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 Status
Claims 9-10 have been canceled. Claims 1-8 and 11-22 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-8, 11, 21 and 22 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant has not provided traversal arguments in the reply filed on 27 February 2026.
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(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Regent (EP 0402547).
Regent discloses a tank stiffening arrangement as shown at the bottom of Fig. 1 and 2, the stiffening arrangement comprising: an outer ring arrangement (stiffening member 32) coaxial with and extending around a tank body; and an intermediate ring arrangement (ring extending inwardly of stiffening member 32 and extending outwardly of the outer surface and in contact with the outer surface of circular structure 30 and brackets as shown in Fig. 4-7) coaxial with and extending around the tank body (circular structure 30) and located in use between the outer ring arrangement and an outer surface of the tank body, wherein the intermediate ring arrangement is radially alternating in profile having circumferential regions in contact with the outer ring arrangement (portions of bracket in contact with stiffening member 32) and circumferential regions in contact with the outer surface of the tank (portions of inwardly extending ring between adjacent brackets).
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.
Claim(s) 12-14, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauser (US 2015/0121795) in view of Regent.
Rauser disclose a tank storage system comprising a plurality of curved tessellating panels (e.g., panels 40, 50, 60 of Fig. 2b, the tessellating panels being arranged in use to form a plurality of cylindrical rings (see Fig. 1), the plurality of cylindrical rings being arranged in use to be adjacent to one another to form an elongate cylindrical tank body (see Fig. 1), wherein the tessellating panels each comprise a plurality of holes (e.g., apertures 62, 64, 66) allowing adjacent panels to be coupled together; the system further comprising one or more stiffening arrangements (the panels are corrugated to define the one or more stiffening arrangements). Rauser fails to disclose a stiffening arrangement wherein the stiffening arrangement comprises an outer ring arrangement and an intermediate ring arrangement both extending around the tank body. Regent teaches a tank stiffening arrangement as shown at the bottom of Fig. 1 and 2, the stiffening arrangement comprising: an outer ring arrangement (stiffening member 32) coaxial with and extending around a tank body; and an intermediate ring arrangement (ring extending inwardly of stiffening member 32 and extending outwardly of the outer surface and in contact with the outer surface of circular structure 30 and brackets as shown in Fig. 4-7) coaxial with and extending around the tank body (circular structure 30) and located in use between the outer ring arrangement and an outer surface of the tank body, wherein the intermediate ring arrangement is radially alternating in profile having circumferential regions in contact with the outer ring arrangement (portions of bracket in contact with stiffening member 32) and circumferential regions in contact with the outer surface of the tank (portions of inwardly extending ring between adjacent brackets). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the stiffening arrangement of Regent to the tank body of Rauser as it further reinforces the tank body to make the tank sufficiently strong in resisting hydrostatic forces of an above-ground extending tank.
Re claim 13, the circumferential regions in contact with the outer surface of the tank are positioned between circumferential regions in contact with the outer ring arrangement.
Re claim 14, he outer ring arrangement and intermediate ring arrangement are formed of a plurality of discrete elements which, when coupled together, define the outer ring and intermediate ring circumferences. The limitation requires a plurality of discrete elements, two elements, one being the outer ring arrangement and another being the intermediate ring arrangement.
Re claim 17, the outer ring arrangement and the intermediate ring arrangement are coupled together at positions where the two are in abutment with each other (coupled by brackets).
Re claim 18, each cylindrical ring comprises a pair of stiffening arrangements (the stiffening arrangements can be either the ribs or grooves of the corrugated panels of Rauser or the stiffening arrangement of Regent can be duplicated for each cylindrical ring of the tank body).
Re claim 20, the stiffening ring arrangements or bridging or components of the stiffening arrangements are formed of a material selected from carbon fiber reinforced plastic, aluminum or alloys thereof, steel or alloys thereof. See “steel” as specified in column 2, lines 49-52 and column 3, line 56 to column 4, line 5.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauser in view of Regent as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Mullen (US 2358022).
The Rauser-Regent combination fails to disclose that the intermediate ring arrangement is formed from a plurality of discrete elements. Mullen teaches a stiffening arrangement wherein a ring arrangement (e.g., ring arrangement having discrete elements or metal bands 37, 32 and 38), the ring arrangement comprising opposing end portions radially spaced from a central region there-between, wherein the end portions comprise a coupling for connection to adjacent intermediate ring elements. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the intermediate ring arrangement of the combination to include discrete elements as it is easier to form and transport the shorter circumferential length discrete elements as compared to ring arrangements that extend around the full circumference or a one-piece ring arrangement. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place the brackets at a central region, such that, the central region comprises coupling for connection to the outer surface of the tank body, such that the brackets do not interfere with the element-to-element connection structure.
Re claim 16, adjacent end portions of the discrete elements forming the intermediate ring as shown in Mullen are arranged to align with a vertical line along which adjacent tessellating panels are coupled together.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Office believes that applicant misunderstands the rejection. The statement of rejection for the 102 rejection states in part, “an intermediate ring arrangement (ring extending inwardly of stiffening member 32 and extending outwardly of the outer surface and in contact with the outer surface of circular structure 30 and brackets as shown in Fig. 4-7).” The intermediate ring arrangement includes the inner ring and brackets. The Office revises the annotated Fig. 2 of Regent with its annotated Fig. 2 below, with arrows pointing to the inner ring and brackets as part of the intermediate ring arrangement.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant states in the last paragraph of page 7, lines 1-3 of the remarks submitted 27 February 2026 that “the inner ring of the reference (Regent) … does not contact the stiffening member 32 at all.” Applicant did not consider the brackets as part of the intermediate ring arrangement. Stiffening member 32 is held in place and contacts the openings 20 in the brackets.
Due to this misunderstanding, applicant did not appreciate that the intermediate ring arrangement has an outer circumferential profile that is “radially alternating in profile” as the circumferentially extending portions between the brackets is of a smaller radial dimension than the larger radial dimension of the arrangement at the brackets.
No doubt, there are significant difference between the prior art and applicant’s present invention when comparing Regent Fig. 2 to applicant’s Fig. 14. Examination and patent prosecution pertains to the claiming of one or more of those differences. The Office believes that applicant is applying an overly narrow interpretation of the phrase “radially alternating in profile.” While the Office applies a broader, reasonable interpretation of the phrase “radially alternating in profile.” It is the outer circumference of the intermediate ring arrangement of Regent with the inner ring and brackets that alternates in profile between different radii. What the claim does not state is “radially alternating in profile such that the inner circumference of the intermediate ring arrangement alternates between different radii and the outer circumference of the intermediate ring arrangement alternates between different radii.”
Applicant finds the 102 and 103 rejections defective for the same reasoning and states that Regent is inadequate in providing “radially alternating in profile” limitation. However, the Office disagrees, and therefore, the art rejections have been maintained in full measure as first stated in the non-final action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights