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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9 Jan 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-17 are not clear and easily reproducible.
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.
Specification
The substitute Abstract is acknowledged.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-18 and 20-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 2-18, line 1, “A system” should likely read “The system”.
In Claim 20, line 7 “the pressure” should likely read “a pressure”.
In Claim 20, line 9 “liquid” should likely read “the liquid”.
In Claim 20, line 12 “such that it is routed” should likely read “such that the gas is routed”.
In Claim 21, line 2 “liquid” should likely read “the liquid”.
In Claim 22, lines 3-4 “the bottom and the top” should likely read “a bottom and a top”.
In Claim 23, line 2 “liquid” should likely read “the liquid”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 6-7, 9-10, 15-16 and 20-25 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 3 recites the limitation "the lower end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the static head" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the internal pressure" in line 2 and “the external static pressure” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the lower compartment" in line 3 (also in Claim 10, line 3) and “the upper compartment” in lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the lower compartment including an opening for receiving fluid thereby expanding the membrane or bladder upwards, the upper compartment containing motive fluid such that the membrane or bladder can be expanded downwards when the fluid is discharged from the upper compartment”. Therefore it is unclear if “the fluid” from line 6 is the motive fluid or fluid received from the opening. If it is the motive fluid it is unclear how, when the motive fluid contained within the upper compartment is discharged, the membrane extends downwards. As seen in Figure 12, it would seem that when the motive fluid is discharged from the upper component, the membrane would deflect upward. If it is the fluid received from the opening then it is unclear how the fluid of the lower compartment is discharged from the upper compartment. Therefore, these limitations are unclear.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the compartments”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is referring to “two compartments” from Claim 9, line 3, “the lower compartment” from Claim 9, line 3, “the upper compartment” from Claim 9, line 4 or some combination. For purposes of examination, the upper and lower compartments are being interpreted as being the two compartments and therefore the compartments of Claim 10 refers to the upper compartment and the lower compartment.
The term “substantially” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what degree the compartments are substantially filled or substantially empty.
In Claim 15, line 2 “a leak” is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same leak as “gas leaks” from Claim 14, line 2 or a different leak. For purposes of examination, “a leak’ from Claim 15 will be interpreted as referring to the gas leaks from Claim 14.
In Claim 16, line 2 “a leak” is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same leak as “gas leaks” from Claim 14, line 2 or a different leak. For purposes of examination, “a leak’ from Claim 16 will be interpreted as referring to the gas leaks from Claim 14.
The term “substantially” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what degree there is substantially no pressure loss.
The term “significantly higher” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significantly higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what degree the second flow rate would be significantly higher than the first flow rate.
The term “significantly higher” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significantly higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what degree the third flow rate would be significantly higher than the first flow rate.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the shore base" in line 2 and “shore base” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "gas carrier" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11, 13-14, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samuelsen et al (EP1554197; provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 9 Jan 2024 as WO2004/037681 but references taken from Examiner provided EP1554197).
Regarding Claim 1, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) a gas transfer and/or storage system (Figures 1-4). The system comprising:
a surface facility for gas production (the production platform of ¶ 23 used with gas as disclosed in the last sentence of ¶ 17);
a storage vessel (generally in Figure 1) for storing pressurised gas (¶ 17) from the surface facility (the production platform of ¶ 23);
the gas being transferred from the storage vessel to the surface facility and/or a gas carrier based pressure vessel without substantial change in pressure (¶ 16 discloses transfer of the fluid without the use of pumps or other machinery, thereby the pressure of the fluid would not be substantially changed);
wherein the transfer is substantially driven by liquid displacement and/or elastomeric force (¶ 16 discloses transfer without the use of pumps and the first tank of Figure 3 shows the water pressure displacing the fluid within the inner tank).
Regarding Claim 2, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) wherein the storage vessel (generally at Figure 1) comprises an inflatable structure (1; balloon as disclosed in ¶ 9) for containing gas (¶ 17) and a base (2 and 11; Figure 1) for holding down the inflatable structure when placed underwater (¶ 19).
Regarding Claim 4, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) wherein the inflatable structure (balloon 1) is a balloon or a bladder (a balloon is disclosed in ¶ 9).
Regarding Claim 5, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) wherein the inflatable structure (balloon 1) is made of multilayered flexible material (¶ 9 discloses where the material is flexible and ¶ 25 disclose an embodiment of "the fabric is a woven polyester coated on both sides with a chlorinated cross bound ethylene based inter-polymer alloy" therefore forming at least 3 layers).
Regarding Claim 6, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) wherein the inflatable structure (balloon 1) in configured such that the gas is stored at a constant pressure corresponding to the static head of the surrounding water (via the openings 3 and without pumps as disclosed in ¶ 16).
Regarding Claim 8, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) wherein the inflatable structure (balloon 1) is housed in an enclosure (2 in Figure 1) with an opening (3) for seawater displacement (¶ 19).
Regarding Claim 11, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) wherein the gas (¶ 17) is stored under pressure without the need for a rigid thick walled pressure vessel (as shown in Figure 1 with balloon 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) wherein the storage vessel is used as temporary buffer storage of CO2 (¶ 3 and 4 discloses using the storage vessel as temporary buffer storage from the production platform to use with storage ship; the recitation of the actual fluid handled (here, of CO2) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.) that is separated offshore (from platform of ¶ 3) from natural gas (the recitation of the actual fluid handled (here, of natural gas) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115).
Regarding Claim 14, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) wherein a leak detection line (¶ 12 via the separate pipeline) is provided and routed to the surface facility for detection of gas leaks from the storage vessel (via the alarm from an oleometer).
Regarding Claim 16, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) wherein a blowdown of the gas within the storage vessel is initiated if a leak is detected (via the unloading pipeline; ¶ 12).
Regarding Claim 17, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) wherein gas is transferred between the surface facility and the storage vessel and/or the gas carrier based pressure vessel isobarically (¶ 16 discloses transfer of the fluid without the use of pumps or other machinery, thereby the pressure of the fluid would not be substantially changed).
Regarding Claim 19, Samuelsen et al disclose a method of storing subsea gas (with the tank of Figure 1 shown subsea in Figure 4). The method comprising directing fluid to or from an inflatable structure (bladder 1) located underwater via pipelines (13 and 14 generally), the pipelines being connectable to surface facilities and/or gas carrier ships for sending or receiving fluid respectively (Figure 4; the production platform of ¶ 23 used with gas as disclosed in the last sentence of ¶ 17).
Claim(s) 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moszkowski et al (US 20160356422).
Regarding Claim 20, Moszkowski et al discloses a method of transferring gas (Figure 4). The method comprising the steps of:
storing compressed gas from a production facility in a buffer storage pressure vessel at a first flow rate (¶ 25 within any tank within stationary system of 52 which inherently will have a first flow rate);
connecting a gas carrier-based pressure vessel (within any tank within transportation tank system 50; ¶ 25) to the buffer storage pressure vessel (via 54, 56 and 58), said gas carrier-based pressure vessel (within system 50) being prefilled with a liquid, which is inert to gas (nitrogen within 158 as discussed in ¶ 37), at or around atmospheric pressure (¶ 32);
equalising the pressure between the carrier-based pressure vessel and the buffer storage pressure vessel (¶ 32 discloses tank 108 within the gas carrier-based pressure vessel and tank 124 within the buffer storage pressure vessel both being at atmospheric pressure); and
transferring liquid from the gas carrier-based pressure vessel to the buffer storage pressure vessel (via 54; ¶ 35); wherein the liquid transferred from the gas carrier-based pressure vessel to the buffer storage pressure vessel displaces the gas such that it is routed to the gas carrier-based pressure vessel with substantially no pressure loss (¶ 33) at a second flow rate which is significantly higher than the first flow rate (since the first flow rate is defined above as the storage flow rate, which would inherently be at or about zero since the compressed gas being stored is not flowing or moving and therefore when the liquid is pumped and therefore transferred, the flow rate when pumped would inherently be significantly higher than zero).
Regarding Claim 21, Moszkowski et al disclose where after the buffer storage vessels (any tank within stationary system of 52) are substantially filled with liquid and the gas has been displaced isobarically to the gas carrier-based pressure vessels (to the tanks within system 50; with gas transfer from 56 and 58 and nitrogen transfer from 54), liquid in the buffer storage vessel is routed to one or more liquid surge tanks on the gas carrier, typically operated at or around atmospheric pressure (where the liquid surge tanks are the tank within 52 that are not holding the gas, so in Figure 4 tanks 120, 122 and 124 operate as liquid surge tanks; and ¶ 32 discloses atmospheric pressure).
Regarding Claim 22, Moszkowski et al disclose where the buffer storage pressure vessel and/or the gas carrier-based pressure vessel are vertical or inclined (Figure 4 with gas carrier-based pressure vessel 100), each having at least one port for liquid (to 88 shown at the bottom)), and at least one port for gas (to 90 at the top), typically at the bottom and the top thereof respectively (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 23, Moszkowski et al disclose where the gas in the gas carrier-based pressure vessel is displaced by liquid to transfer the gas to a shore based gas storage vessel with substantially no pressure loss (via 54; ¶ 33 and 35) at a third flow rate which is significantly higher than the first flow rate (since the first flow rate is defined above as the storage flow rate, which would inherently be at or about zero since the compressed gas being stored is not flowing or moving and therefore when the liquid is pumped and therefore transferred, the flow rate when pumped would inherently be significantly higher than zero).
Regarding Claim 24, Moszkowski et al disclose where the gas storage pressure vessels (both the vessels within 52 or 50) at the shore base are prefilled with liquid prior to connection with the gas carrier- based pressure vessels for isobaric gas transfer from gas carrier to shore base (¶ 25 with Figure 4 shows tanks shown prefilled with liquid).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Samuelsen et al (EP1554197; provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 9 Jan 2024 as WO2004/037681 but references taken from Examiner provided EP1554197).
Regarding Claim 3, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) wherein the inflatable structure (balloon 1) includes an opening (via 9 in Figure 1) configured to be placed in connection with one or more pipelines (13 and 14; ¶ 19) from which excess gas is received to inflate the inflatable structure (from at least the production platform via pipe 13; ¶ 19), or to which gas is directed from the inflatable structure to deflate the inflatable structure, but fails to expressly disclose where the opening is at the lower end of the inflatable structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the opening to be at the lower end of the inflatable structure since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide access to the lower end of the inflatable structure which may be protected by the seafloor.
Regarding Claim 7, Samuelsen et al disclose wherein the inflatable structure is made of an elastomer (¶ 25 disclose both rubber-like polyester and PA, both of which are elastomers) such that the internal pressure is higher than the external static pressure of the surrounding water (Figure 1; when filled with fluid to expand the balloon).
In addition or alternatively, if the Applicant successfully argues that rubber-like polyester and PA are not elastomers, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the inflatable structure of Samuelsen et al to be made from an elastomer since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable to repeated inflation and deflation in subsea environments.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelsen et al (EP1554197; provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 9 Jan 2024 as WO2004/037681 but references taken from Examiner provided EP1554197) in view of Moszkowski et al (US 20160356422).
Regarding Claim 9, Samuelsen et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the storage vessel comprises a flexible membrane or bladder housed in a pressure vessel which separates the pressure vessel into two compartments, the lower compartment including an opening for receiving fluid thereby expanding the membrane or bladder upwards, the upper compartment containing motive fluid such that the membrane or bladder can be expanded downwards when the fluid is discharged from the upper compartment.
Moszkowski et al teach a gas transfer and/or storage system (Figure 4) with a storage vessel (at least tank 100 generally) wherein the storage vessel (at least tank 100 generally) comprises a flexible membrane or bladder (101) housed in a pressure vessel (within 100) which separates the pressure vessel into two compartments (with one compartment within the bladder and the second compartment outside of the bladder but within the tank), the lower compartment including an opening for receiving fluid thereby expanding the membrane or bladder upwards (via 88), the upper compartment (within the bladder 101) containing motive fluid (from 126; ¶ 31) such that the membrane or bladder can be expanded downwards when the fluid is discharged from the upper compartment (as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above, the fluid is discharged from 88 when bladder 101 expands).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Samuelsen et al with the system as taught by Moszkowski et al for the advantage of allowing emptying the tank maintaining constant pressure without pressure fluctuations, as taught by Moszkowski et al (¶ 33).
Regarding Claim 18, Samuelsen et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the gas carrier based pressure vessel is prefilled with a liquid which is inert to gas for pressure equalization when connected to the storage vessel, and the liquid is pumped into the storage vessel to displace the gas such that it is routed to the gas carrier based pressure vessel using a pump of sufficient power to overcome friction losses and/or static head.
Moskowski et al teach a gas transfer and/or storage system (Figure 4) with a storage vessel (at least tank 126 generally within statuary system 52) and a gas carrier based pressure vessel (at least tank 100 generally within transportation tank system 50, which is positioned aboard a ship; ¶ 25) wherein the gas carrier based pressure vessel is prefilled with a liquid which is inert to gas for pressure equalization (Figure 8 within tank 100 with empty bladder and filled with nitrogen) when connected to the storage vessel (to 126), and the liquid is pumped into the storage vessel to displace the gas such that it is routed to the gas carrier based pressure vessel using a pump (via 130) of sufficient power to overcome friction losses and/or static head (Figures 4-8 into the bladder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Samuelsen et al with the system as taught by Moszkowski et al for the advantage of allowing emptying the tank maintaining constant pressure without pressure fluctuations, as taught by Moszkowski et al (¶ 33).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Samuelsen et al (EP1554197; provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 9 Jan 2024 as WO2004/037681 but references taken from Examiner provided EP1554197) in view of Moszkowski et al (US 20160356422).
Regarding Claim 10, Samuelsen et al, as modified by Moszkowski et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach wherein the compartments are at a pressure of up to 100barg when both are substantially filled with fluid, and around 50barg when the lower compartment is substantially empty.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure within the compartments to be at a pressure of up to 100barg when both are substantially filled with fluid, and around 50barg when the lower compartment is substantially empty since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal pressure based on user defined criteria, including the structure and materials of the tank and the temperature of the atmosphere and the gas.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelsen et al (EP1554197; provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 9 Jan 2024 as WO2004/037681 but references taken from Examiner provided EP1554197) in view of Lund Nilsen (US 20060243344).
Regarding Claim 12, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the system may be used as a dewpoint control unit to recover condensates from the gas by capturing accumulated condensed liquids as gas is directed from the storage vessel,
Lund Nilsen teaches a system (Figure 3) wherein the system may be used as a dewpoint control unit (Figure 3; via 40) to recover condensates from the gas by capturing accumulated condensed liquids as gas is directed from the storage vessel (from "gas to recovery" in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Samuelsen et al with the system as taught by Lund Nilsen for the advantage of collecting potentially harmful gasses from entering the environment during gas transfer, as taught by Lund Nilsen (¶ 4-5).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelsen et al (EP1554197; provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 9 Jan 2024 as WO2004/037681 but references taken from Examiner provided EP1554197) in view of Shilling et al (US 20120085544).
Regarding Claim 15, Samuelsen et al disclose(s) all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the leak detection line is an annulus bleed line and detection of hydrocarbon fluid therein is indicative of a leak.
Shilling et al teach wherein the leak detection line is an annulus bleed line (¶ 258 with outer annulus 76 from Figure 1B) and detection of hydrocarbon fluid (the recitation of the actual fluid handled (here, of hydrocarbon fluid) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115) therein is indicative of a leak (where presence of fluid increases the pressure as taught in ¶ 258).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the leak detection line of Samuelsen et al with the annulus bleed line as taught by Shilling et al for the advantage of protecting the pipeline within the outer annulus from leaking fluid to the environment, by collecting leaked fluid within the outer annulus, as taught by Shilling et al (¶ 258).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Moszkowski et al (US 20160356422).
Regarding Claim 25, Moszkowski et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the third flow rate is higher than the second flow rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided for where the third flow rate is higher than the second flow rate, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-2383840-A is directed to a subsea storage system
US-5224962-A is directed to a subsea storage system
US-5293751-A is directed to a subsea dumping system
US-5820300-A is directed to a subsea storage system
US-6062313-A is directed to a subsea storage system
US-20040191000-A1 is directed to a subsea storage system
US-20060150640-A1 is directed to a subsea storage system
US-20140261132-A1 is directed to a subsea storage system
US-20150214815-A1 is directed to a subsea storage system
US-20200003365-A1 is directed to a subsea storage system
US-11927131-B1 is directed to a subsea storage system
US-20240142055-A1 is directed to a subsea storage system
US-20240410526-A1 is directed to a subsea storage system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753