to leakage will reduce pollution.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor, In view of Sun, and further in view of Freund (NO 311855 B1), hereinafter Freund.
Regarding claim 9, O’Connor, as modified by Sun, discloses the method according to claim 1.
O’Connor, as modified by Sun, does not disclose igniting a support flame and combusting the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture using the support flame, or combusting the liquid fuel of the vent gas mixture using a primary flame of the boiler system as a support flame.
However, Freund teaches igniting a support flame and combusting the liquid fuel using the support flame, or combusting the liquid fuel using a primary flame of the boiler system as a support flame (“A local stabilization can be promoted using a pilot burner or support burner 7” All citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
PNG
media_image5.png
558
818
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Freund’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include igniting a support flame and combusting the liquid fuel using the support flame, or combusting the liquid fuel using a primary flame of the boiler system as a support flame as is taught in Freund, in the method disclosed by O’Connor because Freund states the support flame locally stabilizes combustion. Therefore, including the support flame of Freund will stabilize combustion in the boiler of O’Connor.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor, in view of Tornay (GB 1440318 A), hereinafter Tornay.
Regarding claim 11, O’Connor discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein bypassing the condenser and the vapour-liquid separator includes directing the vent gas mixture from the fuel system via a gas valve train to the boiler system (“a set of automatic valves V” paragraph [0061]).
O’Connor does not disclose directing the vent gas mixture from the fuel system via a heat exchanger, wherein the heat exchanger at least partly evaporates any liquid phase of the vent gas mixture.
However, Tornay teaches directing the vent gas mixture from the fuel system via a heat exchanger, wherein the heat exchanger at least partly evaporates any liquid phase of the vent gas mixture (“boil-off lines 1, 2 lead from vapour domes 3 of the cargo tanks 4 to a common inlet line 5 of a compressor 6, the outlet of which is fed via heater 7 and a boiler feed line 8 to the burner front of the boilers for the engines, the heater 7 being operable to raise the temperature of the boil-off gas sufficiently to ensure that no thermal shock is transmitted to the burner feed lines” page 2, line 14).
PNG
media_image6.png
414
452
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Tornay’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include directing the vent gas mixture from the fuel system via a heat exchanger, wherein the heat exchanger at least partly evaporates any liquid phase of the vent gas mixture as is taught in Tornay, in the method disclosed by O’Connor because Tornay states that the vaporizer will eliminate thermal shock in the feed lines. Therefore, including the vaporizer as taught by Tornay will prevent thermal shock in the fuel lines of O’Connor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “direct the liquid fuel from the vapour-liquid separator to the boiler system while bypassing the storage tank.” The closest prior art of record to claim O’Connor which discloses a storage tank and directing liquid fuel from the vapour-liquid separator to the boiler, but not while bypassing the storage tank. No art was found such that further modification of O’Connor and Sun would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim, distinguish the claim from the prior art.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “directing the liquid fuel from the vapour-liquid separator to the boiler system while bypassing the storing in the storage” and is allowable by the same or substantially the same rationale as articulated with regards to claim 13, above.
Claims 14-17, 19, and 20 are allowable at least because they depend from allowable independent claims 13 and 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Trezise (US 1808618 A) “In the storage of volatile liquids in lare sealed tanks in situations exposed to the heat of the sun’s rays, it is necessary to release the pressure of the evaporated gases contained therein at frequent intervals in order to minimize the risk of explosion or damage to the tank owing to the strain resulting from the expansion of the gases which leads to considerable losses of vapour”
PNG
media_image7.png
324
614
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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 Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights