DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-21, 24, 29-32, & 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 5,927,534 to King.
Claim 18 recites a method of sealing a floating roof seal for storage of a petroleum product. King relates to such a method. See King col. 1, ll. 6-9. Claim 1 recites positioning a first barrier portion of a vapor barrier between the first barrier securement and a first shoe plate…[that] engage[s] a tank wall. Figure 4 of King shows a tank wall (14) against which a shoe plate (22), called a barrier plate in King, is positioned. See King col. 3, ll. 28-60. Figures 2-5 of King further show a vapor barrier fabric (60) is then sandwiched between the shoe plate of and a spring strap (64). See King col. 3, ln. 60 to col. 4, ln. 40. This sandwich is then held in place by a tension spring (62) that is analogous to the recited barrier securement because it acts to secure the entire structure in place. Id. Thus, step (b) is anticipated.
Claim 1 further recites deflecting a first resilient portion of a first barrier securement relative to a first securement body of the first barrier securement from a first clamp position to a first installation position, wherein the first resilient portion is biased toward the first clamp position. Tension spring (62) is biased towards pushing the sandwich of layers towards the wall. See King Fig. 4. King does not explicitly ever recite deflecting this spring during installation or later releasing the first resilient portion of the first barrier securement to lock the vapor barrier in place. But one of ordinary skill would infer this step must occur during installation because the spring cannot be placed into tension against the wall without deflection during installation. MPEP 2144.01 states that references teach “inferences which one of ordinary skill” would reasonably draw from the text of the reference. Such implicit disclosures are not inherencies (nor subject to the same standard). Compare MPEP 2144.01 to 2141.02(V). Thus, King anticipates both the deflecti[on] step of step (a) and the releasing step (c). The act of releasing the spring to compres[s] against the first barrier portion of the vapor barrier thereby fluidly sealing the first barrier securement against the first barrier portion of the vapor barrier.
Claim 19 recites duplicating the method of claim 1 with a second resilient portion of a second barrier securement relative to a second securement body. Figure 3 of King shows a series of springs, barriers, and shoe plates, anticipating this feature. Claim 19 further recites movably connecting the first shoe plate relative to the second shoe plate with a bridge coupling. King teaches the plurality of shoe plates (22) overlap each other and seal. See King col. 3, ll. 28-45. Figures 3 and 5 show that hold down bars (70) are used to bolt down the tops of the shoe plates to the floating roof (12). Each hold down bar (70) is only attached to two adjacent shoe plates, no more. This allows movement of the next shoe plate over. Each bar (70) also only has one spring clamp (62) for the two shoe plates. Examiner defines the first shoe plate to be a show plate with a spring. The adjacent shoe plate attached to the bar is defined to be the bridge coupling element and the shoe plate adjacent to that bridge is defined to be the second shoe plate that also has a second spring clamp. Since the first and second shoe plates are not bolted to the same bar (70) that are movably connect[ed]. The portion of the vapor barrier clamped to the bridge plate is designated the third barrier portion of the vapor barrier.
Claim 20 recites each of the first, second, and third barrier portions of the vapor barrier are free of fasteners extending therethrough. As a matter of claim construction, while the claims refer to multiple distinct shoe plates and distinct clamps, it recites a single vapor barrier that is subdivided into various portions. King teaches that the vapor barrier (60) does have a fastener attached where the barrier connects to the floating roof (12), via bolt (48). See King Fig. 4. But this may be defined to be a distinct portion. Indeed, claim 29 explicitly refers to this other portion; reciting securing another portion of the vapor barrier to a floating roof. This claim feature, addressed out of order here, is anticipated by this bolt (48). Returning to claim 20, since the bolt to the floating roof (12) is another portion, none of the first, second, and third barrier portions have any fasteners extending therethrough. Thus, this feature is anticipated. Claim 24 also addressed out of order is anticipated for the same reasons.
Claim 21 recites the bridge coupling includes a bridge member. As noted above the gap shoe plate is designated as the bridge coupling and may be defined to be a bridge member. Next, claim 21 recites positioning the bridge member within each of the first and second barrier securements. The bridging plate exists in the circumferential space between two adjacent spring clamps (62), as shown in figure 3. It is therefore position[ed]…within the space between them. This meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 21. The positioning also allows the first shoe plate [to slide] relative to the second shoe plate.
Claim 30 recites attaching a hangar between the floating roof and the first shoe plate. Fabric string strap (64) may be designated as this hanger as no specific structures of the hanger are defined and this is not defined to be a term of art in the specification. Regarding claim 31, King teaches operatively connecting a tank body (14) to a floating roof (12) via the floating roof seal (10) as seen in figure 4. Regarding claim 32, King further teaches storing a petroleum product within the tank body. See King col. 1, ll. 7-9. Examiner does note, however, that actually storing petroleum extends beyond the metes of a claim reciting method of sealing a floating roof seal and therefore does not have patentable weight. Claim 37 recites a slightly broader version of claim 18 and is rejected for the same reasons.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 22-23, 25-28 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.
Claims 22 and 23 are allowable because although a bridge member can be defined within King, it is neither a foam pad as recited in claim 22 not clamped as recited in claim 23. No other prior art would suggest the combination of features either. Claim 25 is allowable because neither King, nor any other prior art, teaches also compressing the vapor barrier between shoe mount bracket and the clamp. King does show another bracket component (74), but it exists between the clamp and the barrier (rather than the other way round). This order cannot be reversed because the entire purpose of element (74) is to protect the vapor barrier from damage from the clamp. Also, the entire method of attaching the shoe plate in King differs from the instant application. Claims 26-28 are allowable based on their dependence from claim 25.
Clams 33-36 are allowed.
Claim 33 is allowable because it recites securing the vapor barrier without inserting a fastener through the vapor barrier. This must be interpreted as reciting that no portion of the vapor barrier has a fastener extending through it. In King, and indeed virtually the entire relevant field of art, vapor barriers are bolted to some element. In King, the vapor barrier is bolted to the floating roof and to the other elements along the top via bolt (48). The system cannot function without this bolt. By contrast, applicant’s system attaches the show plate via a bolt to a shoe mount bracket, but then connects the vapor barrier to this shoe mount bracket without every piercing the vapor barrier with a bolt. This is a distinct method of attachment. Claims 34-36 are allowable based on their dependence.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
Prosecution Insights