DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 11-20 remain withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linde (EP2264354) in view of Ammann (U.S. Patent 7,666,602), in further view of Riggs (U.S. Patent 5,711,916).
Regarding claim 1, Linde discloses a portable jobsite skid system 1, comprising:
a skid-mounted enclosure 10 made of plastic, comprising a roof (FIG. 3), side panels (FIG. 3), and two doors (FIG. 3),
a first microbulk vessel 2 containing a first pressurized gas, and a second microbulk vessel 2 containing a second pressurized gas (Paragraph 8),
a gas mixer 4 configured to mix the first pressurized gas and the second pressurized gas (Paragraph 17) (FIG. 1-3; Paragraph 8, 15-19, and 23).
Linde is silent regarding the skid-mounted enclosure made of formed sheet and structural metal; and quick disconnect ports configured to connect a gas mixture to the end user.
However, Ammann teaches a skid mounted enclosure 60/62 made of formed sheet 60 and structural metal 62 (FIG. 1, 2; Col. 8 ln 25-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Linde by making the enclosure out of formed sheet and structural metal, as taught by Ammann, for the purpose of utilizing a material known within the art to be a common material relied upon for structural components as the metal provides the desired attributes of a robust enclosure.
Furthermore, Riggs teaches quick disconnect ports configured to connect a gas mixture to the end user (Col. 5 ln 22-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Linde by adding quick disconnect attachments between the components of the system, as taught by Riggs, for the purpose of providing a means for easy attachment and detachment of the components between the times the system in is operation and not.
Regarding claim 2, Linde, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Linde further discloses the first pressurized gas comprises argon, and the second pressurized gas comprises carbon dioxide (Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 3, Linde, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Linde further discloses a blended gas output from the mixer, and a pure gas output (Paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 4, Linde, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Linde further discloses the gas mixer may be removed from the skid-mounted enclosure (snap fit connection is a removable connection allowing for ease of install and removal) (Paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 5, Linde, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Linde/Riggs further teaches the quick disconnect ports are built into, and integral to, the gas mixer (Col. 5 ln 22-40).
Regarding claim 8, Linde, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Linde further discloses the roof comprises a removable spreader bar frame (portion of the casing 10 between openings 4) (FIG. 3).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linde in view of Ammann, in further view of Riggs, in even further view of Kotliar (U.S. Patent 6,502,421).
Regarding claim 6, Linde, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Linde is silent regarding at least one vaporizer mounted on the roof.
However, Kotliar teaches at least one vaporizer 36 mounted on the roof (FIG. 4 shows evaporator 36 (also teaches as a vaporizer) is connected to the outside of a nitrogen filled container 32 between the container and the distribution unit 41) (FIG. 3 shows the positioning of the distribution unit with respect to the container) (FIG. 3, 4; Col. 5 ln 18-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Linde by adding at least one vaporizer on the exterior of the vessels, as taught by Kotliar, for the purpose of providing a means to transform liquid gas into vapor in order to provide the gas in the desired working state. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specifically place the vaporizer on the roof of the structure, since it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linde in view of Ammann, in further view of Riggs, in even further view of Dutton (U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0236422).
Regarding claim 7, Linde, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Linde is silent regarding one or more system selected from the group consisting of: at least one retractable and adjustable solar panels mounted on the roof, thermoelectric generator, and a gas-powered generator.
However, Dutton teaches one or more system selected from the group consisting of: at least one retractable and adjustable solar panels mounted on the roof, thermoelectric generator, and a gas-powered generator (“the means for driving the fluid pumps comprises a solar powered device”, Claim 9) (the means for driving the fluid pumps is referred to by reference numeral 14) (the solar panels for a solar powered device would have to be positioned on the roof of the system and be adjustable) (Claim 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Linde by adding at least one retractable and adjustable solar panels mounted on the roof, thermoelectric generator, or a gas-powered generator, as taught by Dutton, for the purpose of providing a means for powering the system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linde in view of Ammann, in further view of Riggs, in even further view of Cirou (U.S. Patent 9,205,955).
Regarding claim 9, Linde, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Linde is silent regarding a spring-loaded door latch configured such that,
when in a first position, one or both doors will close securely, remain closed, but remain unlocked, and
when in a second position, both doors will be locked.
However, Cirou teaches a spring-loaded door latch configured such that,
when in a first position, one or both doors will close securely, remain closed, but remain unlocked, and
when in a second position, both doors will be locked (Col. 4 ln 16-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Linde by adding a spring-loaded door latch, as taught by Dutton, for the purpose of providing a means for maintaining the positioning of the door during operation and during removal of the vessels.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linde in view of Ammann, in further view of Riggs, in even further view of Stewart (U.S. Patent 9,751,161).
Regarding claim 10, Linde, as modified above and as best can be understood, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Linde further is silent regarding a firewall located between the first microbulk vessel and the second microbulk vessel.
However, Stewart teaches placing a firewall 406 between the first microbulk vessel and the second microbulk vessel (FIG. 4; Col. 2 ln 62-Col. 3 ln 2, Col. 4 ln 23-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Linde by adding firewall between the vessels, as taught by Stewart, for the purpose of providing protection between the multiple potentially flammable pressurized gas containers within the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the embodiment relied upon in Linde is not a skid. Applicant refers to the embodiment as a wheeled cart. This argument is not persuasive. Merriam-Webster defines a skid as “a low platform mounted (as on wheels) on which material is set for handling or moving” (Merriam-Webster). Accordingly, the embodiment of Linde disclosed in Figure 3 clearly meets the definition of “skid”. Additionally, applicant asserts that Linde does not disclose doors. It is clear in Figure 3 that the top surface has “a usually swinging or sliding barrier by which an entry is closed and opened” (Merriam-Webster definition of door). Linde discloses both a skid and doors on the skid. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that Linde fails to disclose microbulk vessels. A microbulk tank is merely a compact storage solution for gases. The containers 2, disclosed in Linde, are a compact storage solution for gases. Furthermore, Linde discloses the containers need not be a cylinder (Paragraph 15). Accordingly, the containers 2 disclosed in Linde meet the definition of a microbulk vessel, and as such meet the limitation of the claim. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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 supervisor, Craig M 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.
/CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753