DETAILED ACTION
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 25-37 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 25 recites the limitation "to supply gas" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the limitation reciting a new gas? Referencing the previously recited flow of gas? The same rejection applies to recitations in claims 36 and 37.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the primary nozzle" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency from rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 25-28, 31, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SHCHERBATJUK (RU2101055).
Regarding claim 25, SHCHERBATJUK discloses an oil tank gas inlet assembly connectable to a gas supply pipe for maintenance of pressure and a non-explosive atmosphere during unloading of oil from an oil tank, comprising:
at least one inlet conduit having a cross- sectional dimension that is larger than a cross-sectional dimension of the gas supply pipe (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1, The cross sectional opening width of the inlet of the supply pipe is smaller than the opening width of the inlet conduit);
the at least one inlet conduit being arranged to direct a unidirectional flow of gas from the gas supply pipe to a primary inlet nozzle (The recitation that an element is “arranged to” perform a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform; the inlet conduit is capable of performing the claimed function) having a spreader element (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) configured to spread the inflowing inert gas within the tank with a horizontal velocity component larger than a vertical velocity component (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) (The recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform; The spreader is capable of performing the claimed function, as shown in the annotated figure);
and
a secondary inlet nozzle (4) configured to supply gas into the oil tank at a vertical velocity (The recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform; As best understood, the nozzle is capable of performing the claimed function), where the vertical velocity of the gas supplied by the secondary inlet nozzle is greater than the vertical velocity component of the primary inlet nozzle (The widened structure of the primary inlet nozzle provides for a lower velocity than the narrow structure of the secondary inlet nozzle).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 26, SHCHERBATJUK discloses the oil tank gas inlet assembly as claimed in claim 25, wherein the spreader element is configured to spread the inert gas in a 360 degree circular or conical flow from the primary inlet nozzle (The recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform; The spreader is capable of spreading the flow in a 360 circular flow).
Regarding claim 27, SHCHERBATJUK discloses the oil tank gas inlet assembly as claimed in claim 25, wherein the spreader element is disc shaped and is one of flat, conical, convex, curved, or concave curve (The spreader is disc shaped flat).
Regarding claim 28, SHCHERBATJUK discloses the oil tank gas inlet assembly as claimed in claim 25, wherein the primary nozzle (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) is configured to supply gas at a vertical velocity rate that is less than 0.2 m/s when measured at a level 3 meters below the primary inlet nozzle (The recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform; The nozzle is capable of supplying fluid at the claimed rate, dependent upon the supplied rate).
Regarding claim 31, SHCHERBATJUK discloses the oil tank gas inlet assembly as claimed in claim 25, wherein the secondary inlet nozzle (4) is configured to supply gas with a predominant downwards vertical velocity component (The recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform; The nozzle is capable of supplying gas into the tank at a vertical velocity, as the nozzle is directed in a down direction).
Regarding claim 33, SHCHERBATJUK discloses the oil tank gas inlet assembly as claimed in claim 25, wherein the primary inlet nozzle and the secondary inlet nozzle are both connected the gas supply pipe (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1, all of the elements are connected directly or indirectly).
Regarding claim 34, SHCHERBATJUK discloses the oil tank gas inlet assembly of claim 25, further comprising a change-over valve (5) configured to open and close gas flow to each of the primary inlet nozzle and secondary inlet nozzle (The valve is capable of opening and closing the inlet that leads to each of the nozzles).
Regarding claim 35, SHCHERBATJUK discloses the oil tank gas inlet assembly as claimed in claim 25, further comprising a pipe stub (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) connected to the secondary inlet nozzle (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), said pipe stub being arranged coaxially within primary inlet nozzle (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1, The stub portion is axially within the inlet nozzle).
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) 29-30, 32 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHCHERBATJUK.
Regarding claim 29, SHCHERBATJUK discloses the oil tank gas inlet assembly as claimed in claim 25, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one inlet conduit is arranged vertically between the gas supply pipe and primary the inlet nozzle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the at least one inlet conduit arranged vertically between the gas supply pipe and primary the inlet nozzle since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 30, SHCHERBATJUK discloses the oil tank gas inlet assembly as claimed in claim 26, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one inlet conduit is arranged vertically between the gas supply pipe and primary the inlet nozzle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the at least one inlet conduit arranged vertically between the gas supply pipe and primary the inlet nozzle since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 32, SHCHERBATJUK discloses the oil tank gas inlet assembly of claim 31, but fails to disclose wherein the predominantly downward vertical velocity exceeds 3 m/s at a level 3 meters below the secondary inlet nozzle.
SHCHERBATJUK discloses that the velocity is result effective variable, as changing of the velocity according to parameters of the tank (Page 2, paragraph 4) provides for protection against explosion (Page 2, paragraph 8). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the SHCHERBATJUK device to have a velocity within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the velocity of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of SHCHERBATJUK by making flow rate to exceed exceeds 3 m/s at a level 3 meters below the secondary inlet nozzle as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 36, SHCHERBATJUK discloses an oil tank gas inlet assembly connectable to a gas supply pipe for maintenance of pressure and a non-explosive atmosphere during unloading of oil from an oil tank, comprising:
at least one inlet conduit having a cross- sectional dimension that is larger than a cross-sectional dimension of the gas supply pipe (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1, The cross sectional opening width of the inlet of the supply pipe is smaller than the opening width of the inlet conduit);
the at least one inlet conduit being arranged to direct a gas flow from the gas supply pipe to a primary inlet nozzle (The recitation that an element is “arranged to” perform a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform; the inlet conduit is capable of performing the claimed function) having a spreader element (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) configured to spread the flow of gas within the tank, wherein the flow of gas has a horizontal velocity component larger than a vertical velocity component (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) (The recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform; The spreader is capable of performing the claimed function, as shown in the annotated figure); and
a secondary inlet nozzle (4) configured to supply gas into the oil tank at a vertical velocity (The recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform; As best understood, the nozzle is capable of performing the claimed function), but fails to disclose wherein the predominantly downward vertical velocity exceeds 3 m/s at a level 3 meters below the secondary inlet nozzle or a vertical supply velocity of the gas supplied by the primary inlet nozzle is less than 0.2 m/s.
SHCHERBATJUK discloses that the velocity is result effective variable, as changing of the velocity according to parameters of the tank (Page 2, paragraph 4) provides for protection against explosion (Page 2, paragraph 8). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the SHCHERBATJUK device to have a velocity within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the velocity of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of SHCHERBATJUK by making flow rate to exceed exceeds 3 m/s at a level 3 meters below the secondary inlet nozzle and a vertical supply velocity of the gas supplied by the primary inlet nozzle less than 0.2 m/s. as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 37, SHCHERBATJUK discloses an oil tank gas inlet assembly connectable to a gas supply pipe for maintenance of pressure and a non-explosive atmosphere during unloading of oil from an oil tank, comprising:
at least one inlet conduit having a cross- sectional dimension that is larger than a cross-sectional dimension of the gas supply pipe (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1, The cross sectional opening width of the inlet of the supply pipe is smaller than the opening width of the inlet conduit);
the at least one inlet conduit being arranged to direct a gas flow from the gas supply pipe to a primary inlet nozzle (The recitation that an element is “arranged to” perform a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform; the inlet conduit is capable of performing the claimed function) having a spreader element (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) configured to spread the gas flow within the oil tank, wherein the flow of gas has a horizontal velocity component larger than a vertical velocity component (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) (The recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform; The spreader is capable of performing the claimed function, as shown in the annotated figure); and
a secondary inlet nozzle (4) configured to supply gas into the oil tank at a vertical velocity (The recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform; As best understood, the nozzle is capable of performing the claimed function), where the vertical velocity of the gas supplied by the secondary inlet nozzle is greater than a vertical supply velocity of the gas flow supplied by the primary inlet nozzle (The widened structure of the primary inlet nozzle provides for a lower velocity than the narrow structure of the secondary inlet nozzle), but fails to disclose wherein the vertical supply velocity of the gas supplied by the primary inlet nozzle is less than 0.2 m/s.
SHCHERBATJUK discloses that the velocity is result effective variable, as changing of the velocity according to parameters of the tank (Page 2, paragraph 4) provides for protection against explosion (Page 2, paragraph 8). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the SHCHERBATJUK device to have a velocity within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the velocity of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of SHCHERBATJUK by making a vertical supply velocity of the gas supplied by the primary inlet nozzle less than 0.2 m/s as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s position that ‘055 fails to disclose the vertical velocity of the secondary nozzle greater than the vertical velocity of the primary inlet nozzle, the primary inlet nozzle is wider than the secondary nozzle. As such, the velocity of the fluid in the primary inlet nozzle is decreased, in order to maintain consistent volumetric flow rate.
As to Applicant’s position that the cited element is not a spreader element, the fluid spreads about the tank through its passage through the cited spreader element.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752