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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a mechanism for adjusting the tension exerted by the return member” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the purpose of this office action, it will be interpreted as the mechanism 10 in figure 5 (a nut that can tighten a slidable spring mechanism 9).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 13-24 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation of a suspension system with one or more cables, and the claim also recites “wherein the suspension system comprises a single cable” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the wall in question" in lines 2-3. This is found indefinite as it is unclear what wall is being previously referenced.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the horizontal type" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 states “a cable suspension system” which is found to be indefinite as it is unclear how this is related to the previously disclosed suspension system and cables in parent claim 13.
Claims 14-24 all depend from claim 13 rejected above and therefore inherit the 35 USC 112 deficiencies of their parent claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication number 2016/0053941 Rebernik in view of US patent application publication number 2007/0084221 Ruocco-Angari hereinafter Angari.
Regarding Claim 13, Rebernik discloses (figure 1) A double-walled tank for storing liquefied gas, comprising an inner wall 2 delimiting a storage volume for the fluid and an outer wall 1 arranged around the inner wall with a thermally insulated space (paragraph 48), Wherein the inner wall comprises at least one end, and wherein the outer wall comprises at least one end, wherein the inner wall is suspended in the outer wall at least one of the ends via a suspension system 5 with one or more cables tensioned between the inner wall and the outer wall (paragraph 50). Rebernik does not explicitly disclose wherein the suspension system comprises a single cable that doubles back on itself more than once between the inner wall and the outer wall via respective guide passages, the cable forming a plurality of connections between the inner wall and the outer wall in distinct directions and in that one end of said cable is secured to one of the walls and configured to tension the cable. This is disclosed by Angari who provides suspension of one device to outer walls of a container can utilize a single cable (figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, single cable 10 attached to eyelets 8 and 9 on inner and outer walls). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize a single cable doubling back to suspend the internal component/tank inside an external wall as disclosed by Angari with the tanks of Rebernik in order to ensure tensions in each strand the cable are balanced automatically since they are not independent of each other (see paragraph 48). Additionally it is a simple substitution of one known element (a single cord suspension system) for another (a multi-cord suspension system) to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 14 Rebernik as modified by Angari further discloses wherein the plurality of connections formed by the cable between the inner wall and the outer wall are located between two respective ends of the inner wall and of the outer wall (see suspension cords 5 in figure 1 of Rebernik can be attached to ends of inner and outer wall). See motivation in rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding Claim 15 Rebernik discloses wherein the tank has an overall shape exhibiting symmetry of revolution about a central axis and in that the connections of the cable between the inner wall and the outer wall are arranged around said central axis and in a plane substantially perpendicular to this central axis (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 16 Angari discloses wherein the guide passages for guiding the cable at the inner and outer walls are formed by rings or orifices borne respectively by the inner and outer walls (eyelets 8 and 9 can be considered rings). See motivation in rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding Claim 17 Angari discloses wherein the guide passages for guiding the cable are borne by a plate and/or a hoop secured to one end of the wall in question (eyelets 8 and 9 can be considered a hoop). See motivation in rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding Claim 21, Rebernik discloses wherein the tank has a cylindrical overall shape with a circular section and extending in a longitudinal direction (figure 1)
Regarding Claim 22 Rebernik discloses wherein the tank is of the horizontal type, wherein the longitudinal direction is horizontal in the use configuration of the tank (see other embodiments with tanks laying horizontally). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize horizontal tanks (figures 2-7 of Rebernik) in order to maintain a lower appearance if there are height limits and would allow for safer storage under pressure. Horizontal tanks are well known in the art and it is merely a simple substitution of one style of well-known cylindrical tanks for another.
Regarding Claim 23 Rebernik discloses wherein cable is composed of at least one of the following materials: polymer, polymer and/or composite fiber(s), Kevlar, epoxy, carbon, and glass fibers. (see paragraph 50). Further Angari discloses said materials for the singular cable (see paragraph 62) Motivation to combine in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding Claim 24 Rebernik and Angari disclose further comprising a cable suspension system at just one end or at each of two distinct ends of the tank (see figures cited in the rejection of claim 13 above).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebernik and Angari as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent number 4,300,354 Buchs et al. (hereinafter Buchs).
Regarding Claim 18, Angari discloses wherein the two ends of the cable are fixed to a single point (see eyehook 8 and attachment loops 13, figure 2A; see motivation with respect to claim 13 above). Buchs further discloses that suspension attachment points can utilize a tensioning screw to apply and control tension (see figure 1, tensioning screw 16 which would provie positional adjustability to adjust tension in the cables). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize tensioning screws as disclosed by Buchs as the attachment point for the suspension cords of Angari in order to allow a user to adjust the specific tension of the suspension system. Further it is a simple substitution of one known element (a suspension system attachment point such as an eyehook/eyelet to attach a cable) for another (attaching cables to a tank through tensioning screws) to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Buchs further discloses wherein the connecting point is able to move in a determined direction and is acted upon by a return member (see tensioning screw 16 (see 112B rejection above, it is unclear if the spring is required by the claim due to the “such as” language) and further comprising a mechanism for adjusting the tension exerted by the return member on the cable (tensioning screw 16). See motivation in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights