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
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, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haesloop et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,435,132).
Regarding claim 1, Haesloop discloses:
A buffer gate for isolating inside and outside of a pump column in which a submersible pump (27) is disposed, the submersible pump (27) being for delivering liquefied gas, said buffer gate comprising: (Col. 4, lines 18-50)
a buffer box (22, 50, 65) having a buffer chamber (122) therein, the buffer box (22, 50, 65) being fixed to an upper end of the pump column 14 (see Figure 1; Col. 6, lines 38-50; Col. 7, lines 13-50)
a first partition wall (65) configured to close an upper opening of the buffer box 22, 50, 65 (see Figure 1)
a second partition wall (22) configured to close an upper opening of the pump column 14 (see Figure 1)
a purge-gas inlet port communicating with the buffer chamber 122 (Col. 6, lines 38-50; Col. 7, lines 13-50)
Regarding claim 2, Haesloop discloses:
wherein a vertical length of the buffer chamber (22, 50, 65) is smaller than a vertical length of the submersible pump 27 (see Figure 1)
Regarding claim 4, Haesloop discloses:
a purge- gas outlet port communicating with the buffer chamber (122), the purge-gas outlet port being coupled to a gas treatment device 120 (Col. 6, lines 38-50; Col. 7, lines 13-50)
Regarding claim 5, Haesloop discloses:
an electrical terminal (48) coupled to a power cable (40) for supplying electric power to the submersible pump 27 (Col. 4, lines 51-63)
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haesloop in view of Epstein et al. (U.S. 20140026597).
Regarding claim 3, Haesloop discloses the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to disclose a leak detector configured to detect liquefied gas leaked from the pump column into the buffer chamber.
Epstein teaches an LNG storage system comprising a leak detector (509) configured to detect liquefied gas leaked from a pump column (503) into a buffer chamber 502 (see paragraph 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Haesloop to provide a leak detector configured to detect liquefied gas leaked from the pump column into the buffer chamber, as taught by Epstein. Doing so would determine if there is a leak.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: the prior art of record neither discloses nor makes obvious the combinations set forth in the independent claim. Specifically, how the purge container is arranged with the buffer gate in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith, III et al. (U.S. 2005/0123425) discloses a buffer gate for isolating a pump column for a submersible pump comprising: a buffer box having a buffer chamber, an upper and lower partition wall and a purge gas inlet port.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E CARY whose telephone number is (571)272-9427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at (571)-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881.. 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.
/KELSEY E CARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753