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 § 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 1-4 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. (WO 2022/145296A1) in view of Kroll et al. (WO 2017/016672A1).
Regarding claim 1, Umeda et al. teaches a storage structure, shown in figure 1, comprising a storage tank 3, a support structure for the storage tank (shown below 3 in figure 1), the support structure is configured to hold the storage tank by being located at least underneath the storage tank (figure 1), the support structure comprising at least a metallic structure 41, 51 and at least one pad 45, 35 comprising at least concrete mixed with a powdery material (“concrete layer”), the pad 45, 35 being superimposed on the metallic structure (figure 1), and at least one fixing means (shown in figures 2 and 3) configured to set the storage tank on the support structure, wherein the support structure comprises a bigger perimeter than a perimeter of the storage tank 3 (layers 51, 41, 45, 46, 35, 36 have a larger perimeter than element 3; figure 1).
Further regarding claim 1, Umeda et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the fixing means comprising a fixing wall and screw. Kroll et al. teaches that it is known to provide a fixing means which comprises a fixing wall and screw (see elements 30 and 41). 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 tank of Umeda et al. with the fixing means comprising a fixing wall and screw, as taught by Kroll et al., in order to enable adjustment and secure fastening of the fixing means.
Regarding claim 2, the support structure comprises one metallic sheet 41 being located between the pad 36, 35 and the metallic structure 51.
Regarding claim 3, the pad 46 comprises an upper face opposite to a bottom face (figure 1), the support structure comprising at least one metallic plate 41 located on the upper face of the pad 46.
Regarding claim 4, the pad comprises a periphery side which joins the bottom face of the pad with the upper face of the pad, the support structure comprising at least a metallic band 4, 5 located on the periphery side of the pad.
Regarding claim 7, the support structure comprises one metallic sheet 41 being located between the pad 35 and the metallic structure 51,wherein the pad comprises at least one anchor stud (figures 2-5) which extends along a vertical direction of the support structure and such that the at least one anchor stud joins the metallic sheet with the metallic plate (figures 2-5).
Regarding claim 8, support structure comprises one metallic sheet 41 being located between the pad 35 and the metallic structure 51, and a sealing material 41b installed in the a junction of the metallic sheet and the metallic band.
Regarding claim 9, the metallic structure 41 comprises a plurality of metal beams (81; figure 6) assembled together.
Regarding claim 10, the modified assembly of Umeda 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 modified support structure of Umeda 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, the modified assembly of Umeda 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 modified support structure of Umeda 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, the modified assembly of Umeda 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 modified support structure of Umeda 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).
Regarding claim 13, a storage tank 3 able to store a liquid and the support structure as claimed in claim 1 (as described above), the storage tank 3 being held by the support structure, wherein the storage tank comprises at least a bottom wall in contact with the support structure (figure 1).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. (WO 2022/145296A1) in view of Kroll et al. (WO 2017/016672A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 112303475A) and Wei et al. (U.S. 2022/0146045).
Regarding claim 5, the modified assembly of Umeda 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 modified support structure of Umeda 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, the modified assembly of Umeda 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 modified support structure of Umeda 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 35, 45 is bordered by the metallic sheet 41 the metallic plate 51 and the metallic band 5.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. (WO 2022/145296A1) in view of Kroll et al. (WO 2017/016672A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (EP 3121506A1).
Regarding claim 14, the modified assembly of Umeda et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the thermal barrier covered by a metallic membrane. Shin et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with a thermal barrier covered by a metallic membrane (see element 311). 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 modified support structure of Umeda et al. with the thermal barrier covered by a metallic membrane, as taught by Shin et al., in order to protect the tank structure and maintain the temperature of the contents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The newly applied references of Umeda et al. (WO 2022/145296A1) and Kroll et al. (WO 2017/016672A1) are applied in the rejections above for the teachings of a support structure with a bigger perimeter that the tank (taught by Umeda et al.) and a fixing means comprising a fixing wall and screw (taught by Kroll et al.). The new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendment filed April 28, 2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights