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 amendment filed 7/16/2026. Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending while claims 2 and 13-21 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
All claims have been rejected under 102 over Kratschmar, as described in detail below.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0240379 to Kratschmar et al. (Kratschmar).
In reference to claim 1, Kratschmar discloses an integrally-transportable purge container (100, FIG. 1-15) for exposing a submersible pump (10, FIG. 1-15) to purge gas, the submersible pump being used to deliver liquefied gas (par 0039), the integrally-transportable purge container comprising a container body (11 and 12, FIG. 1-15) having an interior space (15 and 16, FIG. 1-15) for accommodating the submergible pump (10, FIG. 1-15) therein; an upper lid (22, FIG. 1-15) configured to cover an upper opening of the container body; a lower lid (30, FIG. 1-15) configured to cover a lower opening of the container body (FIG. 3); and a purge-gas inlet port and a purge-gas outlet port (50 and 60, FIG. 8a and 8b) communicating with the interior space of the container body; and a pump guide (38, FIG. 1-15) fixed to an inner surface of the container body (11, FIG. 1-15), the pump guide being configured to suppress lateral shaking of the submergible pump, wherein a predetermined clearance is maintained between the pump guide and the submergible pump (par 0050), 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).
In reference to claim 3, Kratschmar teaches the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Kratschmar additionally teaches a fixing device (20, FIG. 1-15) configured to removably fix the upper lid (22, FIG. 1-15) to the container body (11 and 12, FIG. 1-15).
In reference to claim 5, Kratschmar teaches the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Kratschmar additionally teaches an inlet valve (as a part of assembly 50, FIG. 1-15) coupled to the purge-gas inlet port; and an outlet valve (as a part of assembly 60, FIG. 1-15) coupled to the purge-gas outlet port (FIG. 8a and 8b).
In reference to claim 6, Kratschmar teaches the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Kratschmar additionally teaches a pump suspension mechanism (par 0040) removably attached to the upper lid (22, FIG. 1-15), the pump suspension mechanism being configured to suspend the submergible pump (10, FIG. 1-15) within the interior space (within 15 and 16, FIG. 1-15).
In reference to claim 8, Kratschmar teaches the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Kratschmar additionally teaches wherein the lower lid (30, FIG. 9) is configured to support the submergible pump (10, FIG. 9).
In reference to claim 9, Kratschmar teaches the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Kratschmar additionally teaches wherein the lower lid (30, FIG. 9) is removably attached (via bolts 36 and 37, FIG. 9) to the container body (11 and 12, FIG. 9).
In reference to claim 11, Kratschmar teaches a submersible pump (10, FIG. 1-15) to purge gas (100, FIG. 1-15), the submersible pump being used to deliver liquefied gas (par 0039), the integrally-transportable purge container comprising a container body (11 and 12, FIG. 1-15) having an interior space for accommodating the submergible pump therein (15 and 16, FIG. 1-15); an upper lid (22, FIG. 1-15) configured to cover an upper opening of the container body (11 and 12, FIG. 1); a lower lid (30, FIG. 1-15) configured to cover a lower opening of the container body (FIG. 3); a purge-gas inlet port (50, FIG. 1-15) and a purge-gas outlet (60, FIG. 1-15) port (FIG. 8a and 8b) communicating with the interior space of the container body (FIG. 8a and 8b); a purge-container coupling mechanism (38a, FIG. 1-15) configured to detachably fix the container body to an upper portion of a pump column in which the submergible pump is to be installed (FIG. 1-15 and specifically FIG. 8a), the purge-container coupling mechanism comprising a combination of flanges and bolts or clamps (extension flange 23, FIG. 1-15); and a pump guide (38, FIG. 1-15) fixed to an inner surface of the container body, the pump guide being configured to suppress lateral shaking of the submergible pump, wherein a predetermined clearance is maintained between the pump guide and the submergible pump (par 0050), a sealing member (39, FIG. 1-15) configured to seal a gap between the container body and the lower lid (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 (inherent in the structure depicted in FIG. 1-15).
In reference to claim 12, it claims the same limitations as claimed in claims 1-11; thus, said claim 12 is rejected in the same manner, as described in detail above.
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) 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kratschmar in view of JP S57-168086 to Harada et al. (Harada).
In reference to claim 4, Kratschmar teaches the integrally-transportable purge container as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but does not teach a side lid configured to close an opening formed in a side wall of the container body. Harada 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 order to allow for monitoring of the system.
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 Kratschmar, to include a side lid configured to close an opening formed in a side wall of the container body, as taught by Harada, in order to allow for monitoring of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights