DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Tayebi does not disclose that its nozzle is capable of delivering cleaning solution in a direction that is horizontal and tangential to an outer circumference of its vessel. However, as shown in fig. 4, its nozzles 34, along with similarly-configured nozzles 54, emit a spray that has both horizontal and tangential components. While the spray may be directed downward, it also sprays in a horizontal direction with a tangential component, as clearly shown in fig. 4. Tayebi explicitly teaches that the nozzle configuration results in a rotational flow (p. 8, 2nd para.), which requires a horizontal component to the spray.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to the drawings are persuasive. The objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) based on the term “angle of repose” are persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the objections to claim 1 set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-10 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 3, 7, and 11-16 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation in claim 1 that states that the inclined surface part is inclined at an angle greater than an angle of repose of the sludge is interpreted such that an included surface part inclined at any angle relative to horizontal satisfies this limitation. The cushion tank device being used with any particular sludge is an intended use of the device, and any inclined angle of the inclined surface part may be greater than an angle of repose of a sludge in existence. For purposes of examination against prior art this limitation is not interpreted to be limiting.
The cushion tank device being configured to store pickling solution and sludge discharged from a pickling tank is interpreted to be a non-limiting use and only requires a tank device capable of being used as such.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2006079931A1 by Tayebi.
As to claim 1, Tayebi discloses a tank device capable of being used as a cushion tank, the tank device comprising a tank 50 (fig. 5) capable of storing pickling solution and sludge discharged from a pickling tank; a discharge pipe 40 on a bottom of the tank capable of discharging sludge; and an opening/closing member (valve 42) to open and close the discharge pipe; and a cleaning pipe (to nozzles 54, fig. 5) to deliver a cleaning solution along an inner wall surface of the tank device, wherein the tank device is configured to be capable of guiding sludge to the discharge pipe using an inclined surface part 57 of a lower part of the tank that is inclined relative to a horizontal direction at an angle that may be greater than an angle of repose of sludge, and the cleaning pipe is disposed such that cleaning solution is capable of being delivered in a direction that is horizontal and tangential to an outer circumference of the tank at any position on the inner wall surface (i.e. solution is delivered in a direction that is tangential to at least any one position, or point, of the inner wall surface; see fig. 4, each direction of fluid spray is tangential to some point along the inner wall surface and has a horizontal component).
As to claim 2, Tayebi discloses that the angle of the inclined surface part is 45 to 80 degrees with respect to the horizon (fig. 5; p. 8, first para.).
As to claim 6, Tayebi discloses that the cleaning pipe is disposed such that an angle between a normal line at any position on the inner wall surface and the cleaning pipe is 45 to 135 degrees (see fig. 4; a normal line “at any position” would include normal lines at an infinite number of positions about the 360 degree circular sidewall; as such, an angle between a normal line at any position and the pipe would include an angle of 45 to 135 degrees since there would be a position at some point along the inner sidewall where a normal line could be drawn that is a 45 to 135 degree angle relative to a cleaning pipe).
As to claim 8, Tayebi discloses a cleaning pipe (to nozzles 54, fig. 5) to deliver a cleaning solution along an inner wall surface of the tank device.
As to claim 9, Tayebi discloses that the cleaning pipe is disposed such that cleaning solution is capable of being delivered in a tangential direction at any position on the inner wall surface (i.e. solution is delivered in a direction that is tangential to at least any one position, or point, of the inner wall surface; see fig. 4, each direction of fluid spray is tangential to some point along the inner wall surface).
As to claim 10, Tayebi discloses that the cleaning pipe is disposed such that an angle between a normal line at any position on the inner wall surface and the cleaning pipe is 45 to 135 degrees (see fig. 4; a normal line “at any position” would include normal lines at an infinite number of positions about the 360 degree circular sidewall; as such, an angle between a normal line at any position and the pipe would include an angle of 45 to 135 degrees since there would be a position at some point along the inner sidewall where a normal line could be drawn that is a 45 to 135 degree angle relative to a cleaning pipe).
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.
Claims 3, 7, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2006079931A1 by Tayebi in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140245661 by Saumweber et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20110300607 by Han et al., and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20110239973 by Qin.
As to claims 3 and 7, Tayebi is silent as to removal of process liquid from its tank, as Tayebi is concerned with sludge removal, and thus does not teach a plurality of liquid feeding pipes disposed on a lower part of the tank at different positions in a height direction. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the tank taught by Tayebi to have liquid feeding pipes at different heights. In the art of fluid material handling and storage one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized various rationales to have a plurality of liquid outlet pipes at different heights along a tank. Saumweber teaches that outlets at different heights allows for different take-off temperatures when a vertical temperature gradient is present within the tank (para. 23), Han teaches that outlet at different heights allows for effective liquid discharge when sludge is present at the lower end of the tank (fig. 3, para. 49), and Qin teaches that having outlets at different heights allows for discharge of a liquid at the highest level possible while preventing air from entering a discharge fluid circuit, for example when the liquid is subject to stratification and a liquid with a lower specific gravity is desired to be discharged (fig. 6, paras. 127-128). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the tank taught by Tayebi to have a plurality of liquid feeding pipes disposed at different positions in a height direction, including at a lower part of the tank, so that liquid of a desired property can be discharged, as suggested by Saumweber and Qin, or so that liquid can be effectively discharged above sludge at the bottom of the tank, as suggested by Han. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 11, Tayebi teaches a cleaning pipe (to nozzles 54, fig. 5) to deliver a cleaning solution along an inner wall surface of the tank device.
As to claim 12, Tayebi teaches that the cleaning pipe is disposed such that cleaning solution is capable of being delivered in a tangential direction at any position on the inner wall surface (i.e. solution is delivered in a direction that is tangential to at least any one position, or point, of the inner wall surface; see fig. 4, each direction of fluid spray is tangential to some point along the inner wall surface).
As to claim 13, Tayebi teaches that the cleaning pipe is disposed such that an angle between a normal line at any position on the inner wall surface and the cleaning pipe is 45 to 135 degrees (see fig. 4; a normal line “at any position” would include normal lines at an infinite number of positions about the 360 degree circular sidewall; as such, an angle between a normal line at any position and the pipe would include an angle of 45 to 135 degrees since there would be a position at some point along the inner sidewall where a normal line could be drawn that is a 45 to 135 degree angle relative to a cleaning pipe).
As to claim 14, Tayebi teaches a cleaning pipe (to nozzles 54, fig. 5) to deliver a cleaning solution along an inner wall surface of the tank device.
As to claim 15, Tayebi teaches that the cleaning pipe is disposed such that cleaning solution is capable of being delivered in a tangential direction at any position on the inner wall surface (i.e. solution is delivered in a direction that is tangential to at least any one position, or point, of the inner wall surface; see fig. 4, each direction of fluid spray is tangential to some point along the inner wall surface).
As to claim 16, Tayebi teaches that the cleaning pipe is disposed such that an angle between a normal line at any position on the inner wall surface and the cleaning pipe is 45 to 135 degrees (see fig. 4; a normal line “at any position” would include normal lines at an infinite number of positions about the 360 degree circular sidewall; as such, an angle between a normal line at any position and the pipe would include an angle of 45 to 135 degrees since there would be a position at some point along the inner sidewall where a normal line could be drawn that is a 45 to 135 degree angle relative to a cleaning pipe).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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 supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at 571.272.1414. 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711