DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keller et. al (US 4,900,244).
With respect to claim 1 Keller discloses that a method for eliminating hydrocarbon gas venting comprising: capturing hydrocarbon gas vented by one or more pneumatic controls1; storing the captured hydrocarbon gas in a vessel [reference character 14] at a positive pressure2; directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to an apparatus [reference character 10] that operates under a positive fuel pressure condition [via blower 12]; and burning the hydrocarbon gas with the apparatus as a supplemental fuel source [se Fig. 2].
With respect to claim 2 Keller discloses that the captured hydrocarbon gas to an apparatus comprises directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to a hydrocarbon gas burner assembly [reference character 24].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keller et. al (US 4,900,244).
With respect to claim 12 Keller discloses a system for capturing and using pneumatic control hydrocarbon vent gas comprising: a supply line [reference character 16] configured to collect hydrocarbon gas vented from one or more pneumatic controls3; a vessel [reference character 14] operating at a positive pressure4, said vessel comprising an inlet coupled to said supply line [see Fig. 1]; an outlet of said vessel coupled to an apparatus [reference character 10] that operates under a positive fuel pressure condition [via blower 12]; and said apparatus configured to burn the hydrocarbon gas as a supplemental fuel source for the system.
With respect to claim 13 Keller discloses that the apparatus comprises directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to a hydrocarbon gas burner assembly [reference character 24].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 3, 5-7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et. al (US 4,900,244) in view of Dudar (US 10,480,431 B1).
With respect to claim 3 Keller does not disclose directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to an apparatus comprises directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to an engine.
Dudar discloses a method for eliminating hydrocarbon gas venting comprising: capturing hydrocarbon gas vented by one or more pneumatic controls [reference character 219]; storing the captured hydrocarbon gas in a vessel [reference character 220]; and directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to an apparatus [reference character 225]. Dudar further discloses directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to an engine [reference character 210].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Keller by directing they captured hydrocarbon gas to an engine, as taught by Dudar, in order to use the otherwise wasted gas to generate usable power.
With respect to claim 5 the combination of Keller and Dudar supplementing a supply of the captured hydrocarbon gas with an additional supply of hydrocarbon gas [gasoline, see column 8 lines 33-36].
With respect to claim 6 the combination of Keller and Dudar disclose that supplementing a supply of the captured hydrocarbon gas with a fuel gas train [reference characters 221 and 226].
With respect to claim 7 the combination of Keller and Dudar disclose that supplementing a supply of the captured hydrocarbon gas with a fuel gas train comprises supplementing a supply of the captured hydrocarbon gas with a fuel gas train [reference characters 221 and 226] of a burner [reference character 210, the engine being interpreted as a burner because of the presence of multiple combustion chambers] of the hydrocarbon gas burner assembly.
With respect to claim 11 the combination of Keller and Dudar disclose that supplementing a supply of the captured hydrocarbon gas with an additional supply of hydrocarbon gas [gasoline, see column 8 lines 33-36].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et. al (US 4,900,244) in view of Hirt (US 4,292,020).
With respect to claim Keller does not disclose directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to a hydrocarbon gas burner assembly comprises directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to a pilot of the hydrocarbon gas burner assembly.
Hirt discloses a method for eliminating hydrocarbon gas venting comprising: capturing hydrocarbon gas vented by one or more pneumatic controls [reference character 10]; storing the captured hydrocarbon gas in a vessel [reference character 17]; and directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to an apparatus [see Fig. 2]. Hirt further discloses that directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to a hydrocarbon gas burner assembly comprises directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to a pilot [reference character 44] of the hydrocarbon gas burner assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Keller by including a pilot light in the burner assembly and feeding a portion of the captured hydrocarbon gas to the pilot light, as taught by Hirt, in order to ensure ignition and stability of the main burner flame.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et. al (US 4,900,244) in view of Johnson et. al (US 10,746,400 B2).
With respect to claim 5 Keller does not disclose supplementing a supply of the captured hydrocarbon gas with an additional supply of hydrocarbon gas.
Johnson discloses a flare gas burner which includes a flare/vent gas source [reference character 14] which is supplemented by an additional supply of fuel gas [reference character 20] in order to control the net heating value of the mixture [see Abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus taught by Keller by including an additional supply of fuel gas, as taught by Johnson, in order to control/maintain the net heating value and flow rate of the combined fuel gas, in order to ensure flame stability in the burner.
With respect to claim 8 the combination of Keller and Johnson disclose that supplementing a supply of the captured hydrocarbon gas comprises regulating at least a portion of the additional supply of hydrocarbon gas with a pressure control valve [reference character 38 of Johnson].
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et. al (US 4,900,244) in view of Dudar (US 10,480,431 B1).
With respect to claim 15 Keller does not disclose that the system includes an additional supply of hydrocarbon gas.
Dudar discloses a system for eliminating hydrocarbon gas venting comprising: capturing hydrocarbon gas vented by one or more pneumatic controls [reference character 219]; storing the captured hydrocarbon gas in a vessel [reference character 220]; and directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to an apparatus [reference character 225]. Dudar further discloses directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to an engine [reference character 210] where supplementing a supply of the captured hydrocarbon gas with an additional supply of hydrocarbon gas [gasoline, see column 8 lines 33-36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Keller by directing they captured hydrocarbon gas to an engine, as taught by Dudar, in order to use the otherwise wasted gas to generate usable power.
With respect to claim 16 the combination of Keller and Dudar discloses that said additional supply of hydrocarbon gas is derived from a fuel gas train [reference characters 221 and 226].
With respect to claim 17 the combination of Keller and Dudar discloses that said fuel gas train comprises a fuel gas train [reference characters 221 and 226] for a burner [reference character 210, the engine being interpreted as a burner because of the presence of multiple combustion chambers].
With respect to claim 18 the combination of Keller and Dudar discloses that said apparatus comprises an engine [reference character 210].
With respect to claim 19 the combination of Keller and Dudar discloses that said system further comprises an additional supply of hydrocarbon gas [gasoline, see column 8 lines 33-36].
With respect to claim 20 the combination of Keller and Dudar discloses a make-up pressure regulator [reference character 261] set at or about a minimum operating pressure of said engine [interpreted to be the manifold vacuum pressure of the engine].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et. al (US 4,900,244) in view of Hirt (US 4,292,020).
With respect to claim 14 Keller does not disclose that said outlet of said vessel is coupled to a pilot of said hydrocarbon gas burner assembly.
Hirt discloses a system for eliminating hydrocarbon gas venting comprising: capturing hydrocarbon gas vented by one or more pneumatic controls [reference character 10]; storing the captured hydrocarbon gas in a vessel [reference character 17]; and directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to an apparatus [see Fig. 2]. Hirt further discloses that directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to a hydrocarbon gas burner assembly comprises directing the captured hydrocarbon gas to a pilot [reference character 44] of the hydrocarbon gas burner assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Keller by including a pilot light in the burner assembly and feeding a portion of the captured hydrocarbon gas to the pilot light, as taught by Hirt, in order to ensure ignition and stability of the main burner flame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 It has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited-structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 409 (1961). Since the Pneumatic controls are not manipulated by a method step they are not interpreted as positively claimed, any structure that vents a hydrocarbon gas is interpreted as meeting the limitations of the claims.
2 The hydrocarbon would have to enter the vessel at slightly higher than atmospheric pressure in order to make it into the vessel.
3 “[T]o collect hydrocarbon gas vented from one or more pneumatic controls” is interpreted as intended use where the prior art need only be capable of being used in the claimed way, in this case the vapor recovery and combustion system taught by Hirt could be used to capture and combust vapors from pneumatic controls.
4 See footnote 2.