DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending.
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 13-16 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a storage tank system”. Claim 13 further claims that the scope of the claim includes the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a storage tank system”. It is not clear if the storage tank system of claim 13 is the same as the storage tank system as claimed in claim 1. The scope of the claim could not be determined and is considered indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “monitoring a rate of change in the pressure measured by the sensor”. Claim 14 further claims that the scope of the claim includes the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “monitor a rate of change in the pressure measured by the pressure sensor”. It is not clear if the monitored pressure of claim 14 is the same as the monitored pressure as claimed in claim 1. The scope of the claim could not be determined and is considered indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “determining that damage to the storage tank has occurred if the rate of change in the measured pressure is above a desired value”. Claim 14 further claims that the scope of the claim includes the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “determine that damage to the storage tank has occurred when the rate of change in the pressure measured is above a desired value”. It is not clear if the determined damage of claim 14 is the same as the determined damage as claimed in claim 1. The scope of the claim could not be determined and is considered indefinite.
Claims 15, 16 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 17 is drawn to a “computer program", per se; therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention.
A claim directed to a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se, is non-statutory because it is not:
A process occurring as a result of executing the program, or
A machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program, or
A manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the program in a manner which enable the program to act as a computer component and realize its functionality, or
A composition of matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not disclose nor suggest individually or in combination the claimed storage tank comprising the layered skin with an insulation cavity having a pressure sensor to measure a pressure in the insulation cavity; wherein a safety system monitors the rate of change in the pressure and determine that a damage to the tank has occurred when the rate of change is above a desired value.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688