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 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.
Claim(s) 18-19, 23, 28, 30, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tajima (JPH 06307376).
Regarding claim 18, Tajima discloses A cooling-down method for supplying liquefied gas to a pump apparatus, comprising:
introducing a liquefied gas (Paragraphs 0001-0006) into a suction container (figure 1, item 2) of the pump apparatus (Figure 1);
passing the liquefied gas through a flow-path switching device in the suction container while the liquefied gas bypasses a submersible pump in the suction container (Figure 3 shows that while the pump is off the valve closes and the liquefied gas does not enter the pump and instead just flows through 65 and 5P).
Regarding claim 19, Tajima discloses that the flow-path switching device includes:
a flow-passage structure having a pump-side flow passage (Tajima Figure 2, item 69), a container-side flow passage (5P), and an outlet flow passage (65); and
a valve element arranged in the flow-passage structure (61), the valve element being configured to allow the outlet flow passage to selectively communicate with either the pump-side flow passage or the container-side flow passage, the pump-side flow passage communicating with a discharge outlet of the submersible pump (when purging the system through the purge gas structure, the purge gas would flow from the vessel into the flow passage structure and into the passage 65, making 65 an outlet for the system. As described above, Tajima describes that backflow from 5P closes the valve so any pressurized gas flow from 5P during purge would close off 69)) , the container-side flow passage communicating with an interior of the suction container (5P, figure 1), and the outlet flow passage communicating with a discharge port of the suction container (described above, 65 would be a discharge port during purge).
Regarding claim 23, Tajima discloses that while the liquefied gas is being introduced into the suction container, a part of the liquefied gas is introduced into the submersible pump to purge a gas in the submersible pump from the submersible pump through a through-hole provided in an upper portion of the submersible pump (As the liquefied gas is introduced into the suction container it would purge any other gas contained within the pump. Further, the state of the gas is not described so it could be pushing around and purging other liquefied gas. Figure 1 shows 60 and thereby 65 being located in an upper portion of the pump. The limitations do not specify that the upper portion must be an upper part, upper half, or how high on the vessel it must be located and running the pump would allow for the fluid to flow through the pump and purge any gas).
Regarding claim 28, Tajima discloses A cooling-down method for cooling a submersible pump disposed in a suction container, comprising:
introducing liquefied gas (Paragraphs 0001-0006) into the suction container (figure 1, item 2);
passing the liquefied gas through a flow-path switching device in the suction container while the liquefied gas bypasses the submersible pump (Figure 3 shows that while the pump is off the valve closes and the liquefied gas does not enter the pump and instead just flows through 65 and 5P).
Regarding claim 30, Tajima discloses that the flow-path switching device includes:
a flow-passage structure having a pump-side flow passage (Tajima Figure 2, item 69), a container-side flow passage (5P), and an outlet flow passage (65); and
a valve element arranged in the flow-passage structure (61), the valve element being configured to allow the outlet flow passage to selectively communicate with either the pump-side flow passage or the container-side flow passage, the pump-side flow passage communicating with a discharge outlet of the submersible pump (when purging the system through the purge gas structure, the purge gas would flow from the vessel into the flow passage structure and into the passage 65, making 65 an outlet for the system. As described above, Tajima describes that backflow from 5P closes the valve so any pressurized gas flow from 5P during purge would close off 69)) , the container-side flow passage communicating with an interior of the suction container (5P, figure 1), and the outlet flow passage communicating with a discharge port of the suction container (described above, 65 would be a discharge port during purge).
Regarding claim 34, Tajima discloses that while the liquefied gas is being introduced into the suction container, a part of the liquefied gas is introduced into the submersible pump to purge a gas in the submersible pump from the submersible pump through a through-hole provided in an upper portion of the submersible pump (As the liquefied gas is introduced into the suction container it would purge any other gas contained within the pump. Further, the state of the gas is not described so it could be pushing around and purging other liquefied gas. Figure 1 shows 60 and thereby 65 being located in an upper portion of the pump. The limitations do not specify that the upper portion must be an upper part, upper half, or how high on the vessel it must be located and running the pump would allow for the fluid to flow through the pump and purge any gas).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 36-37, 41, 45-48, and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (JPH 06307376) in view of Torres (US 20030010040).
Regarding claim 1, Tajima discloses A drying-up method for removing air from a pump apparatus, comprising:
a suction container (figure 1 item 2 shows a suction container) of the pump apparatus (Figure 1);
a flow-path switching device in the suction container where a fluid bypasses a submersible pump in the suction container (Figure 3 shows a situation of a flow path switching device 60 where the pump is bypassed by the fluid coming from items 65 and 5P).
However, Tajima does not disclose a drying-up method by introducing a purge gas into the suction container and passing the purge gas through the flow-switching device to bypass the pump. Tajima and Torres are analogous prior art because both describe liquified gas vessel structures. Torres teaches a purging method for purging a liquified gas vessel by providing a purge gas through a purge line to the vessel and inlet line in order to purge contained moisture, chemical, or other contaminant (Par. 0051). Tajima describes that backflow from the vessel into the flow path switching device closes the access to the pump through 69, so pressurizing the vessel with inert gas to purge the system as described in Torres would close the valve and connect 65 and 5P but bypass the pump 69. Tajima paragraph 0003 describes controlling the level of the liquified gas in the tank so the use of a purge system would allow for control and safe venting and purging of the system under desired circumstances. Further, Torres paragraphs 0051-0052 describes that the purging system also purges the main conduit providing the liquified gas to ensure no contamination through the conduits. As such, the addition of a purge line in the vessel 2 of Tajima as described by Torres would allow for purging of the vessel and line to prevent contamination of the system and allow for purging in desired circumstances by just adding a single purge port (Torres 13) to the vessel (2 of Tajima). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the purge line and purging method of Torres in the vessel and liquified gas pumping system of Tajima because the method allows for purging contained moisture, chemical, or other contaminant (Par. 0051).
Regarding claim 2, Tajima in view of Torres teaches that the flow-path switching device includes:
a flow-passage structure having a pump-side flow passage (Tajima Figure 2, item 69), a container-side flow passage (5P), and an outlet flow passage (65); and
a valve element arranged in the flow-passage structure (61), the valve element being configured to allow the outlet flow passage to selectively communicate with either the pump-side flow passage or the container-side flow passage, the pump-side flow passage communicating with a discharge outlet of the submersible pump (when purging the system through the purge gas structure, the purge gas would flow from the vessel into the flow passage structure and into the passage 65, making 65 an outlet for the system. As described above, Tajima describes that backflow from 5P closes the valve so any pressurized gas flow from 5P during purge would close off 69)) , the container-side flow passage communicating with an interior of the suction container (5P, figure 1), and the outlet flow passage communicating with a discharge port of the suction container (described above, 65 would be a discharge port during purge).
Regarding claim 6, Tajima in view of Torres teaches that while the purge gas is being introduced into the suction container, a part of the purge gas is introduced into the submersible pump to purge a gas in the submersible pump from the submersible pump through a through-hole provided in an upper portion of the submersible pump (Torres Figure 1 shows the purge gas line 13 being located in an upper portion of the vessel and Figure 1 shows 60 being located at the upper end of the pump. As the purge gas is venting, it is possible for the valve to open and allow purge gas to enter in 69 and enter the pump).
Regarding claim 36, Tajima discloses A hot-up method for supplying warming gas to a pump apparatus, comprising:
a suction container (figure 1 item 2 shows a suction container) of the pump apparatus (figure 1);
passing fluid through a flow-path switching device in the suction container while the fluid bypasses a submersible pump in the suction container (Figure 3 shows a situation of a flow path switching device 60 where the pump is bypassed by the fluid coming from items 65 and 5P).
However, Tajima does not disclose a hot-up method by introducing a warming gas into the suction container and passing the warming gas through the flow-switching device to bypass the pump. Tajima and Torres are analogous prior art because both describe liquified gas vessel structures. Torres teaches a purging method for purging a liquified gas vessel by providing a purge gas through a purge line to the vessel and inlet line in order to purge contained moisture, chemical, or other contaminant (Par. 0051). The limitations of claim 1 do not describe the specific structure required for a warming gas or what the warming gas must be warmer than. Therefore, the purge gas provided by Torres meets the limitations of a warming gas and is capable of warming the system under certain conditions. Tajima describes that backflow from the vessel into the flow path switching device closes the access to the pump through 69, so pressurizing the vessel with inert gas to purge the system as described in Torres would close the valve and connect 65 and 5P but bypass the pump 69. Tajima paragraph 0003 describes controlling the level of the liquified gas in the tank so the use of a purge system would allow for control and safe venting and purging of the system under desired circumstances. Further, Torres paragraphs 0051-0052 describes that the purging system also purges the main conduit providing the liquified gas to ensure no contamination through the conduits. As such, the addition of a purge line in the vessel 2 of Tajima as described by Torres would allow for purging of the vessel and line to prevent contamination of the system and allow for purging in desired circumstances by just adding a single purge port (Torres 13) to the vessel (2 of Tajima). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the purge line and purging method of Torres in the vessel and liquified gas pumping system of Tajima because the method allows for purging contained moisture, chemical, or other contaminant (Par. 0051).
Regarding claim 37, Tajima in view of Torres teaches that the flow-path switching device includes:
a flow-passage structure having a pump-side flow passage (Tajima Figure 2, item 69), a container-side flow passage (5P), and an outlet flow passage (65); and
a valve element arranged in the flow-passage structure (61), the valve element being configured to allow the outlet flow passage to selectively communicate with either the pump-side flow passage or the container-side flow passage, the pump-side flow passage communicating with a discharge outlet of the submersible pump (when purging the system through the purge gas structure, the purge gas would flow from the vessel into the flow passage structure and into the passage 65, making 65 an outlet for the system. As described above, Tajima describes that backflow from 5P closes the valve so any pressurized gas flow from 5P during purge would close off 69)) , the container-side flow passage communicating with an interior of the suction container (5P, figure 1), and the outlet flow passage communicating with a discharge port of the suction container (described above, 65 would be a discharge port during purge).
Regarding claim 41, Tajima in view of Torres teaches that while the warming gas is being introduced into the suction container, a part of the warming gas is introduced into the submersible pump to purge a gas in the submersible pump from the submersible pump through a through-hole provided in an upper portion of the submersible pump (Torres Figure 1 shows the purge gas line 13 being located in an upper portion of the vessel and Figure 1 shows 60 being located at the upper end of the pump. As the purge gas is venting, it is possible for the valve to open and allow purge gas to enter in 69 and enter the pump).
Regarding claim 45, The Applicant has not disclosed that having the warming gas being introduced through a drain line coupled to a bottom of the suction container solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and thus it appears that the line location 65 provided by the design of Tajima in view of Torres would perform equally well with the specified structure as claimed by applicant. The specification of the instant application has not provided any criticality to the specific location of the line introducing the warming gas claimed. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the warming gas line of Tajima in view of Torres to have the location be at the bottom of the suction container as claimed and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it would allow the structure to have a differing connection point to accommodate a required connection with specific surroundings.
Regarding claim 46, Tajima discloses A hot-up method for supplying warming gas to a pump apparatus, comprising:
a suction container (figure 1 item 2 shows a suction container);
passing fluid through a flow-path switching device in the suction container while the fluid bypasses a submersible pump (Figure 3 shows a situation of a flow path switching device 60 where the pump is bypassed by the fluid coming from items 65 and 5P).
However, Tajima does not disclose a hot-up method by introducing a warming gas into the suction container and passing the warming gas through the flow-switching device to bypass the pump. Tajima and Torres are analogous prior art because both describe liquified gas vessel structures. Torres teaches a purging method for purging a liquified gas vessel by providing a purge gas through a purge line to the vessel and inlet line in order to purge contained moisture, chemical, or other contaminant (Par. 0051). The limitations of claim 1 do not describe the specific structure required for a warming gas or what the warming gas must be warmer than. Therefore, the purge gas provided by Torres meets the limitations of a warming gas and is capable of warming the system under certain conditions. Tajima describes that backflow from the vessel into the flow path switching device closes the access to the pump through 69, so pressurizing the vessel with inert gas to purge the system as described in Torres would close the valve and connect 65 and 5P but bypass the pump 69. Tajima paragraph 0003 describes controlling the level of the liquified gas in the tank so the use of a purge system would allow for control and safe venting and purging of the system under desired circumstances. Further, Torres paragraphs 0051-0052 describes that the purging system also purges the main conduit providing the liquified gas to ensure no contamination through the conduits. As such, the addition of a purge line in the vessel 2 of Tajima as described by Torres would allow for purging of the vessel and line to prevent contamination of the system and allow for purging in desired circumstances by just adding a single purge port (Torres 13) to the vessel (2 of Tajima). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the purge line and purging method of Torres in the vessel and liquified gas pumping system of Tajima because the method allows for purging contained moisture, chemical, or other contaminant (Par. 0051).
Regarding claim 47, The Applicant has not disclosed that having the warming gas being introduced through a drain line coupled to a bottom of the suction container solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and thus it appears that the line location 65 provided by the design of Tajima in view of Torres would perform equally well with the specified structure as claimed by applicant. The specification of the instant application has not provided any criticality to the specific location of the line introducing the warming gas claimed. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the warming gas line of Tajima in view of Torres to have the location be at the bottom of the suction container as claimed and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it would allow the structure to have a differing connection point to accommodate a required connection with specific surroundings.
Regarding claim 48, Tajima in view of Torres teaches that the flow-path switching device includes:
a flow-passage structure having a pump-side flow passage (Tajima Figure 2, item 69), a container-side flow passage (5P), and an outlet flow passage (65); and
a valve element arranged in the flow-passage structure (61), the valve element being configured to allow the outlet flow passage to selectively communicate with either the pump-side flow passage or the container-side flow passage, the pump-side flow passage communicating with a discharge outlet of the submersible pump (when purging the system through the purge gas structure, the purge gas would flow from the vessel into the flow passage structure and into the passage 65, making 65 an outlet for the system. As described above, Tajima describes that backflow from 5P closes the valve so any pressurized gas flow from 5P during purge would close off 69)) , the container-side flow passage communicating with an interior of the suction container (5P, figure 1), and the outlet flow passage communicating with a discharge port of the suction container (described above, 65 would be a discharge port during purge).
Regarding claim 52, Tajima in view of Torres teaches that while the warming gas is being introduced into the suction container, a part of the warming gas is introduced into the submersible pump to purge a gas in the submersible pump from the submersible pump through a through-hole provided in an upper portion of the submersible pump (Torres Figure 1 shows the purge gas line 13 being located in an upper portion of the vessel and Figure 1 shows 60 being located at the upper end of the pump. As the purge gas is venting, it is possible for the valve to open and allow purge gas to enter in 69 and enter the pump).
Claim(s) 3, 38, and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (JPH 06307376) in view of Torres (US 20030010040) as applied to claims 2, 37, and 49 above, and further in view of Sachdeva (GB 2434385).
Regarding claim 3, Tajima in view of Torres teaches the limitations of claim 2 set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Tajima in view of Torres does not explicitly teach that the flow- path switching device further includes a spring that presses the valve element against the flow-passage structure to close the pump-side flow passage.
Tajima in view of Torres and Sachdeva are analogous prior art because both describe fluid control systems with three-way valves. Sachdeva teaches a spring that presses the valve element against the flow-passage structure to close the pump-side flow passage (Figures 2 and 3, item 66). Sachdeva describes that the inclusion of the spring ensures that the pump line is closed off when not in operation and prevents backflow in this situation (Par. 0022). As Tajima in view of Torres already shows a three way valve that desires closing off the pump line when not in operation and Sachdeva describes that the inclusion of the spring helps ensure that the pump line is closed off. Thereby, the spring valve addition of Sachdeva would provide predictable results in the three-way valve of Tajima in view of Torres. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the spring of Sachdeva in the three-way valve of Tajima in view of Torres because the inclusion of the spring ensures that the pump line is closed off when not in operation and prevents backflow in this situation (Par. 0022) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 38, Tajima in view of Torres teaches the limitations of claim 37 set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Tajima in view of Torres does not explicitly teach that the flow- path switching device further includes a spring that presses the valve element against the flow-passage structure to close the pump-side flow passage.
Tajima in view of Torres and Sachdeva are analogous prior art because both describe fluid control systems with three-way valves. Sachdeva teaches a spring that presses the valve element against the flow-passage structure to close the pump-side flow passage (Figures 2 and 3, item 66). Sachdeva describes that the inclusion of the spring ensures that the pump line is closed off when not in operation and prevents backflow in this situation (Par. 0022). As Tajima in view of Torres already shows a three way valve that desires closing off the pump line when not in operation and Sachdeva describes that the inclusion of the spring helps ensure that the pump line is closed off. Thereby, the spring valve addition of Sachdeva would provide predictable results in the three-way valve of Tajima in view of Torres. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the spring of Sachdeva in the three-way valve of Tajima in view of Torres because the inclusion of the spring ensures that the pump line is closed off when not in operation and prevents backflow in this situation (Par. 0022) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 49, Tajima in view of Torres teaches the limitations of claim 48 set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Tajima in view of Torres does not explicitly teach that the flow- path switching device further includes a spring that presses the valve element against the flow-passage structure to close the pump-side flow passage.
Tajima in view of Torres and Sachdeva are analogous prior art because both describe fluid control systems with three-way valves. Sachdeva teaches a spring that presses the valve element against the flow-passage structure to close the pump-side flow passage (Figures 2 and 3, item 66). Sachdeva describes that the inclusion of the spring ensures that the pump line is closed off when not in operation and prevents backflow in this situation (Par. 0022). As Tajima in view of Torres already shows a three way valve that desires closing off the pump line when not in operation and Sachdeva describes that the inclusion of the spring helps ensure that the pump line is closed off. Thereby, the spring valve addition of Sachdeva would provide predictable results in the three-way valve of Tajima in view of Torres. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the spring of Sachdeva in the three-way valve of Tajima in view of Torres because the inclusion of the spring ensures that the pump line is closed off when not in operation and prevents backflow in this situation (Par. 0022) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 20 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (JPH 06307376) in view of Sachdeva (GB 2434385).
Regarding claim 20, Tajima discloses the limitations of claim 19 set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Tajima does not explicitly disclose that the flow- path switching device further includes a spring that presses the valve element against the flow-passage structure to close the pump-side flow passage.
Tajima and Sachdeva are analogous prior art because both describe fluid control systems with three-way valves. Sachdeva teaches a spring that presses the valve element against the flow-passage structure to close the pump-side flow passage (Figures 2 and 3, item 66). Sachdeva describes that the inclusion of the spring ensures that the pump line is closed off when not in operation and prevents backflow in this situation (Par. 0022). As Tajima already shows a three way valve that desires closing off the pump line when not in operation and Sachdeva describes that the inclusion of the spring helps ensure that the pump line is closed off. Thereby, the spring valve addition of Sachdeva would provide predictable results in the three-way valve of Tajima. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the spring of Sachdeva in the three-way valve of Tajima because the inclusion of the spring ensures that the pump line is closed off when not in operation and prevents backflow in this situation (Par. 0022) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 31, Tajima discloses the limitations of claim 30 set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Tajima does not explicitly disclose that the flow- path switching device further includes a spring that presses the valve element against the flow-passage structure to close the pump-side flow passage.
Tajima and Sachdeva are analogous prior art because both describe fluid control systems with three-way valves. Sachdeva teaches a spring that presses the valve element against the flow-passage structure to close the pump-side flow passage (Figures 2 and 3, item 66). Sachdeva describes that the inclusion of the spring ensures that the pump line is closed off when not in operation and prevents backflow in this situation (Par. 0022). As Tajima already shows a three way valve that desires closing off the pump line when not in operation and Sachdeva describes that the inclusion of the spring helps ensure that the pump line is closed off. Thereby, the spring valve addition of Sachdeva would provide predictable results in the three-way valve of Tajima. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the spring of Sachdeva in the three-way valve of Tajima because the inclusion of the spring ensures that the pump line is closed off when not in operation and prevents backflow in this situation (Par. 0022) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (JPH 06307376).
Regarding claim 27, The Applicant has not disclosed that having the liquefied gas being introduced through a drain line coupled to a bottom of the suction container solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and thus it appears that the line location 65 provided by the design of Tajima would perform equally well with the specified structure as claimed by applicant. The specification of the instant application has not provided any criticality to the specific location of the line introducing the liquefied gas claimed. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the line 65 to have the location be at the bottom of the suction container as claimed and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it would allow the structure to have a differing connection point to accommodate a required connection with specific surroundings.
Regarding claim 29, The Applicant has not disclosed that having the liquefied gas being introduced through a drain line coupled to a bottom of the suction container solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and thus it appears that the line location 65 provided by the design of Tajima would perform equally well with the specified structure as claimed by applicant. The specification of the instant application has not provided any criticality to the specific location of the line introducing the liquefied gas claimed. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the line 65 to have the location be at the bottom of the suction container as claimed and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it would allow the structure to have a differing connection point to accommodate a required connection with specific surroundings.
Claim(s) 7, 42, and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (JPH 06307376) in view of Torres (US 20030010040) as applied to claims 6, 41, and 52 above, and further in view of Kimura (US 20120304669).
Regarding claim 7, Tajima in view of Torres teaches the limitations of claim 6 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Tajima in view of Torres does not explicitly teach that the through-hole is coupled to a gas vent valve which is configured to close when the submersible pump is in operation and open when the submersible pump is not in operation.
Tajima in view of Torres and Kimura are analogous prior art because both describe purging vessels. Kimura teaches providing a vent valve on the purge system to provide a safety system during the purge of the tank (Par. 0041). As Tajima in view of Torres and Kimura both show purge systems for vessels, the vent of Kimura would provide predictable results in the purge system of Tajima in view of Torres. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vent valve of Kimura in the purge system of Tajima in view of Torres because it allows for a safety valve to prevent over pressurization of the tank (Par. 0041) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). As the vent valve would only operate during the purge, it would be closed during pump operation and only open during the purge that occurs when the pump is not operating. Further, the through hole and any vent valve would be coupled due to both being connected to the vessel.
Regarding claim 42, Tajima in view of Torres teaches the limitations of claim 41 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Tajima in view of Torres does not explicitly teach that the through-hole is coupled to a gas vent valve which is configured to close when the submersible pump is in operation and open when the submersible pump is not in operation.
Tajima in view of Torres and Kimura are analogous prior art because both describe purging vessels. Kimura teaches providing a vent valve on the purge system to provide a safety system during the purge of the tank (Par. 0041). As Tajima in view of Torres and Kimura both show purge systems for vessels, the vent of Kimura would provide predictable results in the purge system of Tajima in view of Torres. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vent valve of Kimura in the purge system of Tajima in view of Torres because it allows for a safety valve to prevent over pressurization of the tank (Par. 0041) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). As the vent valve would only operate during the purge, it would be closed during pump operation and only open during the purge that occurs when the pump is not operating. Further, the through hole and any vent valve would be coupled due to both being connected to the vessel.
Regarding claim 53, Tajima in view of Torres teaches the limitations of claim 52 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Tajima in view of Torres does not explicitly teach that the through-hole is coupled to a gas vent valve which is configured to close when the submersible pump is in operation and open when the submersible pump is not in operation.
Tajima in view of Torres and Kimura are analogous prior art because both describe purging vessels. Kimura teaches providing a vent valve on the purge system to provide a safety system during the purge of the tank (Par. 0041). As Tajima in view of Torres and Kimura both show purge systems for vessels, the vent of Kimura would provide predictable results in the purge system of Tajima in view of Torres. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vent valve of Kimura in the purge system of Tajima in view of Torres because it allows for a safety valve to prevent over pressurization of the tank (Par. 0041) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). As the vent valve would only operate during the purge, it would be closed during pump operation and only open during the purge that occurs when the pump is not operating. Further, the through hole and any vent valve would be coupled due to both being connected to the vessel.
Claim(s) 24 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (JPH 06307376) in view of Torres (US 20030010040) and further in view of Kimura (US 20120304669).
Regarding claim 24, Tajima discloses the limitations of claim 23 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Tajima does not explicitly disclose that the through-hole is coupled to a gas vent valve which is configured to close when the submersible pump is in operation and open when the submersible pump is not in operation.
Tajima and Torres are analogous prior art because both describe liquified gas vessel structures. Torres teaches a purging method for purging a liquified gas vessel by providing a purge gas through a purge line to the vessel and inlet line in order to purge contained moisture, chemical, or other contaminant (Par. 0051). Tajima describes that backflow from the vessel into the flow path switching device closes the access to the pump through 69, so pressurizing the vessel with inert gas to purge the system as described in Torres would close the valve and connect 65 and 5P but bypass the pump 69. Tajima paragraph 0003 describes controlling the level of the liquified gas in the tank so the use of a purge system would allow for control and safe venting and purging of the system under desired circumstances. Further, Torres paragraphs 0051-0052 describes that the purging system also purges the main conduit providing the liquified gas to ensure no contamination through the conduits. As such, the addition of a purge line in the vessel 2 of Tajima as described by Torres would allow for purging of the vessel and line to prevent contamination of the system and allow for purging in desired circumstances by just adding a single purge port (Torres 13) to the vessel (2 of Tajima). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the purge line and purging method of Torres in the vessel and liquified gas pumping system of Tajima because the method allows for purging contained moisture, chemical, or other contaminant (Par. 0051).
However, Tajima in view of Torres does not explicitly teach that the through-hole is coupled to a gas vent valve which is configured to close when the submersible pump is in operation and open when the submersible pump is not in operation.
Tajima in view of Torres and Kimura are analogous prior art because both describe purging vessels. Kimura teaches providing a vent valve on the purge system to provide a safety system during the purge of the tank (Par. 0041). As Tajima in view of Torres and Kimura both show purge systems for vessels, the vent of Kimura would provide predictable results in the purge system of Tajima in view of Torres. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vent valve of Kimura in the purge system of Tajima in view of Torres because it allows for a safety valve to prevent over pressurization of the tank (Par. 0041) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). As the vent valve would only operate during the purge, it would be closed during pump operation and only open during the purge that occurs when the pump is not operating. Further, the through hole and any vent valve would be coupled due to both being connected to the vessel.
Regarding claim 35, Tajima discloses the limitations of claim 34 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Tajima does not explicitly disclose that the through-hole is coupled to a gas vent valve which is configured to close when the submersible pump is in operation and open when the submersible pump is not in operation.
Tajima and Torres are analogous prior art because both describe liquified gas vessel structures. Torres teaches a purging method for purging a liquified gas vessel by providing a purge gas through a purge line to the vessel and inlet line in order to purge contained moisture, chemical, or other contaminant (Par. 0051). Tajima describes that backflow from the vessel into the flow path switching device closes the access to the pump through 69, so pressurizing the vessel with inert gas to purge the system as described in Torres would close the valve and connect 65 and 5P but bypass the pump 69. Tajima paragraph 0003 describes controlling the level of the liquified gas in the tank so the use of a purge system would allow for control and safe venting and purging of the system under desired circumstances. Further, Torres paragraphs 0051-0052 describes that the purging system also purges the main conduit providing the liquified gas to ensure no contamination through the conduits. As such, the addition of a purge line in the vessel 2 of Tajima as described by Torres would allow for purging of the vessel and line to prevent contamination of the system and allow for purging in desired circumstances by just adding a single purge port (Torres 13) to the vessel (2 of Tajima). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the purge line and purging method of Torres in the vessel and liquified gas pumping system of Tajima because the method allows for purging contained moisture, chemical, or other contaminant (Par. 0051).
However, Tajima in view of Torres does not explicitly teach that the through-hole is coupled to a gas vent valve which is configured to close when the submersible pump is in operation and open when the submersible pump is not in operation.
Tajima in view of Torres and Kimura are analogous prior art because both describe purging vessels. Kimura teaches providing a vent valve on the purge system to provide a safety system during the purge of the tank (Par. 0041). As Tajima in view of Torres and Kimura both show purge systems for vessels, the vent of Kimura would provide predictable results in the purge system of Tajima in view of Torres. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vent valve of Kimura in the purge system of Tajima in view of Torres because it allows for a safety valve to prevent over pressurization of the tank (Par. 0041) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). As the vent valve would only operate during the purge, it would be closed during pump operation and only open during the purge that occurs when the pump is not operating. Further, the through hole and any vent valve would be coupled due to both being connected to the vessel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17 are allowed.
Claims 4-5, 10, 21-22, 32-33, 39-40, and 50-51 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regards to claims 10-17, the prior art found did not describe creating a vacuum in the suction container prior to purging the system. While it is known to sometimes create a vacuum before purging, the vacuum would render the valve of Tajima inoperable as it would pull the valve towards the inlet holes and open the line to the pump. As such, this would no longer meet the limitations of bypassing the pump during the purging and would render the system inoperable. Claims 12-17 are allowable due to being dependent from claim 11.
With regards to claims 4-5, 21-22, 32-33, 39-40, and 50-51, the prior art relied upon does not disclose or teach either the bypass or hole in the valve element to connect the outlet and the pump line. The system of Tajima operates by not connecting the passages 65 and 69 so there is no clear reason why one might want to provide a bypass or any clear benefit such a structure would provide. Further, because the valve of Tajima relies upon the backflow or pressure in the vessel to operate the valve, providing a bypass would render this valve inoperable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571)-272-8648. 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights