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 .
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 2/12/2024. Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending while claims 2 and 13-21 are canceled.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP S57-168086 to Harada et al. (Harada).
In reference to claim 11, Harada teaches a submersible pump to purge gas (3, FIG. 3-7), the submersible pump being used to deliver liquefied gas (par 0001-0002), the integrally-transportable purge container comprising a container body (2 and 8, FIG. 3-7) having an interior space for accommodating the submergible pump therein (interior of 2 and 8, FIG. 3-7); an upper lid (unmarked in FIG. 3; portion mating with the flange 8, between 3 and 18) configured to cover an upper opening of the container body; a lower lid (connected structure comprising bottom portion 16, FIG. 3) configured to cover a lower opening of the container body; a purge-gas inlet port and a purge-gas outlet port (both at 18, FIG. 3; par 0002, second section, last three lines) communicating with the interior space of the container body; a sealing member (9, FIG. 3) configured to seal a gap between the container body (2 and 8, FIG. 3) and the lower lid (16, FIG. 3) when the lower lid covers the lower opening of the container body and wherein the lower opening of the container body has a size that allows the submergible pump to pass through the lower opening when the lower lid is removed (FIG. 3), and the integrally-transportable purge container is transportable together with the submergible pump disposed in the container body to an upper portion of a pump column and away from the upper portion of the pump column (transport barrel; par 0001).
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.
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) 1, 3-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/040881 to Yoshimoto et al. (Yoshimoto).
In reference to claim 1, Harada discloses an integrally-transportable purge container (FIG. 1-7) for exposing a submersible pump (3, FIG. 3-7) to purge gas, the submersible pump being used to deliver liquefied gas (par 0001-0002), the integrally-transportable purge container comprising a container body (2 and 8, FIG. 3-7) having an interior space for accommodating the submergible pump therein; an upper lid (unmarked in FIG. 3; portion mating with the flange 8, between 3 and 18) configured to cover an upper opening of the container body; a lower lid (connected structure comprising bottom portion 16, FIG. 3) configured to cover a lower opening of the container body; and a purge-gas inlet port and a purge-gas outlet port (both at 18, FIG. 3; par 0002, second section, last three lines) communicating with the interior space of the container body; the integrally-transportable purge container being configured to be detachably coupled to an upper portion of a pump column (upper portion of barrel 2, FIG. 2) in which the submergible pump (3, FIG. 2) is to be installed, and the integrally-transportable purge container being configured to be transportable together with the submergible pump (intended use recitation; the system in FIG. 3-7 is capable of performing said functional language), but does not teach a pump guide fixed to an inner surface of the container body, the pump guide being configured to suppress lateral shaking of the submergible pump. Yoshimoto shows a heat insulating vessel for low temperature liquefied gas pump (FIG. 1, 3 and 4) comprising a pump guide (30, FIG. 1) fixed to an inner surface of the container body (3, FIG. 1), the pump guide being configured to suppress lateral shaking (par 0042) of the submergible pump (2, FIG. 1) in order to prevent damage to the pump or the container (par 0043-0049).
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 system of Harada, to add a pump guide fixed to an inner surface of the container body, the pump guide being configured to suppress lateral shaking of the submergible pump, as taught by Yoshimoto, in order to prevent damage to the pump or the container.
In reference to claim 3, Harada and Yoshimoto teach the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Harada additionally teaches a fixing device (unmarked flange between 3 and 18, FIG. 3) configured to removably fix the upper lid to the container body (2, FIG. 3).
In reference to claim 4, Harada and Yoshimoto teach the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Harada additionally teaches a side lid configured to close an opening (10, FIG. 3) formed in a side wall of the container body (2, FIG. 3).
In reference to claim 5, Harada and Yoshimoto teach the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Harada additionally teaches an inlet valve coupled to the purge-gas inlet port; and an outlet valve coupled to the purge-gas outlet port (purge valves are inherent in the structure of FIG. 3).
In reference to claim 6, Harada and Yoshimoto teach the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Yoshimoto additionally teaches a pump suspension mechanism (16 and 18, FIG. 1) removably attached to the upper lid (6, FIG. 1), the pump suspension mechanism being configured to suspend the submergible pump (2, FIG. 1) within the interior space (within inner tank 3, FIG. 1).
In reference to claim 7, Harada and Yoshimoto teach the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 6 above, and Yoshimoto additionally teaches wherein the pump suspension mechanism includes a coupling member (31, FIG. 1) coupled to the submersible pump (2, FIG. 1), and a stopper (6a, FIG. 1) engaged with the coupling member, and the upper lid has a hole (hole allowing for tubes to pass through gasket 17, FIG. 1) having a shape that does not allow the stopper to pass through the hole (FIG. 1).
In reference to claim 8, Harada and Yoshimoto teach the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Harada additionally teaches wherein the lower lid (16, FIG. 3) is configured to support the submergible pump (3, FIG. 3).
In reference to claim 9, Harada and Yoshimoto teach the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Harada additionally teaches wherein the lower lid (16, FIG. 3) is removably attached (via bolts 14, FIG. 3) to the container body (2, FIG. 3).
In reference to claim 10, Harada and Yoshimoto teach the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but they do not teach explicitly 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.
However, the Examiner takes the Official Notice of facts not in the record by relying on “common knowledge” of various gas pumping systems having a purge container employing gate valves to be obvious in order to provide a fluid seal with low flow resistance for high-pressure systems.
In reference to claim 12, it claims the method of providing and configuring the apparatus of claim 1, thus, they are rejected based on the rejection of apparatus as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above and the associated method steps, which follow directly from the use of the apparatus, are rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
2/6/2026