DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/09/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
Although drawings are present in the WIPO publication (which are relied upon by the examiner for the instant Office action), no drawings were filed with the US application (Doc Code - DRW).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1: There should be an “and” after the last semi-colon.
Regarding claim 17: This claim should read, in part, “one sluice chamber, a sluice access, and means for” to be grammatically corrected.Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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 1-7, 9-10,12-19, 21, 23-29, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vaganay et al. (US 20230173551 A1).Regarding claim 1:Vaganay teaches a method for inspecting a tank for fluid media with an inspection appliance that records measurement data on the inside of the tank on a floor, a wall and/or any upper delimitation of the tank that is present (vehicle 101 / robot 1300 equipped with inspection devices that gather data of tank floor, annular plate, or shell wall - [0063], [0201]; tank inspection process [0103]-[0104]), the method comprising the steps of:
connecting a sluice device to the tank (coupling launcher 420 / 1236 to vertical side of tank via manway adapter / gate valve - [0005], [0010], [0143], [0194]-[0195], [0208]-[0209]);
adapting a sluice chamber of the sluice device to conditions present in the tank (pressurizing the launcher with the autonomous vehicle inside; filling with inert gas; opening gate valve to release flammable fluid into launcher - [0013], [0040], [0143], [0171]-[0174], [0215]-[0216]);
inserting the inspection appliance into the tank from the sluice chamber of the sluice device through a sluice access in the sluice device and through an access opening in the tank (loading autonomous vehicle into launcher via first side; launching vehicle from launcher through gate valve 410 / 1228 and manway 212 / 1204 into tank - [0013]-[0014], [0143], [0212]-[0213], [0216]-[0217]),
measuring and recording data by the inspection appliance (vehicle performs tank inspection process, collects data via inspection device 122, quality metrics 136, sensors 116 - [0063], [0103]-[0104], [0201]);
transferring the inspection appliance back into the sluice device (vehicle returns to launcher 420 from tank through manway and gate valve for retrieval - [0018], [0021], [0144], [0171]-[0172], [0220])
Regarding claim 2:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein the sluice device, which has a sealing arrangement on at least one side, is initially arranged close to the tank in such a way that the access opening can be reached from the sluice chamber (launcher 420 / 1236 includes lid 430 / cap 1260 to seal first side; launcher is positioned and coupled to manway via gate valve to reach access opening - [0005], [0057], [0147]-[0148], [0195], [0199]-[0200], [0208]-[0209])
Regarding claim 3:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein the sluice device, which can be closed by at least one sluice closure device, is arranged at an access opening of the tank (gate valve 410 / 1208 / 1228 closes/opens to seal launcher from tank; lid 430 / cap 1260 seals launcher - [0005], [0007], [0145]-[0146], [0195], [0199])
Regarding claim 4:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein the inspection appliance is inserted into the sluice device in advance and/or removed subsequently (robot 1300 is loaded into launcher 1236 via cart 1810 prior to operation; vehicle is removed from launcher after recovery - [0013], [0018]-[0019], [0143]-[0144], [0212]-[0214])
Regarding claim 5:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein, for the purpose of adaptation to the conditions present in the tank, data from at least one sensor arrangement are acquired (pressure switch 140 detects pressure threshold; sensors 116 including pressure sensor, temperature sensor; gauges and level indicators on valve control assembly 1244 - [0014], [0073]-[0076], [0082]-[0083])
Regarding claim 6:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein, for the purpose of adaptation to the conditions present in the tank, valves are controlled by a control device of the sluice device (gate valve 410 / 1208 / 1228 controlled by lever, switch, or computing system; valve control assembly 1244 controls flow of product and gas - [0146], [0195], [0199]-[0200])
Regarding claim 7:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein, for the purpose of adaptation to the conditions present in the tank, the sluice chamber is flooded with an inert gas and/or the sluice chamber is filled with the medium stored in the tank during and/or before opening of the access opening (launcher 1236 and manway adapter 1212 purged with nitrogen gas; gate valve opened to release flammable fluid into launcher - [0040], [0057], [0174], [0215]-[0216], [0143]; [0014], [0082]-[0083])
Regarding claim 9:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein, for the purpose of arranging the sluice device at the access opening, the sluice device is adjusted, by a height adjustment device, with respect to the height above the ground ([0149], [0195], [0207], [0212])
Regarding claim 10:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein the inspection appliance is checked by at least one camera and/or by at least one viewing window (launcher 1236 includes glass 1232 for visual inspection; robot 1300 equipped with two 1080p cameras; gauges and level indicators provide visual representation - [0199], [0201], [0200])
Regarding claim 12:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein the sluice chamber is divided into different sluice sections by at least one bulkhead (system includes multiple gate valves: primary gate valve 1208 between tank interface pipe and launcher interface pipe, secondary gate valve 1228 between launcher and manway adapter; launcher interface pipe 1206 provides airlock space - [0195]-[0196], [0199]; FIGS. 12A-12B and 16A-16B)
Regarding claim 13:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein the inspection appliance is charged at a docking station of the sluice device and/or arranged for the purpose of data transfer ([0110]: "interface 106 can include one or more ports for external connection...such as a serial port, USB port...The one or more ports can be used to transfer one or more data...The port can be used to charge the battery 114 of the vehicle 101"; [0202]: "status and data collected by the robot 1300 can be received in real-time and stored on a storage device"; [0070])
Regarding claim 14:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein a signal is transmitted into the tank from the sluice device (indicator 910 situated inside lid 430 of launcher is a light source, acoustic source, or other indicator to guide vehicle into launcher; lighting system in launcher 1236 indicates location for robot homing procedure - [0181]-[0185], [0220])
Regarding claim 15:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein the inspection appliance moves through the tank autonomously and/or under remote control (vehicle 101 / robot 1300 autonomously executes tank inspection procedures; robot can be remotely controlled by operator; can receive commands from remote controller - [0201]-[0202], [0217])
Regarding claim 16:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein, following the inspection, the inspection appliance is cleaned in the sluice device (vehicle 101 can be cleaned prior to being removed from launcher; cleaning agent/fluid 730 provided via vent 610 into launcher to clean launcher and vehicle; drainer removes cleaning solution - [0019], [0022], [0175]-[0176])
Regarding claim 17:Vaganay teaches a sluice device comprising:
at least one sluice chamber and a sluice access (launcher 420 / 1236 is sealed pressure vessel/chamber; gate valve 410 / 1228 provides sluice access - [0005], [0057], [0147], [0200]),
means for arranging the sluice access, wherein the sluice access provides an opening for passing an inspection appliance from the sluice chamber, through an access opening of a tank (launcher couples to manway adapter / gate valve which attaches to manway 212 / 1204 of tank; provides pathway for vehicle to enter tank - [0005], [0010], [0143], [0195]-[0196], [0208]-[0209])
Regarding claim 18:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
at least one pump for filling and/or emptying the sluice chamber (e.g., [0180])
Regarding claim 19:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
an inert-gas reservoir ([0196], [0200], [0215], etc.), a waste container and/or a cleaning-agent reservoir ([0019], [0175], etc.)
Regarding claim 21:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein the sluice device comprises a height adjustment device ([0149], [0195], [0207], [0212])
Regarding claim 23:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein the sluice device comprises at least one camera and/or at least one viewing window (launcher 1236 includes glass 1232 for visual inspection; robot 1300 equipped with two 1080p cameras; gauges and level indicators provide visual representation - [0199], [0201], [0200])
Regarding claim 24:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein the sluice device has at least one bulkhead and/or at least one sluice closure device(system includes multiple gate valves: primary gate valve 1208 between tank interface pipe and launcher interface pipe, secondary gate valve 1228 between launcher and manway adapter; launcher interface pipe 1206 provides airlock space - [0195]-[0196], [0199]; FIGS. 12A-12B and 16A-16B)
Regarding claim 25:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein the sluice device has a further sluice access arranged at the opposite end of the sluice device (launcher 420 / 1236 has first side with lid 430 / cap 1260 and second side with gate valve 410 / 1228; provides access at both ends - [0147]-[0148], [0199]-[0200])
Regarding claim 26:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
at least one media line for conveying the tank medium in the sluice device (drainer 710 / drain valve 1240 removes flammable fluid; connection ports 1248; connecting pipes 1710 between launcher and manway adapter - [0171], [0199]-[0200], [0211]; also, 1212 in general)
Regarding claim 27:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
at least one gas line (FIG. 20; [0196], [0215])
Regarding claim 28:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
at least one docking station ([0110]: "interface 106 can include one or more ports for external connection...such as a serial port, USB port...The one or more ports can be used to transfer one or more data...The port can be used to charge the battery 114 of the vehicle 101"; [0202]: "status and data collected by the robot 1300 can be received in real-time and stored on a storage device"; [0070])
Regarding claim 29:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
a signal device for the purpose of data transmission and/or orientation (indicator 910 situated inside lid 430 of launcher is a light source, acoustic source, or other indicator to guide vehicle into launcher; lighting system in launcher 1236 indicates location for robot homing procedure - [0181]-[0185], [0220])
Regarding claim 31:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
a ramp device comprising a ramp via which the inspection appliance can enter the tank (FIGS. 21C and 24B)
Regarding claim 32:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
a sensor arrangement for the purpose of adaptation to the conditions present in the tank and/or for monitoring the sluice chamber (pressure switch 140 detects pressure threshold; sensors 116 including pressure sensor, temperature sensor; gauges and level indicators on valve control assembly 1244 - [0014], [0073]-[0076], [0082]-[0083])
Regarding claim 33:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
a control device for the purpose of adaptation to the conditions present in the tank (gate valve 410 / 1208 / 1228 controlled by lever, switch, or computing system; valve control assembly 1244 controls flow of product and gas - [0146], [0195], [0199]-[0200])
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 8, 20, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaganay et al. (US 20230173551 A1) in view of Staires et al. (US 20200047016 A1, prior art of record via IDS).Regarding claim 8:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the inspection appliance is transferred from the sluice chamber, through the access opening, into the tank by a carrying and/or supporting device of the sluice device (Vaganay does teach - a cart 1810 with height-adjustable mechanism moves robot 1300 to launcher 1236 and aligns for installation; robot includes wheels to assist transitioning - [0212], [0434])Staires teaches:
wherein the inspection appliance is transferred from the sluice chamber, through the access opening, into the tank by a carrying and/or supporting device of the sluice device (e.g., FIGS. 4E-4F)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a carrying and/or supporting device for transferring the inspection appliance from the sluice chamber, through the access opening, and into the tank, as taught by Staires, in the method of Vaganay to allow for insertion of the inspection appliance into the tank in positions or conditions which would be impossible, impractical, or dangerous for the device of Vaganay (e.g., insertion from the top of the tank or insertion from above the liquid level).
Regarding claim 20:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay fails to explicitly teach:
a carrying and/or supporting device for transferring the inspection appliance from the sluice chamber into the tank (Vaganay does teach - a cart 1810 with height-adjustable mechanism moves robot 1300 to launcher 1236 and aligns for installation; robot includes wheels to assist transitioning - [0212], [0434])Staires teaches:
a carrying and/or supporting device for transferring the inspection appliance from the sluice chamber into the tank (e.g., FIGS. 4E-4F)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a carrying and/or supporting device for transferring the inspection appliance from the sluice chamber into the tank, as taught by Staires, in the device of Vaganay to allow for insertion of the inspection appliance into the tank in positions or conditions which would be impossible, impractical, or dangerous for the device of Vaganay (e.g., insertion from the top of the tank or insertion from above the liquid level).
Regarding claim 30:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay fails to teach:
a cable winding device for connecting the inspection appliance by a variable-length cable Staires teaches:
a cable winding device for connecting the inspection appliance by a variable-length cable (FIGS. 4E-4F; 140, 144)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cable winding device for connecting the inspection appliance by a variable-length cable, as taught by Staires, in the device of Vaganay to allow for insertion of the inspection appliance into the tank in positions or conditions which would be impossible, impractical, or dangerous for the device of Vaganay (e.g., insertion from the top of the tank or insertion from above the liquid level).
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaganay et al. (US 20230173551 A1).Regarding claim 11:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein the sluice device is moved to the place of use by its own wheel system (support 440 includes wheels to facilitate movement of launcher 420; launcher 1236 includes wheels 1256; manway adapter 1212 includes wheels 1224 - [0019], [0149], [0197], [0199])Vaganay fails to explicitly teach:
its own drive system
However, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known to use a motor or other device to drive wheels without needing to push what is being carried by the wheels. As set forth above, Vaganay teaches that the launcher has wheels. Vaganay also teaches that the vehicle / inspection device has powered / drive wheels ([0063]-[0064], [0069]). However, Vaganay fails to explicitly teach that the launcher wheels are driven.
Regarding claim 22:Vaganay teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Vaganay also teaches:
wherein the sluice device is propelled by means of wheels (support 440 includes wheels to facilitate movement of launcher 420; launcher 1236 includes wheels 1256; manway adapter 1212 includes wheels 1224 - [0019], [0149], [0197], [0199])Vaganay fails to explicitly teach:
the sluice device is self-propelled by its own drive system
However, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known to use a motor or other device to drive wheels without needing to push what is being carried by the wheels. As set forth above, Vaganay teaches that the launcher has wheels. Vaganay also teaches that the vehicle / inspection device has powered / drive wheels ([0063]-[0064], [0069]). However, Vaganay fails to explicitly teach that the launcher wheels are driven.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855