DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 Objections
Claims 9-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, lines 2-3, “each of the plurality of half-pipes is facing each other” should be changed to --each of the plurality of half-pipes faces another one of the plurality of half-pipes--.
In claim 10, “the plurality of half-pipes that is fitted is extending” should be changed to --the plurality of half-pipes extends-- or --the plurality of half-pipes fitted together extends--.
In claim 11, line 2, “other end” should be changed to --another end of the inert gas transmission pipe--.
In claim 12, line 2, “comprising” should be changed to --comprises--.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doose (US 3,822,714).
Regarding claim 1, Doose discloses in Figs. 1-2 a vent system comprising: a supply-side inert gas tank (comprising a first one of tanks 6) that supplies an inert gas (inside tanks 6 and in the space between outer tube 5 and inner tube 2 that is in fluid communication with the tanks 6, as disclosed in col. 3, lines 36-42 and col. 4, lines 14-16); an inert gas transmission pipe 5 that transmits the inert gas, the inert gas transmission pipe 5 having a gas transport pipeline (comprising pipeline 1 and/or pipeline 2) disposed inside; and a recovery-side inert gas tank (comprising a second one of tanks 6) that recovers the transmitted inert gas.
Regarding claim 2, Doose discloses in Figs. 1-2 that the supply-side inert gas tank supplies the inert gas when it is determined that a gas is leaked from the gas transport pipeline (because the inert gas can be supplied anytime, including when there’s a leak in either of pipelines 1, 2, as disclosed in col. 3, lines 16-42).
Regarding claim 5, Doose discloses in Figs. 1-2 a venting method performed by a vent system including a supply-side inert gas tank (comprising a first one of tanks 6), an inert gas transmission pipe 5 (col. 3, lines 36-42) having a gas transport pipeline (comprising pipeline 1 and/or pipeline 2) disposed inside, and a recovery-side inert gas tank (comprising a second one of tanks 6), the venting method comprising: supplying an inert gas by the supply-side inert gas tank; transmitting the inert gas by the inert gas transmission pipe 5; and recovering the transmitted inert gas by the recovery-side inert gas tank.
Regarding claim 6, Doose discloses in Figs. 1-2 that the supply-side inert gas tank supplies the inert gas when it is determined that a gas is leaked from the gas transport pipeline (because the inert gas can be supplied anytime, including when there’s a leak in either of pipelines 1, 2, as disclosed in col. 3, lines 16-42).
Claims 1 and 11-12 (alternatively: 1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cochran et al. (US 6,032,699).
Regarding claim 1, Cochran discloses in Figs. 1-11 (specifically the embodiment of the overall system in Fig. 7) a vent system comprising: a supply-side inert gas tank 52 that supplies an inert gas (via boots 34, bypass 82, and/or pipe 68); an inert gas transmission pipe 12 that transmits the inert gas, the inert gas transmission pipe 12 having a gas transport pipeline 10 disposed inside; and a recovery-side inert gas tank 54 that recovers the transmitted inert gas.
Regarding claim 11, Cochran discloses in Figs. 1-11 (specifically the overall embodiment shown in Fig. 7) that one end of the inert gas transmission pipe 12 (of section 78) is connected to a supply port (at seal for tank 52 like seal 74 shown in Fig. 4) of the supply-side inert gas tank 52 (such as the left tank 6 in Fig. 1) and other end is connected to a duct connection port (at seal for tank 54 like seal 74 shown in Fig. 4) that is fixed to an underground structure 54 (comprising the recover-side inert gas tank 54 and/or the other structures on the pipeline, such as boot 34, sensor 88, etc.).
Regarding claim 12, Cochran discloses in Figs. 1-11 that the vent system further comprising a controller (comprising the microprocessor disclosed in col. 10, lines 20-23) that configures a gas leakage determination unit 88a and an inert gas leakage determination unit 88b.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doose in view of Cochran and Lee (US 3,827,455).
Regarding claim 3, Doose discloses in Figs. 1-2 the gas transport pipeline (comprising pipeline 1 and/or pipeline 2), as previously discussed, but lacks a determination device that determines whether or not a gas is leaked from the gas transport pipeline based on an internal pressure of a supply-side gas tank that supplies a gas to the gas transport pipeline and an internal pressure of a consumption-side gas tank that receives the gas transported by the gas transport pipeline.
With regard to the supply-side gas tank and the consumption-side gas tank, Lee teaches a supply-side gas tank (comprising the interior tank of tank 11 that stores fuel 13, and excluding the outer jacket 16 that stores inert gas, as disclosed in col. 2, lines 19-22 and col. 3, lines 20-22) that supplies a gas to the gas transport pipeline 14 (col. 3, lines 9-13) and a consumption-side gas tank (comprising the interior tank of tank 12 that stores fuel 13, and excluding the outer jacket 16 that stores inert gas) that receives the gas transported by the gas transport pipeline 14.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Doose to include a supply-side gas tank and a consumption-side gas tank on opposite ends of the gas transport pipeline, as Lee teaches, so that the pipeline can provide storage at different locations along its length along long distances to provide the gas quicker, as compared to having to always transport the gas from its initial source.
With regard to the determination device, Cochran teaches in Figs. 1-11 (specifically the embodiment of the overall system in Fig. 7) a determination device (comprising either of pressure sensors 88a, 88b, and/or the microprocessor connected to the pressure sensors 88a, 88b, as disclosed in col. 10, lines 20-23) that determines whether or not a gas is leaked from the gas transport pipeline 10 based on an internal pressure of the gas transport pipeline 10 (col. 9, lines 50-54), which is inherently based on the internal pressures of structures in constant fluid communication with the gas transport pipeline 10 because all of the structures are in constant fluid communication with each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Doose and Lee to include a determination device in the form a pressure sensor(s) that can sense when there’s a leak in the gas transport pipeline based on internal pressure of the gas transport pipeline (and inherently based on the internal pressures of the supply-side gas tank and the consumption-side gas tank taught by Lee, because the gas tanks and gas transport pipeline are in constant fluid communication with each other), to alert an operator/user as soon as the leak occurs for fixing/addressing, as Cochran teaches (col. 9, line 64 – col. 10, line 2).
Regarding claim 4, Doose discloses in Figs. 1-2 the inert gas transmission pipeline 5 extending between the supply-side inert gas tank (comprising a first one of tanks 6) and the recovery-side inert gas tank (comprising a second one of tanks 6). Cochran teaches in Figs. 1-11 (specifically the embodiment of the overall system in Fig. 7) that the determination device (comprising either of pressure sensors 88a, 88b, and/or the microprocessor connected to the pressure sensors 88a, 88b, as disclosed in col. 10, lines 20-23) determines whether or not the inert gas is leaked from the inert gas transmission pipe 12 based on an internal pressure of the inert gas transmission pipe 12 (col. 9, lines 50-54), which would inherently be based on an internal pressure of the supply-side inert gas tank and an internal pressure of the recovery-side inert gas tank disclosed by Doose in the modification of Doose in view of Cochran because the inert gas tanks disclosed by Doose are in constant fluid communication with the inert gas transmission pipeline 5.
Regarding claim 7, Doose discloses in Figs. 1-2 the gas transport pipeline (comprising pipeline 1 and/or pipeline 2), as previously discussed, but lacks determining whether or not a gas is leaked from the gas transport pipeline based on an internal pressure of a supply-side gas tank that supplies a gas to the gas transport pipeline and an internal pressure of a consumption-side gas tank that receives the gas transported by the gas transport pipeline.
With regard to the supply-side gas tank and the consumption-side gas tank, Lee teaches a supply-side gas tank (comprising the interior tank of tank 11 that stores fuel 13, and excluding the outer jacket 16 that stores inert gas, as disclosed in col. 2, lines 19-22 and col. 3, lines 20-22) that supplies a gas to the gas transport pipeline 14 (col. 3, lines 9-13) and a consumption-side gas tank (comprising the interior tank of tank 12 that stores fuel 13, and excluding the outer jacket 16 that stores inert gas) that receives the gas transported by the gas transport pipeline 14.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Doose to include a supply-side gas tank and a consumption-side gas tank on opposite ends of the gas transport pipeline, as Lee teaches, so that the pipeline can provide storage at different locations along its length along long distances to provide the gas quicker, as compared to having to always transport the gas from its initial source.
With regard to determining leakage from the gas transport pipeline, Cochran teaches in Figs. 1-11 (specifically the embodiment of the overall system in Fig. 7) determining (via either of pressure sensors 88a, 88b, and/or the microprocessor connected to the pressure sensors 88a, 88b, as disclosed in col. 10, lines 20-23) that whether or not a gas is leaked from the gas transport pipeline 10 based on an internal pressure of the gas transport pipeline 10 (col. 9, lines 50-54), which is inherently based on the internal pressures of structures in constant fluid communication with the gas transport pipeline 10 because all of the structures are in constant fluid communication with each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Doose and Lee to include a determination device in the form a pressure sensor(s) that can sense when there’s a leak in the gas transport pipeline based on internal pressure of the gas transport pipeline (and inherently based on the internal pressures of the supply-side gas tank and the consumption-side gas tank taught by Lee, because the gas tanks and gas transport pipeline are in constant fluid communication with each other), to alert an operator/user as soon as the leak occurs for fixing/addressing, as Cochran teaches (col. 9, line 64 – col. 10, line 2).
Regarding claim 8, Doose discloses in Figs. 1-2 the inert gas transmission pipeline 5 extending between the supply-side inert gas tank (comprising a first one of tanks 6) and the recovery-side inert gas tank (comprising a second one of tanks 6). Cochran teaches in Figs. 1-11 (specifically the embodiment of the overall system in Fig. 7) determining (via either of pressure sensors 88a, 88b, and/or the microprocessor connected to the pressure sensors 88a, 88b, as disclosed in col. 10, lines 20-23) whether or not the inert gas is leaked from the inert gas transmission pipe 12 based on an internal pressure of the inert gas transmission pipe 12 (col. 9, lines 50-54), which would inherently be based on an internal pressure of the supply-side inert gas tank and an internal pressure of the recovery-side inert gas tank disclosed by Doose in the modification of Doose in view of Cochran because the inert gas tanks disclosed by Doose are in constant fluid communication with the inert gas transmission pipeline 5.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doose in view of Schmitt (US 6,202,656).
Regarding claim 9, Doose discloses an inert gas transmission pipe, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that the inert gas transmission pipe is formed by fitting together a plurality of half-pipes, wherein each of the plurality of half-pipes is facing each other in a radial direction of the gas transport pipeline.
Schmitt teaches in Figs. 3-8 an inert gas transmission pipe 202 that is formed by fitting together a plurality of half-pipes 228, 230, wherein each of the plurality of half-pipes 228, 230 is facing each other in a radial direction of the gas transport pipeline 200.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inert gas transmission pipe disclosed by Doose so that it comprises a plurality of half-pipes that can be assembled simply, quickly, and inexpensively, and be adaptable to the gas transport pipeline, as Schmitt teaches (col. 10, lines 4-21).
Regarding claim 10, Schmitt teaches in Figs. 3-8 that the plurality of half-pipes 228, 230 that is fitted is extending in a direction of the gas transport pipeline 200.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753