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 .
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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In re Claim 1, the recitation “discharge” should be amended to recite—to discharge--to avoid potential ambiguities and/or § 112(b) issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re claims 1, 8 and 14, the phrase " a box " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether a box is among boxes or a different box. For purposes of examination: as best understood by the Examiner, this phrase/term is interpreted as at least one of the boxes.
In re claim 14, the phrase " wherein at least a part of a gas, which maintains a temperature in the tank part the gas,…the gas may be discharged to the outside," renders the claim indefinite because the current claim construction when considering the alternatives is intelligible. For purposes of examination: as best understood by the Examiner, this phrase/term is interpreted as wherein at least a part of a gas, which maintains a temperature in the tank part the gas,… may be discharged to the outside.
In re claims 7, the phrase "a plurality of racks" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether a plurality of racks is among the plurality of racks in Claim 1 or a different plurality of racks. For purposes of examination: as best understood by the Examiner, this phrase/term is interpreted as the plurality of racks.
In re Claims 2-14, the limitations containing the phrase may the phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if these the limitations following “may” are optional or require the limitations. For purposes of examination: in order to expedite prosecution, these limitations are construed without the extraneous and indefinite language of “may.”
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh et al (KR 20200113295 A).
In re Claim 14, Oh discloses a cryogenic tank apparatus (Fig. 1) , comprising:
a cryogenic tank structure (1) including a tank part (12) having therein a plurality of racks (9) on which boxes (91) are stacked in a vertical direction (See Fig. 4B and [0031]: boxes 91 stacked in vertical direction), and
an inlet/outlet guide part (11)
disposed at an upper side of the tank part (on top of 12) and
configured to guide unloading of the rack (9) with respect to the tank part (12);
a moving structure (23; See [0063]) applied to unload ([0063]) a box containing the vial (91; [0083]: the box 91 in which a plurality of vials are accommodated) into or from the cryogenic tank structure ([0063]: pushes the box (not shown in FIG. 10) so that at least a part of the box 91 is discharged from the loaded rack 9 to the outside); and
at least a part of a gas ([0034]: nitrogen gas) , which maintains a temperature ([0034]) in the tank part (12), may be discharged to the outside ([0048]).
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.
Claims 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al (KR 20200113295 A) in view of Tanaka (JP2017049073A).
In re Claim 1, Oh discloses a cryogenic tank apparatus (Fig. 1) , comprising:
a cryogenic tank structure (1) including a tank part (12) having therein a plurality of racks (9) on which boxes (91) are stacked in a vertical direction (See Fig. 4B and [0031]: boxes 91 stacked in vertical direction), and
an inlet/outlet guide part (11)
disposed at an upper side of the tank part (on top of 12) and
configured to guide unloading of the rack (9) with respect to the tank part (12);
a moving structure (23; See [0063]) applied to unload ([0063]) a box containing the vial (91; [0083]: the box 91 in which a plurality of vials are accommodated) into or from the cryogenic tank structure ([0063]: pushes the box (not shown in FIG. 10) so that at least a part of the box 91 is discharged from the loaded rack 9 to the outside); and
at least a part of a gas ([0034]: nitrogen gas) , which maintains a temperature ([0034]) in the tank part (12) , to discharge the gas to the outside ([0048]).
However, Oh is silent regarding a pipe structure.
On the other hand, Tanaka teaches a pipe structure (47; See [0045]).
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 Oh and to have modified them by a pipe structure, in order to be able to supply the nitrogen from the nitrogen gas source (See Tanaka [0045]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 2, Modified Oh teaches the tank part (12) may have a lower humidity made by the gas introduced thereinto than a case in which no gas is supplied (Tanaka [0045], [0084], and [0116]), such that the amount of occurrence of icing may be reduced1.
In re Claim 3, Modified Oh teaches wherein the pipe structure (47) may include a main pipe (47) configured to communicate with the inside of the tank part (Tanaka 15 corresponding to Oh 12) ,
a first branch pipe (211) configured to allow the main pipe (47) to communicate with the inside of the tank part (12) ,
a second branch pipe (See Tanaka Annotated Fig. 9: second branch) configured to allow the main pipe to communicate with the outside (see arrows of second branch pipe), and
a valve (115) configured to open the second branch pipe (Tanaka Annotated Fig. 9: second branch).
PNG
media_image1.png
852
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 4, Modified Oh teaches wherein the valve (Tanaka 115) may be opened to reduce the amount of gas to be introduced (Tanaka 113) into the first branch pipe (Tanaka 211).
In re Claim 6, Modified Oh teaches wherein the gas may be nitrogen gas (Oh [0034]: nitrogen gas).
In re Claim 7, Modified Oh teaches wherein the tank part (12) may have a hollow portion (inside portion of 12) having a plurality of racks (9) on which the boxes (91) are stacked in the vertical direction (See Fig. 4B and [0031]: boxes 91 stacked in vertical direction),
the tank part (12) may maintain an internal temperature to be a preset temperature ([0034-0035]: temperature is maintained using nitrogen gas at -190 ℃),
a door (111/112) may be provided in an upper surface of the tank part (top of 12) to allow the rack (9) to enter ([0027]) the tank part (12), and
wherein the inlet/outlet guide part (217) may include a robot part (21; See [0063]) disposed at the upper side of the tank part (top of 12) and configured to open the door (111/112),
the robot part (21) being configured to load the rack (9) into the hollow portion ([0049]), and
a housing (22) provided at the upper side of the tank part (top of 12) and configured to surround the robot part (21).
In re Claim 8, Oh discloses a cryogenic tank apparatus (Fig. 1) , comprising:
a cryogenic tank structure (1) including a tank part (12) having therein a plurality of racks (9) on which boxes (91) are stacked in a vertical direction (See Fig. 4B and [0031]: boxes 91 stacked in vertical direction), and
an inlet/outlet guide part (11)
disposed at an upper side of the tank part (on top of 12) and
configured to guide unloading of the rack (9) with respect to the tank part (12); and
at least a part of a gas ([0034]: nitrogen gas) , which maintains a temperature ([0034]) in the tank part (12) , to discharge the gas to the outside ([0048]).
However, Oh is silent regarding a pipe structure.
On the other hand, Tanaka teaches a pipe structure (47; See [0045]).
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 Oh and to have modified them by a pipe structure, in order to be able to supply the nitrogen from the nitrogen gas source (See Tanaka [0045]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 9, Modified Oh teaches wherein the tank part may have a lower humidity made by the gas introduced thereinto than a case in which no gas is supplied, such that the amount of occurrence of icing may be reduced2.
In re Claim 10, Modified Oh teaches wherein the pipe structure (47) may include a main pipe (47) configured to communicate with the inside of the tank part (Tanaka 15 corresponding to Oh 12) ,
a first branch pipe (211) configured to allow the main pipe (47) to communicate with the inside of the tank part (12) ,
a second branch pipe (See Tanaka Annotated Fig. 9: second branch) configured to allow the main pipe to communicate with the outside (see arrows of second branch pipe), and
a valve (115) configured to open the second branch pipe (Tanaka Annotated Fig. 9: second branch).
In re Claim 11, Modified Oh teaches wherein the valve (Tanaka 115) may be opened to reduce the amount of gas to be introduced (Tanaka 113) into the first branch pipe (Tanaka 211).
In re Claim 13, Modified Oh teaches wherein the gas may be nitrogen gas (Oh [0034]: nitrogen gas).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, when taken as a whole, neither anticipates nor render prima facie obvious the claimed invention as currently recited in at least claims 5 and 12.
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
1 The recitation of "such that the amount of occurrence of icing may be reduced," recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
2 The recitation of "such that the amount of occurrence of icing may be reduced" recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
Prosecution Insights