DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-19, and 22-24 were filed with the Preliminary Amendment dated 01/13/2025. Claims 5, 10, 20, and 21 were canceled.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the control means (claim 1) and pressure monitoring device (claim 1, claim 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the gas outlet means” should be changed to “a gas outlet means” to correct for a lack of antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP2602454 (“Siemens”).
With regard to claim 12, Siemens discloses a method to compress and displace a gas (“compressed gas” para [0009]) stored in a sealed storage container (11) by introducing a liquid (32) from a liquid source (17) into the storage container (11), introducing a gas (12) from a gas source (13) into the storage container (11) to a desired substantially constant pressure within the storage container (11) (paras [0022] and [0035]), wherein the gas (12) and the liquid (32) are immiscible (water is immiscible) so that the gas (12) fills a space in the storage container (11) over the liquid surface (32) (see Fig 1), and maintaining the substantially constant pressure by controlling the amount of liquid (32) and gas (12) being introduced into and withdrawn from the storage container (11) (paras [0022] [0035]).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 13, Siemens discloses that when a given volume of the gas (12)is drawn- off from the storage container (11), it is replaced by an substantially equal volume of the liquid (32/30) pumped into the storage container (11) at a pressure that maintains the gas pressure for the remaining gas in the storage container (11) at the substantially constant pressure, regardless of how much gas is removed through a gas outlet means (pipe leading to 15 in Fig 1; see also paras [0022] [0035]), and wherein when a given volume of gas (12) is injected into the storage container (11), a similar volume of liquid (32/30) is expelled from the storage container (11) to maintain the substantially constant pressure (liquid is removed via 29/31; see also paras [0036] [0038]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2602454 (“Siemens”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0013735 (“McBride”).
With regard to claim 1, Siemens discloses an apparatus (Fig 1) comprising respective sources of a gas (12) and a liquid (32), a sealed storage container (11), gas inlet and outlet means (pipe for 13/15) of the storage container (11), liquid inlet and outlet means (pipe at 29) of the storage container (11), and control means (18; para [0038]) in order to maintain a substantially constant pressure in the storage container (11; paras [0022] [0035]) by control of the amount of the gas (12) and liquid (32) being transferred to and withdrawn from the storage container (11) by way of the respective inlet and outlet means (pipes at 13/15 and 29), wherein the gas (inert gas [0059] and water [0035]) are immiscible) and the liquid are immiscible so that the gas (12) fills a space in the storage container (11) over the liquid surface (30/32, see Fig 1).
Siemens discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing that the control means (18) includes a pressure monitoring device. However, Siemens does disclose controlling gas and fluid flow based on pressure (see, for example, paras [0022] [0035]).
McBride teaches that it is known in the art to modify a control means (222) for a apparatus for a storage container (201) to include a pressure monitoring device (pressure sensors) for the purpose of controlling the pressure in the tank and controlling the compressed gas input/output (see para [0013]: “may be equipped with sensors for detecting and reporting flow, volume, temperature, pressure, strain, or other qualities of the vessel's contents” and para [0127]: “the control system 222 may receive telemetry from sensors monitoring various aspects of the operation of system 200, and may provide signals to control valve actuators, valves, motors, and other electromechanical/electronic devices.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a control means with a pressure monitoring device and sensors as taught by McBride in place of the control means of Siemens, since the control means are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 2, Siemens discloses that the sealed storage container (11) is an underground container (see Fig 1; also see [0033]).
With regard to claim 3, Siemens discloses that the underground container (11) is grouted with a concrete-like material into a chamber excavated in the ground (see Fig 1; see also para [0017]: “concrete jacket”; and para [0033]).
With regard to claim 4, Siemens discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the container is circular cylindrical with hemispherical ends.
Siemens discloses that the container (11) is circular cylindrical with at least one end that is hemispherical (see Fig 1 and paras [0031] [0033] – “cylindrical”)
McBride teaches that it is known in the art to modify a tank (102) to be circular cylindrical with both ends hemispherical (see Fig 1B).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a container with both ends hemispherical as taught by McBride in place of the container shape of Siemens, since the container shapes are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 6, Siemens discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the container is installed underground in a substantially horizontal orientation.
The container (11) of Siemens is installed underground (para [0033]), but in a vertical orientation (see Fig 1).
McBride teaches that it is known in the art to install containers (138) underground in a horizontal orientation (see Fig 1D and para [0118]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to orient an underground container in a horizontal orientation as taught by McBride in place of the vertical orientation of Siemens, since the orientations are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 7, Siemens (as modified by McBride) discloses that the substantially horizontally orientated container (see orientation of 138 in Fig 1D of McBride) is installed in a tunnel excavated into rising ground (container 11 in Siemens, 138 in McBride are inherently in a tunnel – which is a passageway under the earth – and “into rising ground” is broadly recited and met by the ground rising above at least a portion of the container (see Fig 1 of Siemens and Fig 1D of McBride).
With regard to claim 8, Siemens discloses that the container (11) is installed underground in a substantially vertical position (see Fig 1).
With regard to claim 11, Siemens (as modified by McBride above for claim 1) discloses that the control means includes a control system (18 in Siemens, 222 in McBride) and the control system monitors and responds to signals from the pressure monitoring device and further sensor devices and/or transducers (as modified above for claim 11, McBride: see para [0013]: “may be equipped with sensors for detecting and reporting flow, volume, temperature, pressure, strain, or other qualities of the vessel's contents” and para [0127]: “the control system 222 may receive telemetry from sensors monitoring various aspects of the operation of system 200, and may provide signals to control valve actuators, valves, motors, and other electromechanical/electronic devices.”).
With regard to claim 14 (which depends from claim 12), Siemens discloses that said maintaining includes monitoring the substantially constant pressure by a control system (18; para [0038]), and causing appropriate inputs and outputs of gas and liquid by appropriately activating and adjusting one or more pumps and/or valves (para [0038]) “control unit 18 …controls the gas compressor 14, the compressed gas turbine 16, the liquid pump 37, and the pump 31”).
Siemens discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing the control system including a pressure monitoring device.
However, Siemens does disclose controlling gas and fluid flow based on pressure (see, for example, paras [0022] [0035]).
McBride teaches that it is known in the art to modify a control system (222) for a storage container (201) to include a pressure monitoring device (pressure sensors) for the purpose of controlling the pressure in the tank and controlling the compressed gas input/output (see para [0013]: “may be equipped with sensors for detecting and reporting flow, volume, temperature, pressure, strain, or other qualities of the vessel's contents” and para [0127]: “the control system 222 may receive telemetry from sensors monitoring various aspects of the operation of system 200, and may provide signals to control valve actuators, valves, motors, and other electromechanical/electronic devices.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a control system with a pressure monitoring device and sensors as taught by McBride in place of the control means of Siemens, since the control means are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15-17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2602454 (“Siemens”) in view of EP 3091147 (“Ryu”).
With regard to claim 15, Siemens discloses further comprising excavating a hole in the ground (“artificially created cavern” para [0009]) and installing the storage container (11) in the excavated hole in a substantially vertical orientation (see Fig 1) and a grout material (see Fig 1; see also para [0017]: “concrete jacket”; and para [0033]) so that the surrounding ground carries some of the strain resulting from pressurizing the container (see para [0010]).
Siemens discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing subsequently filling any void space between the container and the surrounding ground with a grout material so that the surrounding ground carries some of the strain resulting from pressurizing the container.
Ryu teaches that it is known in the art to subsequently fill any void space between the container and surrounding ground with a grout material (“place backfill material” step 14, Fig 12; backfill material is concrete – para [0069]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to install the underground container according to the method as taught by Ryu, in place of the installation method of Siemens since the installation methods are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 16, Siemens discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the storage container is prefabricated and lowered complete into the excavated hole prior to grouting it into place.
Ryu teaches that it is known in the art to install a container underground by the method of installing the prefabricated container (segments are prefabricated and installed and coupled completely prior to grouting) into the hole (Fig 12, step 8) prior to grouting it into place (“place backfill material” step 14, Fig 12; backfill material is concrete – para [0069]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to install the underground container with the method as taught by Ryu, in place of the installation method of Siemens since the installation methods are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Alternatively, if the phrase “prefabricated and lowered complete” is construed as requiring the container to be completely formed prior to lowering and not just prior to grouting in place, the following alternative rejection is offered.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to install the underground container, entirely in one complete piece since the installation methods (in segments or in a single complete piece) are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 17, Siemens discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the storage container is installed by, initially, lowering a lowest part of the container into the excavated hole until it is almost below ground, and subsequently attaching one or more container subsections until the container is complete and below the surface of the ground, such that the complete container is assembled during the installation procedure and can subsequently be grouted into place by filling the voids between the container and the surrounding ground with grout.
Ryu teaches that it is known in the art to install a container underground by the method of installing, initially, lowering a lowest part of the container (launch lower segment, step 8, Fig 12) into the excavated hole until it is almost below ground, and subsequently attaching one or more container subsections until the container is complete (Fig 12, step 8: “then sequentially couple body segment and upper segment”) and below the surface of the ground, such that the complete container is assembled during the installation procedure and can subsequently be grouted into place by filling the voids between the container and the surrounding ground with grout (“place backfill material” step 14, Fig 12; backfill material is concrete – para [0069]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to install the underground container according to the method as taught by Ryu, in place of the installation method of Siemens since the installation methods are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 22, Siemens discloses a shell (wall 27) of the storage container installed in an excavated space underground (see Fig 1) and grouted into place (concrete jacket para [0017]), there being intimate contact between the shell of the storage container and the ground (see Fig 1), transmits pressure when the storage container is charged with pressurized gas and liquid to the surrounding geological formation(s), thereby minimizing the mass of material needed for the storage container (para [0033] and Fig 1).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2602454 (“Siemens”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0013735 (“McBride”) and further in view of EP 3091147 (“Ryu”).
With regard to claim 18, Siemens discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein the installation of the storage container is by excavating a trench-like hole and installing the storage container in a substantially horizontal orientation and then back-filling the hole and subsequently filling any void space between the container and the surrounding ground with a grout material so that the surrounding ground carries some of the strain resulting from pressurizing the container.
Siemens does disclose the installation of the storage container is by excavating a trench-like hole (“artificially created cavern” para [0009] is considered to be a “trench-like hole”) and installing the storage container (11).
McBride teaches that it is known in the art to install containers (138) underground in a horizontal orientation (see Fig 1D and para [0118]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to orient an underground container in a horizontal orientation as taught by McBride in place of the vertical orientation of Siemens, since the orientations are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Ryu teaches that it is known in the art to subsequently fill any void space between the container and surrounding ground with a grout material (“place backfill material” step 14, Fig 12; backfill material is concrete – para [0069]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to install the underground container according to the method as taught by Ryu, in place of the installation method of Siemens since the installation methods are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 19, Siemens discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the installation of the storage container is by inserting the storage container in a substantially horizontal tunnel and subsequently filling any void space between the container and the surrounding ground with a grout material so that the surrounding ground carries some of the strain resulting from pressurizing the container.
Siemens does disclose installing the storage container (11) into a tunnel (“artificially created cavern” para [0009] is considered to be a “tunnel”) and installing the storage container (11).
McBride teaches that it is known in the art to install containers (138) underground in a horizontal orientation (see Fig 1D and para [0118]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to orient an underground container in a horizontal orientation as taught by McBride in place of the vertical orientation of Siemens, since the orientations are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Ryu teaches that it is known in the art to subsequently fill any void space between the container and surrounding ground with a grout material (“place backfill material” step 14, Fig 12; backfill material is concrete – para [0069]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to install the underground container according to the method as taught by Ryu, in place of the installation method of Siemens since the installation methods are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 23, and 24 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 1,938,956 discloses a storage container with a liquid volume and gas volume.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights