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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (EP 3,121,506A1). Shin et al. teaches a support structure 100, 102, 103 for a storage tank 200, the support structure 100, 102, 103 is configured to hold the storage tank 200 by being located at least underneath the storage tank 200 (paragraph [0079]), the support structure 100, 102, 103 comprising at least a metallic structure 100 and at least one pad 103 comprising at least concrete (SCP; paragraph [0103]) mixed with a powdery material (“sand, pebble, aggregate, cement”; paragraph [0124]), the pad 103 being superimposed on the metallic structure 10 (paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 2, one metallic sheet 130 being located between the pad 103 and the metallic structure 100.
Regarding claim 3, the pad 102, 103 comprises an upper face opposite to a bottom face (figure 7), the support structure comprising at least one metallic plate 130 located on the upper face of the pad 102 (figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, the pad 102, 103 comprises a periphery side which joins its bottom face 130 with its upper face by 110, the support structure comprising at least a metallic band 21 located on the periphery side of the pad (figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, one metallic sheet 130 being located between the pad 102 and the metallic structure 100, and a sealing material (concrete) installed in the junction of the metallic sheet 130 and the metallic band 21.
Regarding claim 9, the metallic structure 100 comprises a plurality of metal beams assembled together (see 22EA; figure 11).
Regarding claim 13, Shin et al. teaches a storage structure 100, 102, 103, 200 comprising a storage tank 200 able to store a liquid and the support structure described above, the storage tank 200 being held by the support structure 100, 102, 103, the storage tank 200 comprises at least a bottom wall in contact with the support structure (figure 10).
Regarding claim 14, at least the bottom wall of the storage tank 200 comprises at least one thermal barrier covered by a metallic membrane 311, the metallic membrane being designed to be in contact with the liquid (figure 9B).
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (EP 3,121,506A1) in view of Chen et al. (CN 112303475A) and Wei et al. (U.S. 2022/0146045).
Regarding claim 5, Shin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the metal being low temperature carbon steel. Chen et al. teaches that it is known to provide a support structure made of low temperature carbon steel (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the support structure of Shin et al. with the metallic ban being made of low temperature carbon steel, as taught by Chen et al., in order to improve the durability and strength of the band, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Further regarding claim 5, Shin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the metallic plate being made of stainless steel. Wei et al. teaches that it is known to provide a support structure made of stainless steel (see paragraph [0015]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the support structure of Shin et al. with the metallic plate being made of stainless steel, as taught by Wei et al., in order to improve the durability and strength of the band, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, the pad 102, 103 is bordered by the metallic sheet 130, the metallic plate 130 and the metallic band 21 (figures 6 and 7).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (EP 3,121,506A1) in view of Umeda et al. (WO 2022145296A1).
Regarding claim 5, Shin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the anchor stud. Umeda et al. teaches that it is known to provide a support structure with an anchor stud (see lead line 10b in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the support structure of Shin et al. with the anchor stud, as taught by Umeda et al., in order to prevent movement of the tank.
Further regarding claim 7, one metallic sheet 130 being located between the pad and the metallic structure (figure 7).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (EP 3,121,506A1).
Regarding claim 10, Shin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the support structure having a thickness between 500mm and 2000mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the support structure of Shin et al. with the support structure having a thickness between 500mm and 2000mm, in order to provide sufficient strength with as little material as possible, and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Also, it has been held that “where 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).
Regarding claim 11, Shin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the pad having a thickness between 100mm and 600mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the support structure of Shin et al. with the pad having a thickness between 100mm and 600mm, in order to provide sufficient strength with as little material as possible, and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Also, it has been held that “where 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).
Regarding claim 12, Shin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the metallic structure having a thickness between 400mm and 1400mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the support structure of Shin et al. with the metallic structure having a thickness between 400mm and 1400mm, in order to provide sufficient strength with as little material as possible, and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Also, it has been held that “where 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art is cited for the support pad of the tank.
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736