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 § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. patent number 4,435,132 Haesloop et al. (hereinafter Haesloop).
Regarding claim 1, Haesloop discloses a purge container 14 for exposing a submersible pump to purge gas (figure 1), the submersible pump being used to deliver liquefied gas, the purge container comprising: a container body having an interior space for accommodating the submersible pump therein (24), the container body 14 being secured to an upper portion of a pump column (portion of tube below 18) in which the submersible pump is to be installed; an upper lid 22 configured to cover an upper opening of the container body; a lower lid configured to cover a lower opening of the container body 18; and a purge-gas inlet port and a purge-gas outlet port communicating with the interior space of the container body (any of 124/126/134/130/136/132).
Regarding claim 2, Haesloop discloses further comprising a side lid configured to close an opening formed in a side wall of the container body (see opening and valve 140).
Regarding claim 3, Haesloop discloses further comprising: an inlet valve coupled to the purge-gas inlet port; and an outlet valve coupled to the purge-gas outlet port (any two of 130/136/132).
Regarding claim 4, Haesloop discloses comprising a pump suspension mechanism removably attached to the upper lid, the pump suspension mechanism being configured to suspend the submersible pump within the interior space (see 36/40).
Regarding claim 5, Haesloop discloses wherein the pump suspension mechanism includes a coupling member 54 coupled to the submersible pump, and a stopper 74/80 engaged with the coupling member, and the upper lid 22 has a hole having a shape that does not allow the stopper to pass through the hole (see figure 1, stopper 74 and opening 64/head plate 22).
Regarding claim 6, Haesloop discloses wherein the lower lid (gate valve 18) is configured to support the submersible pump (i.e. the pump can easily rest on gate valve 18 while it is mainly being supported by the rising device which can support up to 100% of the gate valve). This is merely functional language in which the gate valve of 18 can perform. Further see the 103 rejection below alternately.
Regarding claim 9, Haesloop discloses wherein the lower lid is composed of a door structure, the purge container further comprises a door opening-closing device configured to open and close the door structure, and the door opening-closing device includes a door drive mechanism which is arranged in the interior space and coupled to the door structure (see gate valve 18).
Regarding claim 10, Haesloop discloses further comprising an inner elevating device configured to elevate and lower the submersible pump, the inner elevating device including a pump hoisting device arranged in the interior space (see 54/74/42/36/40).
Regarding claim 11, Haesloop discloses wherein the lower lid is composed of a gate valve, and the purge container further comprises a gate-valve opening-closing device configured to open and close the gate valve (see 18, see column 4, lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 12, Haesloop discloses a method of using a purge container for exposing a submersible pump to purge gas, the submersible pump being used to deliver liquefied gas, the method comprising: accommodating the submersible pump in an interior space of a container body of the purge container which is secured to an upper portion of a pump column; and filling the interior space accommodating the submersible pump with purge gas (see rejection of claim 1 above, see 120/130/132/136, see column columns 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 14, Haesloop discloses further comprising expelling the liquefied gas from the pump column before accommodating the submersible pump in the purge container (columns 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 15, Haesloop discloses further comprising expelling the liquefied gas from the pump column after accommodating the submersible pump in the purge container (columns 6 and 7, valves purge the vertical pipe, pump is accommodated and then valves send in purge gas again in a cycle).
Regarding claim 16, Haesloop discloses further comprising lowering the submersible pump from the purge container into the pump column by an elevating device (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 17, Haesloop discloses further comprising pulling up the submersible pump out of the pump column into the purge container by the elevating device while supplying purge gas into the interior space of the purge container (see rejection of claim 10 above and see columns 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 18, Haesloop discloses further comprising filling the interior space accommodating the submersible pump with purge gas after the submersible pump is pulling up into the purge container (see columns 6 and 7, sequence occurs then is reversed and then can occur again).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 7-8, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haesloop.
Regarding claim 7, Haesloop does not explicitly disclose wherein the lower lid is removable attached to the container body however making it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to be able to remove the gate valve 18 in order to repair or replace it when it is rendered inoperable or is having maintenance issues. In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”). In this case it would be obvious to make the gate valve removable to allow for replacement of the part.
Regarding claim 8, Haesloop does not explicitly disclose wherein the container body has a side wall with a heat-insulating structure however the examiner goes on official notice that heat insulating side walls for containing cryogenic materials is well known in the art as all of these fluids being pumped such as the cryogenic liquids in Haesloop would vaporize otherwise with any sort of ambient heat leak. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to utilize heat insulating side walls in the side walls of Haesloop in order to prevent heat leaks from vaporizing the pumped cryogenic fluid and maintain cryogenic temperatures within the storage areas. Further this is use of a known technique to improve similar devise in the same way and applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to utilize the system of Haesloop with liquid hydrogen as liquid hydrogen is another well-known cryogen that needs purge gases to protect external environments from explosive dangers.
Regarding claim 13, Haesloop does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquefied gas comprises liquid hydrogen, however Haesloop does disclose the purge gas comprises a gas having a boiling point lower than a boiling point of hydrogen (nitrogen, see column 6).Haesloop does provide that the fluid is a liquefied gas or cryogenic material like natural gas, methane….or other liquid media whose leakage to the atmosphere must be controlled” (column 1). The examiner goes on official notice that hydrogen is a well-known cryogenic liquid and fuel that can be dangerous when leaking into surrounding areas. This is merely a simple substation of one known cryogen being stored for another and the apparatus of Haesloop can easily be utilized with the well-known cryogen Hydrogen.
Regarding claim 19, Haesloop does not explicitly disclose further comprising removing the submersible pump from the purge container however does provide that the head plate is merely attached by bolts. The examiner goes on official notice that it is well known in the art to remove a pump assembly for maintenance and repair. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to allow for disassembly of the top plate 22 in Haesloop in order to be able to replace the submersible pump when there are issues with operability that needs repair or replacement. This is use of a well-known technique (removing parts for repair) to improve similar devices (pumps within tanks) in the same way.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haesloop as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 3,696,975 Bryant et al. (hereinafter Bryant).
Regarding claim 6, Haesloop does not explicitly disclose wherein the lower lid is configured to support the submersible pump however the examiner goes on official notice that gate valves have weight limits well above the weight of a submersible pump (>500 pounds) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to have the gate valve 18 of Haesloop be able to hold up the submersible pump to allow for fixing of the lowering/raising system while the pump rests on the valve. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “configured to support the submersible pump” is that the submersible pump can rest (even while supported by the lowering device) on the valve 18 which in Haesloop it can (see the 102 rejection above). Bryant further discloses a similar lower lid (see 98/27 that pivots open and closed). Bryant additionally provides utilizing a lug and bolts to further secure the valve 27 in a closed position ( see column 4) and a counterweight (see column 8) all of which would provide support to the pump. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to provide the valve of Bryant instead of the gate valve of Haesloop as a simple substation of one known valve for another with respect to the cryogenic containers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798