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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,598 (‘598). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant claims is disclosed by the claims of the ‘598 patent.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,000,538 (‘538). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant claims would have been found obvious in light of the subject matter claimed in the ‘538 patent.
Instant Claim:
Corresponding claim from ‘538:
Analysis:
1
1
The limitations of instant claim 1 are all found in ‘538 claim 1, except for the limitation of a marine vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the transportation vehicle of ‘538 claim 1 could be a marine vessel, since the use of such vessels to transport fluids is old and well known.
2
2
The limitations of instant claim 2 are all found in ‘538 claim 2, except for the limitation of a fluid from the claimed list of fuels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the fluid of ‘538 claim 2 could be any fluid which a user wanted to transport.
3
3
Claims recite identical limitations
5
6
Claims recite identical limitations
6
9
The limitations of instant claim 6 are all found in ‘538 claim 9, except for the limitation of a marine vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the transportation vehicle of ‘538 claim 1 could be a marine vessel, since the use of such vessels to transport fluids is old and well known.
7
12
Claims recite identical limitations
8
13
Claims recite identical limitations
10
16
Claims recite identical limitations
11
17
The limitations of instant claim 11 are all found in ‘538 claim 17, except for the limitation of a marine vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the transportation vehicle of ‘538 claim 1 could be a marine vessel, since the use of such vessels to transport fluids is old and well known.
12
18
Claims recite identical limitations
13
19
Claims recite identical limitations
14
20
Claims recite identical limitations
15
21
Claims recite identical limitations
Claims 1-3, 5-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,774,042 (‘042) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant claims would have been found obvious in light of the subject matter claimed in the ‘042 patent.
Instant Claim:
Corresponding Claim from ‘042:
Analysis:
1
1
The limitations of instant claim 1 are all found in ‘042 claim 1, except for the limitation of a marine vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the transportation vehicle of ‘042 claim 1 could be a marine vessel, since the use of such vessels to transport fluids is old and well known.
2
2
The limitations of instant claim 2 are all found in ‘042 claim 2, except for the limitation of a fluid from the claimed list of fuels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the fluid of ‘042 claim 2 could be any fluid which a user wanted to transport.
3
3
Claims recite identical limitations
6
9
The limitations of instant claim 6 are all found in ‘042 claim 9, except for the limitation of a marine vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the transportation vehicle of ‘042 claim 1 could be a marine vessel, since the use of such vessels to transport fluids is old and well known.
7
12
Claims recite identical limitations
8
13
The limitations of instant claim 8 are all found in ‘042 claim 13, except for the limitation of a fluid from the claimed list of fuels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the fluid of ‘042 claim 2 could be any fluid which a user wanted to transport.
11
17
The limitations of instant claim 11 are all found in ‘042 claim 17, except for the limitation of a marine vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the transportation vehicle of ‘042 claim 1 could be a marine vessel, since the use of such vessels to transport fluids is old and well known.
12
18
Claims recite identical limitations
13
19
Claims recite identical limitations
14
20
Claims recite identical limitations
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-15 would be allowable upon the timely filing of a Terminal Disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The combination of an inner compartment configured to store CO2, a bladder configured to store liquid fuel, one or more ports opening through an outer shell, insulation and the pressure regulation device, in the context of the claims and in the presence of the other limitations, is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion.
For example, US PGPub 2016/0238194 discloses a vessel for storing a gas having a tank comprising a bladder (40), a port (32), and a pressure regulation device (81), but doesn’t disclose an outer compartment or insulation providing temperature control.
US Patent 3,087,311 discloses a vessel having inner and outer compartments (1,2), a bladder (10), one or more ports (shown in Figure 1), and a pressure control system, but doesn’t disclose insulation providing temperature control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KAROL NIESZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
/JASON K NIESZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753