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 Species I (Fig. 1 directed to Claims 1-6 and 8) in the reply filed on April 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koji (JPS59196799 U).
In re Claim 1, Koji discloses a flat-bottomed tank body (3) that stores low-temperature liquefied gas; a dike (1) that is erected with a separation space (4) with respect to an outer periphery of the tank body and surrounds the tank body (3); and a roof (8) that seals at least an upper side of the separation space (top of 4).
In re Claim 2, Koji discloses wherein the roof (8) has a dome shape (See Fig. 1: roof has a dome shape) covering an upper side of the separation space (top of 4) and an upper side of the tank body (top of 1).
In re Claim 3, Koji discloses a pump (6) that is arranged in the separation space (4) and discharges low-temperature liquefied gas in the tank body (3) to outside through a side plate of the tank body (the liquefied gas is discharged by 7 up through the side).
In re Claim 4, Koji discloses a housing chamber (9) that is arranged in the separation space (4) and houses the pump (6); and
a passage (7) that penetrates the roof (Page 1 ln 16-20: the roof (8) of the discharge pipe (7) To store object of this pump (6) is penetrated, and it allocates in the place made into the gist of that device to the exterior) and leads to the housing chamber (9),
wherein a space in the housing chamber (See Fig. 9 spacing from walls of 4) and a space in the passage (See Fig. 3) are isolated from a space in the roof (See Fig. 3 chamber is isolated penetration spot in the roof).
In re Claim 5, Koji discloses wherein the passage (7) includes
an upper end opening (opening leading to 9) serving as an entrance and an exit and
a vertical passage portion (5) extending vertically downward from the upper end opening (extending vertically downward from the opening of 7 that leads to 9), and
the vertical passage portion (5) has a size that allows passage of the pump (See Fig. 6 where passage is wider than the pump allowing passage).
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 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji (JPS59196799U)in view of Terlesky et al (US4041722 A).
In re Claim 6, Koji does not explicitly teach, an opening and closing door that opens and closes the upper end opening.
On the other hand, Terlesky (Fig. 1 and 7-8) teaches an opening and closing door (W) that opens and closes the upper end opening (107)|(Col 8:56-61: an opening 107 in the roof 11 at the apex thereof and supported in the opening by means of a weld W or the like at the upper outer surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Koji and to have modified them by having an opening and closing door that opens and closes the upper end opening, in order to control the discharge of large volumes of liquefied gas (See Col 4:16-25), without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji (JPS59196799U)in view of Nishizaki (US 20130200077 A1).
In re Claim 8, Koji does not explicitly teach, the tank body has a multiple shell structure.
On the other hand, Nishizaki teaches wherein the tank body (1) has a multiple shell structure (See Fig. 6: 8, 1b, and 2b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Koji and to have modified them by having the tank body of Koji have a multiple shell structure as taught by , in order to achieve a high load bearing capacity against cooling associated with the introduction of the low-temperature liquefaction fluid L into the cryogenic tank (See Nishizaki [0109]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights