FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed on 23 July, 2026.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-22 are pending.
Claims 5 and 9 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAMPBELL (US 6,339,996 B1 – published 22 January, 2002).
As to claim 1, CAMPBELL discloses a method for storing ethane (col.3, lines 51-56) comprising storing ethane in a plurality of storage pipes(18; col. 7, lines 56-59) as a liquid at ambient temperature conditions(col. 3, lines 51-56).
As to claim 8, CAMPBELL discloses wherein the plurality of storage pipes is provided on a transportation vehicle, wherein the transportation vehicle is a ship, vessel, and/or tanker (col.5, lines 28-35; figures 1-2 and 7-9).
As to claim 10, CAMPBELL discloses the method comprising storing the ethane as claimed in accordance with claim 8, and transporting the ethane with the vehicle (col.5, lines 28-35; figures 1-2 and 7-9).
As to claim 17, CAMPBELL discloses a plurality of storage pipes (18; col.7, lines 56-59) configured to store ethane therein as a liquid at ambient temperature conditions (col.3, lines 51-56).
As to claim 18, CAMPBELL discloses comprising liquid ethane at ambient temperature conditions stored within the plurality of storage pipes (col. 3, lines 51-56).
As to claim 19, CAMPBELL discloses a transportation vehicle comprising a plurality of storage pipes as claimed in claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17; col. 5, lines 28-35; figures 1-2 and 7-9).
As to claim 20, CAMPBELL discloses wherein the transportation vehicle is a ship, vessel, and/or tanker (col. 5, lines 28-36; figures 1-2 and 7-9).
As to claim 21, CAMPBELL discloses a storage facility comprising a plurality of storage pipes as claimed in claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17; col. 5, lines 28-36; figures 1-2).
As to claim 22, CAMPBELL discloses wherein the storage facility is an offshore floating storage facility (col. 5, lines 28-36; figures 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAMPBELL (US 6,339,996 B1 – published 22 January, 2002), in view of HALCROW (WO 2016/027098 A1 – published in English on 25 February, 2016).
As to claim 2, CAMPBELL discloses ambient temperature conditions (col. 3, lines 54-56), but CAMPBELL does not expressly disclose wherein the ambient temperature condition is between 0°C and 40°C.
HALCROW is within the field of endeavor provided a method of storing ethane (abstract). HALCROW teaches wherein the critical temperature of ethane is 32.18°C at 47.7 barg (i.e., the temperature at which ethane cannot be liquefied above and pressure at its critical temperature necessary to liquefy; par. 4). As such, providing the ambient conditions necessarily being at this critical point of ethane would allow for the system to maintain the ethane within the liquid state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAMPBELL, in view of the teachings of HALCROW, to include the ambient temperature condition being between 0°C and 40°C, based on the desire of storing the ethane in a liquid state, which is achievable based on the intrinsic thermophysical properties of ethane at the critical temperature and pressure conditions necessary.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAMPBELL (US 6,339,996 B1 – published 22 January, 2002).
As to claim 3, CAMPBELL discloses wherein the liquid ethane is stored at pressure conditions between 35 barg to 49 barg (col. 6, lines 37-42; MPEP § 2144.05In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ).
More so, CAMPBELL recognizes wherein the operating pressure may be optimized (col. 6, lines 63-col.7, line 28), and selected based on desired pressure requirements. As such, the pressure conditions of the stored ethane is considered a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is the optimization of the system and minimum allowable pressure of the system. As such, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). A person having ordinary skill within the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as the only parameter changed would be the pressure relative to the operation conditions of the stored ethane interior to the pressure vessel, which is used to maintain the liquid state of the ethane. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAMPBELL to include the pressure conditions within the stated claimed ranges, further, for this reason.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAMPBELL (US 6,339,996 B1 – published 22 January, 2002), in view of FAWLEY (US 6,779,656 B1 – published 24 August, 2004).
As to claim 4, CAMPBELL discloses the storage pipes have a diameter and/or length (figures 1-2), but CAMPBELL does not expressly disclose wherein the nominal diameter is between 40-60inches (1-1.5m) and the length is between 10 to 30m.
FAWLEY, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a compressed gas storage pressure vessel (abstract; col. 1, lines 7-10). FAWLEY teaches wherein the pressure vessel has a nominal diameter between 40-60inches(col. 4, lines 56-58; col. 6, lines 31-33) and length between 10 to 30m (col. 6, lines 59-61). Particularly, providing such enables reduced weight of the pressure vessel, in combination with other aspects of FAWLEY, that enables storage of compressed gases (col. 1, lines 7-10; col. 4, lines 65-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAMPBELL, in view of FAWLEY, to include the nominal diameter and length of the storage pipes, to achieve parameters thereof that enable reduction in weight, while maintaining capability to store a compressed fluid.
As to claim 6, CAMPBELL discloses a material forming the storage pipes, but does not expressly disclose the material being comprised of X452, X46, X52, X56, X60, X65, X70, or X80 pipe in accordance with the API SPEC 5L specification.
FAWLEY, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a compressed gas storage pressure vessel (abstract; col. 1, lines 7-10). FAWLEY teaches it is known to provide the storage pipes with at least a material of X70 pipe in accordance with API SPEC 5L specification (col. 4, lines 56-58; col. 6, lines 31-33 and 59-61). As such, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. In this case, it would be recognized the appropriate application of at least X70 pipe material in accordance with API SPEC 5L specification, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAMPBELL, in view of FAWLEY, to include such material based on known suitability of the material within the field of endeavor.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAMPBELL (US 6,339,996 B1 – published 22 January, 2002), in view of WOGERBAUER (US 3707257 A – published 26 December, 1972).
As to claim 7, CAMPBELL does not further disclose wherein the storage pipes are formed from a rolled pipe with a single longitudinal seam.
However, WOGERBAUER is relevant to the problem solved by the Applicant (abstract of WOGERBAUER; pg. 2, lines 28-29 and pg. 4, lines 14-16 of the Instant Application). WOGERBAUER teaches wherein it is known to provide one longitudinal seam tubes formed from rolled pipe (abstract; col. 3, lines 48-49), so as to produce regular tube shape and dimensions in a highly economical and versatile manner (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAMPBELL, in view of WOGERBAUER, to include the storage pipes formed form a rolled pipe with a single longitudinal seam for these reasons.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAMPBELL (US 6,339,996 B1 – published 22 January, 2002), in view of CHRISTENSEN (US 2008/0087328 A1 – published 17 April, 2008).
As to claim 11, CAMPBELL discloses transporting ethane in accordance with claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10) to a site and injecting the ethane to the site (col. 6, line 59 – col. 7, line 9).
However, CAMPBELL does not disclose the site includes a dry gas pipeline, such that ethane is injected into the dry gas pipeline.
CHRISTENSEN, however, is within the field of endeavor of transporting a rich natural gas inclusive of heavier hydrocarbons (e.g., ethane; par. 28). CHRISTENSEN teaches wherein it is known within the field of endeavor to inject such natural gas into a dry gas pipeline (par. 29 and 31). CHRISTENSEN teaches doing so prevents the natural gas, composed of heavier hydrocarbons, from condensing within the pipeline (par. 8) and increases the velocity through the pipeline (par. 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAMPBELL, in view of the teachings of CHRISTENSEN to include injecting the ethane into a dry gas pipeline at a site thereof, for these reasons.
As to claim 12, CAMPBELL, as modified, previously taught discharging the ethane into the dry gas pipeline (see rejection of claim 11).
However, CAMPBELL does not disclose the direct injection from the transport vehicle to the dry gas pipeline.
CHRISTENSEN, however, teaches wherein it is known within the field of endeavor to inject such natural gas directly into a dry gas pipeline (par. 29 and 31; figure 1). Again, the purpose of such prevents the natural gas, composed of heavier hydrocarbons, from condensing within the pipeline (par. 8) and increases the velocity through the pipeline (par. 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAMPBELL, in view of the teachings of CHRISTENSEN to include injecting the ethane directly into a dry gas pipeline, for these reasons.
As to claim 15, CAMPBELL, as modified, previously taught discharging the ethane into the dry gas pipeline (see rejection of claim 11).
However, CAMPBELL does not disclose the injection step includes static mixing.
CHRISTENSEN, however, teaches wherein it is known within the field of endeavor to inject such natural gas into a dry gas pipeline by static mixing(par. 29 and 31; figure 1). Again, the purpose of such prevents the natural gas, composed of heavier hydrocarbons, from condensing within the pipeline (par. 8) and increases the velocity through the pipeline (par. 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAMPBELL, in view of the teachings of CHRISTENSEN to include injecting the ethane into a dry gas pipeline by static mixing, for these reasons.
As to claim 16, CAMPBELL, as modified, previously taught discharging the ethane into the dry gas pipeline (see rejection of claim 11), and further discloses wherein the transportation vehicle is a ship, vessel, and/or tanker (col. 5, lines 28-36; figures 1-2 and 7-9).
However, CAMPBELL does not disclose the dry gas pipeline is an offshore dry gas pipeline.
CHRISTENSEN, however, teaches wherein it is known within the field of endeavor to inject such natural gas into a dry gas pipeline (par. 29 and 31; figure 1), wherein the dry gas pipeline is offshore (figure 1, in view par. 31). Again, the purpose of such prevents the natural gas, composed of heavier hydrocarbons, from condensing within the pipeline (par. 8) and increases the velocity through the pipeline (par. 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAMPBELL, in view of the teachings of CHRISTENSEN to include injecting the ethane into an off shore dry gas pipeline, for these reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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.
Reasons for indicating allowable subject matter of claims 13-14 have been previously provided within the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 5 May, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 July, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At page 6, Applicant argues, “Campbell does not disclose at least (1) storing ethane as a liquid at ambient temperature conditions”. The claim recites, “the method comprising storing ethane in a plurality of storage pipes as a liquid at ambient conditions”, which CAMPBELL provides, in view of, liquid ethane storage occurs on a transportation system designed to operate at ambient temperature conditions, column 3, lines 51-56, with the storage pipes being pressurized, column 6, lines 37-42. “The transportation of liquefied ethane may include conventional refrigeration and insulation to ensure that a liquid state is maintained. The invention relates to a compressed natural gas (CNG) and compressed natural gas liquid (CNGL) transportation system designed to operate at ambient conditions. The CNG/CNGL transportation system may be either ship-based, truck-mounted, or modular, whereby composite pressure vessels are used to overcome the safety limitations, weight restriction and corrosion problems, related with steel or steel lined pressure vessels”. In addition, while CAMPBELL provides “The transportation of liquefied ethane may include conventional refrigeration and insulation to ensure that a liquid state is maintained.”, the disclosed invention of CAMPBELL does not include any refrigeration system, refrigerant or coolant performing cooling operations, and/or other mechanisms to maintain the ethane at any particular temperature within the storage pipes. In fact, CAMPBELL provides wherein the system includes the storage pipes to be pressure vessels, as stated in column 5, line 64 – col.6, line 15 and column 6, lines 37-42, to ensure storage of the ethane in the liquid state for transportation. More so, “ambient temperature” is extremely broad, and includes any temperature experienced encompassing the storage pipes. See Definition of “ambient” (AMBIENT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster). See MPEP § 2111.01. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See page 1, lines 4-6, page 3, lines 4-9, page 4, lines 17-22, at least of the instant application. Given CAMPBELL provides storage of liquid ethane (col. 3, lines 51-56), which occurs within pressurized vessels (col. 5, line 64 – col.6, line 15 and col. 6, lines 37-42) that are within a system operating at ambient temperature conditions (col. 3, lines 51-61), envisioned without inclusion of any refrigeration system, refrigerant or coolant performing cooling operations, and/or other mechanisms to maintain the ethane at any particular temperature, the temperature of the ethane would be at a temperature defined as an ambient temperature. For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
At page 6-7, Applicant, again, alleges “Campbell does not disclose (or even point towards) storing liquid ethane at ambient temperatures as required by independent claim 1” by stating “This must certainly be the case because the Examiner points to a secondary document, Halcrow (WO 2016/027098 A1), as disclosing the ambient temperature range of claim 2, rather than any specific disclosure of Campbell that would fall in the range of the claimed ambient temperatures.” Such argument does not support the conclusion of Applicant with regards to claim 1, in view of claim 2 further specifying the ambient temperature recited by claim 1, but claim 1 not requiring such temperature range. Further, as stated previously, CAMPBELL provides storage of liquid ethane (col. 3, lines 51-56), which occurs within pressurized vessels (col. 5, line 64 – col.6, line 15 and col. 6, lines 37-42) that are within a system operating at ambient temperature conditions (col. 3, lines 51-61), envisioned without inclusion of any refrigeration system, refrigerant or coolant performing cooling operations, and/or other mechanisms to maintain the ethane at any particular temperature, the temperature of the ethane would be at a temperature defined as an ambient temperature. However, with regards to claim 2, CAMPBELL does not expressly state the ambient temperature being with the range of 0-40°C. That being said, in view of CAMPBELL providing pressure vessels storing liquid ethane, envisioned without inclusion of any refrigeration system, refrigerant or coolant performing cooling operations, and/or other mechanisms to maintain the ethane at any particular temperature, one having ordinary skill within the art would have recognized the temperature of the liquid ethane to be within this range, in view of the thermodynamic properties of ethane. Particularly, the critical point of ethane being 32.18°C at 47.7 barg, i.e. the temperature at which ethane cannot be liquefied above and pressure necessary at the critical temperature to liquefy ethane. It will be noted 47.7 barg (546.79 psi) is within the pressure range of the system described by CAMPBELL (col.6, line 38) storing liquid ethane within the storage pipes. In view of such, CAMPBELL necessarily provides the ambient temperature conditions, and in view of the critical point of ethane, as taught by HALCROW, one having ordinary skill within the art would have found obvious the ambient temperature being at least 32.18°C so as to provide the conditions set forth by CAMPBELL, i.e., liquid ethane at 546.79psi. For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
At pages 6-7, Applicant alleges, “the specific disclosure of the storage of ethane is always accompanied by refrigeration and use of insulation (see, e.g., Col. 7, lines 64-66; Col.3, lines 51-56; Col.4, lines 65-67)”, which is not consistent with the disclosure of CAMPBELL when considered “as a whole”. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP § 2141.02. CAMPBELL provides “The transportation of liquefied ethane may include conventional refrigeration and insulation to ensure that a liquid state is maintained.”, the disclosed invention of CAMPBELL does not include any refrigeration system, refrigerant or coolant performing cooling operations, and/or other mechanisms to maintain the ethane at any particular temperature within the storage pipes. In fact, CAMPBELL provides wherein the system includes the storage pipes to be pressure vessels, as stated in column 5, line 64 – col.6, line 15 and column 6, lines 37-42, to ensure storage of the ethane in the liquid state for transportation, absent any teachings or implementation of any refrigeration system, refrigerant or coolant performing cooling operations, and/or other mechanisms. For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
At page 7, Applicant argues “the term ‘storage pipe’ in the present application refers to a storage container formed form a length of pipe. These storages pipes may be standard ‘off the shelf’ pipes and can differ from conventional storage tanks by having a relatively smaller wall thickness, as well as being subject to different regulatory standards” to conclude “As such, when looking at Campbel, the skilled person would not find any disclosure of the use of storage pipes, and certainly would not find any disclosure of the use of storage pipes for storing liquid ethane at ambient temperature conditions”. The instant application states at page 2, lines 6-10 the following:
“The term 'storage pipe' refers to a storage container formed from (i.e.
comprising) a length of pipe, which has been closed at each end, optionally by a hemispherical cap or dome that has, for example, been welded to the end of the
pipe. Accordingly, the storage pipes are highly elongate, typically having a length- to-diameter ratio of at least 20.”
At best, the term “storage pipe” includes a length of pipe which has been closed at each end. See MPEP § 2111.01 – IV. However, the special definition provided within the specification does not provide any reference to the wall thickness of the pipes nor the storage pipes being “off the shelf”, as alleged by the Applicant. As such, the inclusion of such wall thickness or “off the shelf” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terminology “storage pipe” would be improper. See MPEP § 2111.01 – II. "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In addition, CAMPBELL provides the structural requirements of “storage pipe” as it provides a length of pipe with closed ends (18; figures 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 9; col. 7, lines 56-59). For such, the argument is not persuasive.
As to pages 7-8, Applicant alleges, again, “Campbell discloses the use of composite pressure vessels 18, these are not storage pipes as claimed”. Again, the term “storage pipe” includes a length of pipe which has been closed at each end. See MPEP § 2111.01 – IV. CAMPBELL provides the structural requirements of “storage pipe” as it provides a length of pipe with closed ends (18; figures 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 9; col. 7, lines 56-59). For such, the argument is not persuasive.
As to page 8, Applicant asserts the same arguments with regards to claim 17 and claim 18 (appears to be a typographical error, as claim 18 is not an independent claim). However, as provided above, CAMPBELL provides “storing ethane in a plurality of storage pipes as a liquid at ambient temperature conditions” for the same reasons previously provided herein. As such, the argument is not persuasive for these reasons.
At pages 8-9, Applicant argues against the teachings of HALCROW with regards to claim 2. Particularly, Applicant alleges, “Halcrow cites the critical temperature only to explain why seawater at a similar temperature would be unsuitable as a coolant for re-liquefying boil-off gas – it is discussing refrigerant selection, not a design choice to store ethane at ambient temperature” and “Halcrow’s own systems store liquid ethane at temperature below ambient, not at ambient temperature as claimed. Halcrow is entirely directed to a boil-off-gas re-liquefaction process for refrigerated tanks, and nowhere teaches ambient-temperature storage as an alternative to refrigeration”. Arguments presented by the Applicant are not germane to the issue at hand. Ethane possesses the thermodynamic properties of a critical temperature and a critical pressure of which cannot be liquefied above no matter how much pressure is applied and pressure necessary at the critical temperature to liquefy ethane, respectively. "To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). See MPEP § 2163.07(a) and § 2131.01. HALCROW teaches such critical temperature and pressure, which would be at least necessary within CAMPBELL because the ethane in CAMPBELL is liquefied within the storage pipes. For this, the arguments pertaining to HALCROW are not persuasive.
At pages 9-10, Applicant asserts, in view of the application of routine optimization of the pressure range, “This reasoning is flawed because the In re Aller line of cases requires that the prior art first discloses the “general conditions” of the claim before an overlapping numerical range becomes a matter of routine optimization”. CAMPBELL provides the general conditions of the system by providing a pressure. More so, CAMPBELL provides wherein the pressure is a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e. a result-effective variable. In this case, changing the pressure achieves optimization of the system. See Column 6, line 63 – Column 7, line 28 of CAMPBELL. In addition, Applicant again argues “Campbell’s disclosed pressure for liquid ethane are achieved as part of a scheme that expressly relies on ‘conventional refrigeration and insulation…to insure that a liquid state is maintained”. First, the general condition is relevant to the pressure established within the system of CAMPBELL. Second, a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP § 2141.02. CAMPBELL provides “The transportation of liquefied ethane may include conventional refrigeration and insulation to ensure that a liquid state is maintained.”, the disclosed invention of CAMPBELL does not include any refrigeration system, refrigerant or coolant performing cooling operations, and/or other mechanisms to maintain the ethane at any particular temperature within the storage pipes. In fact, CAMPBELL provides wherein the system includes the storage pipes to be pressure vessels, as stated in column 5, line 64 – col.6, line 15 and column 6, lines 37-42, to ensure storage of the ethane in the liquid state for transportation, absent any teachings or implementation of any refrigeration system, refrigerant or coolant performing cooling operations, and/or other mechanisms. It will also be noted that Applicant asserts “its disclosed pressure figures are not a “result-effective variable” for the specific result claimed (maintaining liquid ethane at ambient temperature through pressurization alone)”, which is not persuasive. Particularly, the claim does not establish “maintaining liquid ethane at ambient temperature through pressurization alone”. See MPEP § 2111.01 – II. In addition, CAMPBELL is not limited to including a refrigeration system and insulation, but if CAMPBELL were, as alleged by the Applicant, the claims are not limited to systems which expressly do not include such features. The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2111.03 – I. For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
At pages 10-11, Applicant argues against the teachings of FAWLEY with regards to the rejections of claims 4 and 6. These arguments are not persuasive, as the claims, in light of the special definition of “storage pipe” (see previously discussed definition), define the invention being sought for protection. FAWLEY provides the diameter and length as claimed (see claim 4), in addition to the particular material of the storage pipe (see claim 6). The reasons provided are with regards to reduced weight of the pressure vessel, while maintaining the capability of storing a compressed fluid (col. 1, lines 7-10; col. 4, lines 65-67 of FAWLEY). See Non-Final Office Action mailed on 5 May, 2026 at page 6. In addition, FAWLEY provides wherein a particular material is known to be selected based on its suitability for the application. See MPEP § 2144.07. See Non-Final Office Action mailed on 5 May, 2026 at pages 6-7. Applicant’s arguments, in view of such are not persuasive.
At pages 11-12, Applicant argues against the teachings of WOGERBAUER with regards to the rejection of claim 7. Particularly, Applicant asserts “WOGERBAUER is silent as to any use of its tubes for gas storage, let alone for storing liquid ethane at elevated pressure and ambient temperature; the reference is concerned entirely with manufacturing flexibility and economy of tube production, not with pressure-vessel performance, corrosion resistance, or suitability for pressurized liquefied-gas service.” In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 , the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. See MPEP § 2141.01(a). In this case, the relevant problem solved by the Applicant with regards to the storage pipe is to produce a storage tube that is ‘inexpensive”. See page 2, lines 28-29 and page 4, lines 14-16 of the instant application. WOGERBAUER provides such, as stated within the abstract thereof. For this, WOGERBAUER is analogous prior art. Where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, the claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success. The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in combining or modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367, 119 USPQ2d 1171, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP § 2143.02. In this case, WOGERBAUER provides teachings of a single seam pipe for the purpose of achieving a versatile and economical product. Providing such within CAMPBELL includes a “likelihood of success” to meet the limitations of the claimed invention of “each of the storage pipes is formed form a rolled pipe with a single longitudinal seam”, in view of the product produced by WOGERBAUER being versatile and economical and CAMPBELL disclosing the storage pipe. For these reasons the arguments are not persuasive.
At pages 12-13, Applicant argues against the teachings of CHRISTENSEN, and particularly, alleges, “In fact, Christensen’s system operates in the opposite direction from what is described”. CHRISTENSEN provides wherein the natural gas including heavier hydrocarbons is injected (via into mixing unit, 10, which includes dry gas. “The dry gas is transported to the gas wells, where the dry gas is mixed with the natural gas in one or more primary mixing unit(s) (10)” (par. 31 of CHRISTENSEN). Further, as shown in figures 1, 3, and 4 of CHRISTENSEN, the dry gas is injected into the main pipeline, 3, carrying the natural gas. In addition, CHRISTENSEN expressly teaches wherein the addition of the dry gas within the heavy hydrocarbon natural gas line reduced to prevent condensation within the pipeline (par. 28-31 of CHRISTENSEN). For these reasons, CHRISTENSEN necessarily teaches the requirements of the claim, and the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 10/2/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
