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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 26, in the reply filed on 10/28/25 is acknowledged.
Claim 27 has been withdrawn from further examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, “is provided” should be “are provided”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “an an” should be “an”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 5, 13, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Webb (5562162).
Regarding claim 1, the Webb reference discloses a mobile fuel distribution station (10; Figure 1) comprising:
a plurality of fuel tanks (14, 16),
one or more fuel pumps (28, 30) arranged to distribute fuel from said fuel tanks to users,
a central fuel refill arrangement (102, 116) for refilling of one or more of said plurality of fuel tanks (col. 6, lines 56 – col. 7, line 8), and
a fuel leakage prevention system (i.e., outer tank 12 and leak detection gauge 84; Figure 7),
wherein said fuel leakage prevention system is arranged to prevent leakage from the central fuel refill arrangement, and from any of said plurality of fuel tanks (col. 7, lines 41 – 55).
Regarding claim 5, wherein said refill arrangement is provided with a drip and overfill protection arrangement (i.e., grate 109; col. 7, lines 9 – 13).
Regarding claim 13, further comprising a roof (224).
Regarding claim 14, further comprising a plurality of centrally positioned tubes (22, i.e., vent pipe) providing gas evaporation for each of said plurality of fuel tanks (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, further comprising an outer fender, positioned substantially along the periphery of the station. The bumpers (276; Fig. 1) meet the claim limitation.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Webb (2012/0205004).
Regarding claim 1, the Webb reference discloses a mobile fuel distribution station (10; Figure 1) comprising:
a plurality of fuel tanks (12),
one or more fuel pumps (102; Figure 5) arranged to distribute fuel from said fuel tanks to users,
a central fuel refill arrangement (130) for refilling of one or more of said plurality of fuel tanks (para. 0050), and
a fuel leakage prevention system (double wall tanks 12, containment container 20 and tank monitoring system 150; paras 0038 - 0039),
wherein said fuel leakage prevention system is arranged to prevent leakage from the central fuel refill arrangement, and from any of said plurality of fuel tanks (para. 0038).
Regarding claim 5, wherein said refill arrangement (130) is provided with a drip and overfill protection arrangement (inherent to the system).
Regarding claim 13, further comprising a roof (14; para. 0041).
Regarding claim 19, further comprising means for identification of a user. User interface (70) facilitates electronic control, which includes RFID tag (see paras. 0052 – 0053).
Claim(s) 1, 5 – 9, 11, 13, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Webb (5971039).
Regarding claim 1, the Webb reference discloses a mobile fuel distribution station (10; Figure 1) comprising:
a plurality of fuel tanks (16; Figure 4),
one or more fuel pumps (20) arranged to distribute fuel from said fuel tanks to users,
a central fuel refill arrangement (34) for refilling of one or more of said plurality of fuel tanks (Fig. 3), and
a fuel leakage prevention system (containment space 40, leak detection 90),
wherein said fuel leakage prevention system is arranged to prevent leakage from the central fuel refill arrangement, and from any of said plurality of fuel tanks (col. 4, lines 18 - 30).
Regarding claim 5, any spilled fuel is caught and contained in the containment space (40).
Regarding claim 6, baffles (36, 37) meet the claim limitation of ballast, since they add stability and keep the platform from rocking (col. 3, line 55 – col. 4, line 3).
Regarding claim 7, the station (10) is a floating structure, which floats in water (30).
Regarding claim 8, further provided with mooring system (24).
Regarding claim 9, further provided with an arrangement for towing the station (col. 5, lines 3 – 8).
Regarding claim 11, wherein two or more of said plurality of fuel tanks (12) are interconnected, whereby fuel may be pumped from one tank to another (Figure 5; col. 4, line 54 – col. 8).
Regarding claim 13, further comprising provided with a roof (22).
Regarding claim 14, further comprising provided with a plurality of centrally positioned tubes (94; for each tank in Figure 4; see col. 4, lines 31 – 39) providing gas evaporation for each of said plurality of fuel tanks.
Regarding claim 16, further comprising a plurality of inspection hatches (manways 88; col. 4, lines 4 – 10).
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.
Claim(s) 2 - 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (5562162) in view of Monroe et al. (2004/0234338).
Regarding claims 2 – 4, the Webb reference discloses the invention (discussed supra) including a leakage prevention system (i.e., double wall and gauge 84; discussed supra), but doesn’t disclose the fuel leakage prevention system having a vacuum within the double wall cavity being arranged to alert an alarm to a remote unit if a fuel leak is identified by a sensor. However, the Monroe et al. reference discloses another fuel dispensing system having a double walled fuel tank (106) having a vacuum within cavity (112) and sensor (138). Sensor (138) sends data to continuous vacuum monitor (CVM) remote unit (143b; Fig. 1) and the CVM responds with an alarm when the vacuum changes from a predetermined amount, which indicates a leak (see paragraphs [0089 – 0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to substitute the above CVM alarm system for the leakage prevention system of the Webb device as, for example, taught by the Monroe et al. reference in order to further enable the system to sound an alarm remotely when a leak is detected in the system.
Claim(s) 6 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (5562162) in view of Johnson (10894710).
Regarding claims 6 - 9, the Webb reference discloses the invention (discussed supra), but doesn’t further disclose a floating arrangement, one or more ballast tanks along at least a part of the outer periphery of the fuel distribution station, a mooring system and a towing arrangement. However, the Johnson reference discloses another transportable service station (100) having a floating arrangement (i.e., displacement hull 10; col. 5, lines 12 - 19), ballasting system (col. 8, lines 12 – 28), mooring system (col. 7, lines 47 – 56) and towing arrangement (13; col. 6, lines 48 – 60) in order to provide fuel services on both land and water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Webb device to have a floating arrangement, mooring system, towing arrangement and ballasts as, for example, taught by the Johnson reference in order to provide mobile fuel services on both land and water, especially in emergency situations.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (5562162) in view of Johnson (10894710) and further in view of Kim (KR 20170089716).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, the modified Webb device discloses the invention (discussed supra), but doesn’t further disclose wherein said ballast tanks provide for a balance /gyro function, whereby the station is kept substantially positioned horizontally irrespective of the respective load in said plurality of fuel tanks. However, the Kim reference discloses another floating structure having a balance/gyro function sensing unit (200) having a gyroscope to prevent left and right rocking (rolling) of the floating structure in the water (“By utilizing the characteristic of the gyroscope which always maintains the constant direction, it is possible to use the gyroscope to prevent the left and right rocking (rolling) by detecting the angles of the flow of the sea water by releasing the pins in both sides of the water in the ship or the floating structure”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to further modify the Webb device to have a gyroscope as, for example, taught by the Kim reference in order to prevent left and right rocking (rolling) of the floating structure in the water.
Claim(s) 2 - 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (2012/0205004) in view of Monroe et al. (2004/0234338).
Regarding claims 2 – 4, the Webb reference discloses the invention (discussed supra) including a leakage prevention system (i.e., double wall tanks 12, container 20 and tank monitoring system 150; discussed supra), but doesn’t disclose the fuel leakage prevention system having a vacuum within the double wall cavity being arranged to alert an alarm to a remote unit if a fuel leak is identified by a sensor. However, the Monroe et al. reference discloses another fuel dispensing system having a double walled fuel tank (106) having a vacuum within cavity (112) and sensor (138). Sensor (138) sends data to continuous vacuum monitor (CVM) remote unit (143b; Fig. 1) and the CVM responds with an alarm when the vacuum changes from a predetermined amount, which indicates a leak (see paragraphs [0089 – 0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to substitute the above CVM alarm system for the leakage prevention monitoring system (150) of the Webb device as, for example, taught by the Monroe et al. reference in order to further enable the system to sound an alarm remotely when a leak is detected in the system.
Claim(s) 6 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (2012/0205004) in view of Johnson (10894710).
Regarding claims 6 - 9, the Webb reference discloses the invention (discussed supra), but doesn’t further disclose a floating arrangement, one or more ballast tanks along at least a part of the outer periphery of the fuel distribution station, a mooring system and a towing arrangement. However, the Johnson reference discloses another transportable service station (100) having a floating arrangement (i.e., displacement hull 10; col. 5, lines 12 - 19), ballasting system (col. 8, lines 12 – 28), mooring system (col. 7, lines 47 – 56) and towing arrangement (13; col. 6, lines 48 – 60) in order to provide fuel services on both land and water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Webb device to have a floating arrangement, mooring system, towing arrangement and ballasts as, for example, taught by the Johnson reference in order to provide mobile fuel services on both land and water, especially in emergency situations.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (5562162) and Webb (2012/0205004) in view of Johnson (10894710) and further in view of Kim (KR 20170089716).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, the modified Webb (5562126) and Webb (2012/0205004) devices disclose the invention (discussed supra), but don’t further disclose wherein said ballast tanks provide for a balance /gyro function, whereby the station is kept substantially positioned horizontally irrespective of the respective load in said plurality of fuel tanks. However, the Kim reference discloses another floating structure having a balance/gyro function sensing unit (200) having a gyroscope to prevent left and right rocking (rolling) of the floating structure in the water (“By utilizing the characteristic of the gyroscope which always maintains the constant direction, it is possible to use the gyroscope to prevent the left and right rocking (rolling) by detecting the angles of the flow of the sea water by releasing the pins in both sides of the water in the ship or the floating structure”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to further modify the Webb devices to have a gyroscope as, for example, taught by the Kim reference in order to prevent left and right rocking (rolling) of the floating structure in the water.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (5971039) in view of Kim (KR 20170089716).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, the Webb reference discloses the invention including the fuel tanks being stabilized by baffles (36, 37; discussed supra), but doesn’t further disclose wherein said fuel tanks provide for a balance /gyro function, whereby the station is kept substantially positioned horizontally irrespective of the respective load in said plurality of fuel tanks. However, the Kim reference discloses another floating structure having a balance/gyro function sensing unit (200) having a gyroscope to prevent left and right rocking (rolling) of the floating structure in the water (“By utilizing the characteristic of the gyroscope which always maintains the constant direction, it is possible to use the gyroscope to prevent the left and right rocking (rolling) by detecting the angles of the flow of the sea water by releasing the pins in both sides of the water in the ship or the floating structure”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Webb device to further add a gyroscope as, for example, taught by the Kim reference in order to prevent additional left and right rocking (rolling) of the floating structure in the water.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (2012/0205004) in view of Webb (5971039).
Regarding claim 11, the Webb (2012/0205004) reference discloses the invention (discussed supra), but don’t disclose the fuel tanks being interconnected, whereby fuel may be pumped from one tank to another. However, the Webb (5971039) reference discloses another floating fuel station (discussed supra) having multiple tanks being interconnected by hose (46) to provide for even dispensing of fuel from the tanks (col. 4, line 54 – col. 5, line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to further modify the Webb (2012/0205004) device to have interconnected tanks as, for example, taught by the Webb reference in order to provide for even dispensing of fuel from the tanks.
Regarding claim 15, Webb (5562162), Webb (2012/0205004) and Webb (5971039) don’t explicitly disclose the fuel tanks being partially made of a composite material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the Webb tanks of composite material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (5971039) and Webb (2012/0205004) in view of Schultz (3076205).
Regarding claim 17, the Webb (2012/0205004) and Webb (5971039) references discloses the invention (discussed supra), but don’t disclose an outer fender positioned substantially along the periphery of the station. However, the Schultz reference discloses another floating fuel platform (Figure 1) having fenders or bumpers (44; col. 2, lines 56 – 59) in accordance with marine standards to protect the fuel platform from being damaged. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Webb (5971039) and Webb (2012/0205004) devices to have fenders as, for example, taught by the Schultz reference in order to meet marine standards to protect the fuel platforms from being damaged.
Further, “positioned substantially along” is being construed as “positioned along”.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (5562162), Webb (5971039) and Webb (2012/0205004), as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Beaver, Jr. et al. (10626570).
Regarding claim 18, modified Webb (5562126), Webb (5971039) and Webb (2012/0205004) disclose the invention (discussed supra), but don’t further disclose having an ecobark material arranged to absorb oil and/or fuel products. However, the Beaver et al. reference discloses another oil absorbing material (100) used on land and water to absorb oil and fuels (col. 1, lines 20 – 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Webb devices to have an oil absorbing material as, for example, taught by the Beaver et al. reference in order to absorb and contain any spilled oil or fuel around the station. Further, using ecobark would be a mere choice of using another oil absorbing material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (5562162) and Webb (5971039) in view of Webb (2012/0205004).
Regarding claim 19, the Webb (5562162) and Webb (5971039) references discloses the invention (discussed supra), but don’t disclose means for identification of a user. However, the Webb (2012/0205004) reference (discussed supra) further discloses a user interface (70) facilitates electronic fuel access control, which includes RFID tag to identify the user (see paras. 0052 – 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Webb (5562162) and Webb (5971039) to have an RFID tag as, for example, taught by the Webb (2012/0205004) reference in order for a user interface to identify the user and electronically control fuel access.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 – 26 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Walsh et al. (10202271) reference discloses a fuel verification system having a fuel management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753