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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 8-20) in the reply filed on 8/3/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/3/26.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragnar et al. (GB2586236A) in view of McCully (US20070151603).
Regarding claim 8, Ragnar et al. teaches a system (see abstract), comprising: a vessel 6 comprising: a housing 6; a pipeline 7 fluidly coupled to the housing 6 (see figure 1, page 4, line 23- page 5, line 19); and a vent tubing 8 fluidly coupled to the housing 6 and the pipeline 7, the vent tubing 8 comprising a check valve 16 capable of preventing a fluid from traveling from the pipeline 7 to the housing 6 through the vent tubing 8 (see figure 1, page 4, line 23- page 5, line 19, page 5, line 24 – page 6, line 1); a mainline valve 10 fluidly coupled to the vessel 6 and the pipeline 7, the mainline valve 10 capable of transporting a pig between the pipeline 7 and the vessel 6 (see figure 1, page 4, line 23- page 5, line 19); and a purging media unit operable to fluidly connect to the housing, the purging media unit comprising: a purging media tank (see storage tank); and a first pump capable of pumping a purging media between the purging media tank and the housing 6; wherein the vessel 6 is capable of receiving a pig (see figure 1, page 6, lines 5-24). Ragnar et al. does not explicitly teach an isolation valve fluidly coupled to the housing. McCully teaches a pig treatment system (see abstract, paragraphs [0016], [0038]) and an isolation valve 101 used to isolate the vessel 107 so as to allow for recovery and reuse of process fluids (see figure 1, abstract, paragraphs [0039]-[0040], [0061]). Since both Ragnar et al. and McCully teach pig treatment systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that an isolation valve may be included in the system by Ragnar et al. so as to allow for the isolation of the vessel and recovery and reuse of process fluids, as shown to be known and conventional by McCully.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Ragnar et al. teaches a system (see abstract), comprising: a vessel 6 comprising: a housing 6; a pipeline 7 fluidly coupled to the housing 6 (see figure 1, page 4, line 23- page 5, line 19); and a vent tubing 8 fluidly coupled to the housing 6 and the pipeline 7, the vent tubing 8 comprising a check valve 16 capable of preventing a fluid from traveling from the pipeline 7 to the housing 6 through the vent tubing 8 (see figure 1, page 4, line 23- page 5, line 19, page 5, line 24 – page 6, line 1); a mainline valve 10 fluidly coupled to the vessel 6 and the pipeline 7, the mainline valve 10 capable of transporting a pig between the pipeline 7 and the vessel 6 (see figure 1, page 4, line 23- page 5, line 19); and a purging media unit capable of fluidly connecting to the housing, the purging media unit comprising: a purging media tank (see storage tank); and a first pump capable of pumping a purging media between the purging media tank and the housing 6 in a first direction (see direction from storage tank to vessel 6); wherein the vessel 6 is capable of receiving a pig (see figure 1, page 6, lines 5-24). Ragnar et al. does not explicitly teach an isolation valve fluidly coupled to the housing. McCully teaches a pig treatment system (see abstract, paragraphs [0016], [0038]) and an isolation valve 101 used to isolate the vessel 107 so as to allow for recovery and reuse of process fluids (see figure 1, abstract, paragraphs [0039]-[0040], [0061]). Since both Ragnar et al. and McCully teach pig treatment systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that an isolation valve may be included in the system by Ragnar et al. so as to allow for the isolation of the vessel and recovery and reuse of process fluids, as shown to be known and conventional by McCully. Ragnar et al. does not explicitly teach a second pump operable to pump the purging media between the housing and the purging media tank in a second direction. McCully teaches in claim 8, Table 2, and paragraphs [0019], [0062], [0075] that a second pump 540 may be a vacuum pump operable to pump the purging media between the housing and the purging media tank in a second direction (see direction from vessel 107 to recovery tank) so as to allow for the recovery and reuse of process fluids. Since both Ragnar et al. and McCully teach pig treatment systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a second pump may be included in the system by Ragnar et al. so as to pump the purging media between the housing and the purging media tank in a second direction and allow for the recovery and reuse of process fluids, as shown to be known and conventional by McCully.
Regarding claims 11-13, 17-19, Ragnar et al. and McCully together teach the limitations of claims 9 and 15. Ragnar et al. also teaches in figure 1, page 4, line 23- page 5, line 19, page 6, lines 5-24, page 8, lines 20-29 a valve 21/22 (capable of allowing fluid flow in either direction, reads on inlet and drainage valve) fluidly coupled to the housing 6 and the purging media unit (reads on claims 11 and 17); and the vent tubing 8 is coupled to a top of the housing 6 and the inlet and drainage valve 21/22 is coupled to a bottom of the housing 6 (reads on claims 12 and 18); the vessel further comprises: a vent valve 11/24 fluidly coupled to the housing 6; and an inlet and drainage tubing 17/18 capable of fluidly coupling the inlet and drainage valve 21/22 to the housing 6 (reads on claims 13 and 19).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragnar et al. (GB2586236A) in view of McCully (US20070151603) as applied to claims 8 and 15 and further in view of Davey et al. (US6604536B1).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Ragnar et al. and McCully together teach the limitations of claims 8 and 15. Ragnar et al. does not teach that the purging media unit is operable to couple with a vehicle operable to transport the purging media unit. Davey et al. teaches a pig cleaning system (see abstract, column 9, line 65-column 10, line 7) and that the purging media unit comprising pump 26 and purging media tank 10 may be coupled with a vehicle 23 so as to allow for the support and transportation of the purging media unit (see column 4, lines 15-46, column 9, line 65-column 10, line 39). Since both Ragnar et al. and Davey et al. both teach cleaning systems including pigs and purging systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the purging media unit in the system by Ragnar et al. may be operable to couple with a vehicle operable so as to allow for the support and transport of the purging media unit, as shown to be known and conventional by Davey et al.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragnar et al. (GB2586236A) in view of McCully (US20070151603) as applied to claims 9 and 15 and further in view of Hurter (US20200116140).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Ragnar et al. and McCully together teach the limitations of claims 9 and 15. McCully teaches in claim 8, Table 2, and paragraphs [0019], [0062], [0075] that a second pump 540 may be a vacuum pump. Ragnar et al. does not teach that the first pump is a plunger pump. Hurter teaches a pig cleaning apparatus (see abstract, paragraph [0002]) and that a plunger pump allows for the minimization of discharge turbulence (see paragraphs [0073], [0095], [0118], [0121], [0143]). Since both Ragnar et al. and Hurter teach pig cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the first pump may be a plunger pump so as to allow for the minimization of discharge turbulence, as shown to be known and conventional by Hurter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
