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 .
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 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 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 1, 17, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al (US 2008/0110338), hereinafter Taylor in view of Sprinkle (US 2006/0086251), hereinafter Sprinkle.
Regarding claim 1, Taylor teaches an oxygen concentrator (Fig. 1) comprising:
a compressor configured to generate a pressurized air stream (Fig. 1: compressor 2, paragraph 6, air is drawn in and pressurized by compressor 2);
at least two canisters (paragraph 6, multiple adsorbent beds, Fig. 2: column A, Column B), each canister comprising adsorbent material configured to preferentially adsorb a component gas from the pressurized air stream, thereby producing oxygen enriched air from the pressurized air stream (paragraph 5, utilized zeolite adsorbent to selectively adsorb nitrogen resulting in pressurized oxygen rich product gas, paragraph 6);
one or more valves (paragraph 6, directed through valve arrangement), configured to:
selectively pneumatically couple the compressor to each canister so as to selectively feed the pressurized air stream to the canister; (paragraph 7, the controller controls the timing and operation of the various valves used to cycle the beds through feed, purge, and pressure equalization steps)and
selectively vent each canister to atmosphere (Paragraph 6, flush out, purge nitrogen to exhaust 6, paragraph 33) ;
an accumulator pneumatically coupled to receive the produced oxygen enriched air (Fig. 1: product gas storage 4, paragraph 31);
one or more controllers operably coupled to the one or more valves and the compressor (Fig. 1: programmable controller 5, paragraph 7), the one or more controllers configured to:
regulate a speed of the compressor to a speed set point while generating the pressurized air stream (paragraph 33, pressure sensor is adapted to perform other functions such as compressor feedback control), wherein the regulating comprises generating a control signal having a characteristic parameter; (paragraph 33, gas pressure sensor is adapted to monitor pressure in the adsorbent bed. The pressure measurements are used to adjust the valve operation to achieve balanced pressure in the adsorbent beds)
selectively operate the one or more valves in a cyclic pattern so as to produce oxygen enriched air in the accumulator, (Fig. 2, paragraph 34, Fig. 3, paragraph 6 pressurized air directed through columns by a valve arrangement in a series of steps, paragraph 37) wherein a cycle of the cyclic pattern comprises a plurality of phases (Fig. 3, paragraph 7, through feed and purge steps that make up PSA cycle), each of the plurality of phases comprising a duration (Fig. 3,paragraph 34), and
generate a dynamic adjustment to one or more of the durations based on an evaluation of the characteristic parameter (Paragraph 34, the processor can adjust the valve timing to keep the beds balanced, based on the peak pressure in each bed, paragraph 38), whereby the dynamic adjustment reduces dynamic imbalance of a pneumatic characteristic between the canisters. (Paragraph 34, the processor can adjust the valve timing to keep the beds balanced, paragraph 37 advance or retard timing, paragraph 38 to adjust for imbalance various timing adjustments made be made, Fig. 4)
Taylor does not explicitly teach wherein the regulating comprising generating a compressor control signal having a characteristic parameter and to generate a dynamic adjustment based on an evaluation of the characteristic parameter.
However, Sprinkle teaches an oxygen concentrator (Abstract) to regulate a speed of a compressor to a set point wherein regulating comprises generating a compressor control signal having a characteristic parameter. (Paragraph 114, the speed of the compressor and vacuum pump are constant while valve timing is adjusted, paragraph 115, the compressor and vacuum motor speed can be maintained while the duty cycle of the flow control valve is adjusted, Paragraph 119, for any given motor speed, the pressure vacuum developed for sieve beds can be determined empirically and stored in the memory. This pressure can then be used to control the switching or timing of main switch valve and pressure equalization valve to accomplish the proper pressure swing adsorption result.)
Therefore, the combination of Taylor and Sprinkle teaches to regulate a speed of a compressor to a set point, wherein the regulating comprising generating a compressor control signal having a characteristic parameter and to generate a dynamic adjustment based on an evaluation of the characteristic parameter.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have substituted the direct pressure measurement of Taylor with the estimated pressure measure based on the motor speed of Sprinkle as this is a known art equivalent way of determining pressure in the sieve beds and further would result in the elimination of the pressure sensor.
Regarding claim 17, Taylor teaches a method of operating an oxygen concentration device (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
controlling, with one or more controllers(Fig. 1: programmable controller 5), a compressor to generate a pressurized air stream (Fig. 1: compressor 2, paragraph 6, air is drawn in and pressurized by compressor 2)to at least two canisters (Paragraph 6, multiple adsorbent beds, Fig. 2: column A, column B), each canister comprising adsorbent material configured to preferentially adsorb a component gas from the pressurized air stream(paragraph 5, utilized zeolite adsorbent to selectively adsorb nitrogen resulting in pressurized oxygen rich product gas, paragraph 6), thereby producing oxygen enriched air from the pressurized air stream(paragraph 5, utilized zeolite adsorbent to selectively adsorb nitrogen resulting in pressurized oxygen rich product gas, paragraph 6) to an accumulator pneumatically coupled to receive the produced oxygen enriched air; (Fig. 1: product gas storage 4, paragraph 31)
the controlling the compressor comprising regulating a speed of the compressor to a speed set point(paragraph 33, pressure sensor is adapted to perform other functions such as compressor feedback control), wherein the regulating comprises generating a control signal having a characteristic parameter; (paragraph 33, gas pressure sensor is adapted to monitor pressure in the adsorbent bed. The pressure measurements are used to adjust the valve operation to achieve balanced pressure in the adsorbent beds):
controlling, with the one or more controllers, operation of one or more valves (paragraph 6, directed through valve arrangement)to (a) selectively pneumatically couple the compressor to each canister so as to selectively feed the pressurized air stream to the canister(paragraph 7, the controller controls the timing and operation of the various valves used to cycle the beds through feed, purge, and pressure equalization steps), and (b) selectively vent each canister to atmosphere(Paragraph 6, flush out, purge nitrogen to exhaust 6, paragraph 33);
wherein the controlling operation of the one or more valves comprises selectively operating the one or more valves in a cyclic pattern so as to produce the oxygen enriched air(Fig. 2, paragraph 34, Fig. 3, paragraph 6 pressurized air directed through columns by a valve arrangement in a series of steps, paragraph 37), wherein a cycle of the cyclic pattern comprises a plurality of phases (Fig. 3, paragraph 7, through feed and purge steps that make up PSA cycle), each of the plurality of phases comprising a duration (Fig. 3,paragraph 34); and
controlling, with the one or more controllers, generation of a dynamic adjustment to one or more of the durations based on an evaluation of the characteristic parameter, whereby the dynamic adjustment reduces dynamic imbalance of a pneumatic characteristic between the canisters. (Paragraph 34, the processor can adjust the valve timing to keep the beds balanced, based on the peak pressure in each bed, paragraph 38), whereby the dynamic adjustment reduces dynamic imbalance of a pneumatic characteristic between the canisters. (Paragraph 34, the processor can adjust the valve timing to keep the beds balanced, paragraph 37 advance or retard timing, paragraph 38 to adjust for imbalance various timing adjustments made be made, Fig. 4)
Taylor does not explicitly teach wherein the regulating comprising generating a compressor control signal having a characteristic parameter and to generate a dynamic adjustment based on an evaluation of the characteristic parameter.
However, Sprinkle teaches an oxygen concentrator (Abstract) to regulate a speed of a compressor to a set point wherein regulating comprises generating a compressor control signal having a characteristic parameter. (Paragraph 114, the speed of the compressor and vacuum pump are constant while valve timing is adjusted, paragraph 115, the compressor and vacuum motor speed can be maintained while the duty cycle of the flow control valve is adjusted, Paragraph 119, for any given motor speed, the pressure vacuum developed for sieve beds can be determined empirically and stored in the memory. This pressure can then be used to control the switching or timing of main switch valve and pressure equalization valve to accomplish the proper pressure swing adsorption result.)
Therefore, the combination of Taylor and Sprinkle teaches to regulate a speed of a compressor to a set point, wherein the regulating comprising generating a compressor control signal having a characteristic parameter and to generate a dynamic adjustment based on an evaluation of the characteristic parameter.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have substituted the direct pressure measurement of Taylor with the estimated pressure measure based on the motor speed of Sprinkle as this is a known art equivalent way of determining pressure in the sieve beds and further would result in the elimination of the pressure sensor.
Regarding claim 33, Taylor teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
means for controlling a compressor to generate a pressurized air stream to at least two canisters(Fig. 1: programmable controller 5, paragraph 7, (Fig. 1: compressor 2, paragraph 6, air is drawn in and pressurized by compressor 2, paragraph 6, multiple adsorbent beds, Fig. 2: column A, Column B), each canister comprising adsorbent material configured to preferentially adsorb a component gas from the pressurized air stream, thereby producing oxygen enriched air from the pressurized air stream (paragraph 5, utilized zeolite adsorbent to selectively adsorb nitrogen resulting in pressurized oxygen rich product gas, paragraph 6)to an accumulator pneumatically coupled to receive the produced oxygen enriched air(Fig. 1: product gas storage 4, paragraph 31);
the controlling the compressor comprising regulating a speed of the compressor to a speed set point(paragraph 33, pressure sensor is adapted to perform other functions such as compressor feedback control), wherein the regulating comprises generating a control signal having a characteristic parameter; (paragraph 33, gas pressure sensor is adapted to monitor pressure in the adsorbent bed. The pressure measurements are used to adjust the valve operation to achieve balanced pressure in the adsorbent beds);
means for controlling operation of one or more valves (paragraph 6, directed through valve arrangement)to (a) selectively pneumatically couple the compressor to each canister so as to selectively feed the pressurized air stream to the canister(paragraph 7, the controller controls the timing and operation of the various valves used to cycle the beds through feed, purge, and pressure equalization steps), and (b) selectively vent each canister to atmosphere(Paragraph 6, flush out, purge nitrogen to exhaust 6, paragraph 33);
wherein the controlling operation of the one or more valves comprises selectively operating the one or more valves in a cyclic pattern so as to produce the oxygen enriched air(Fig. 2, paragraph 34, Fig. 3, paragraph 6 pressurized air directed through columns by a valve arrangement in a series of steps, paragraph 37), wherein a cycle of the cyclic pattern comprises a plurality of phases (Fig. 3, paragraph 7, through feed and purge steps that make up PSA cycle), each of the plurality of phases comprising a duration (Fig. 3,paragraph 34); and
means for generation of a dynamic adjustment to one or more of the durations based on an evaluation of the characteristic parameter, whereby the dynamic adjustment reduces dynamic imbalance of a pneumatic characteristic between the canisters. (Paragraph 34, the processor can adjust the valve timing to keep the beds balanced, based on the peak pressure in each bed, paragraph 38), whereby the dynamic adjustment reduces dynamic imbalance of a pneumatic characteristic between the canisters. (Paragraph 34, the processor can adjust the valve timing to keep the beds balanced, paragraph 37 advance or retard timing, paragraph 38 to adjust for imbalance various timing adjustments made be made, Fig. 4)
Taylor does not explicitly teach wherein the regulating comprising generating a compressor control signal having a characteristic parameter and to generate a dynamic adjustment based on an evaluation of the characteristic parameter.
However, Sprinkle teaches an oxygen concentrator (Abstract) to regulate a speed of a compressor to a set point wherein regulating comprises generating a compressor control signal having a characteristic parameter. (Paragraph 114, the speed of the compressor and vacuum pump are constant while valve timing is adjusted, paragraph 115, the compressor and vacuum motor speed can be maintained while the duty cycle of the flow control valve is adjusted, Paragraph 119, for any given motor speed, the pressure vacuum developed for sieve beds can be determined empirically and stored in the memory. This pressure can then be used to control the switching or timing of main switch valve and pressure equalization valve to accomplish the proper pressure swing adsorption result.)
Therefore, the combination of Taylor and Sprinkle teaches to regulate a speed of a compressor to a set point, wherein the regulating comprising generating a compressor control signal having a characteristic parameter and to generate a dynamic adjustment based on an evaluation of the characteristic parameter.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have substituted the direct pressure measurement of Taylor with the estimated pressure measure based on the motor speed of Sprinkle as this is a known art equivalent way of determining pressure in the sieve beds and further would result in the elimination of the pressure sensor.
Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Sprinkle, and further in view of Deane et al (US 2005/0103341), hereinafter Deane.
Regarding claim 15, Taylor in view of Sprinkle teaches the oxygen concentrator of claim 1, but is silent as to wherein to regulate speed of the compressor to a speed set point, the one or more controllers are configured to generate the compressor control signal based on a difference between (a) a measured speed signal generated by a speed sensor, and (b) the speed set point.
However, Deane teaches a portable gas fractionalization system (Abstract) wherein to regulate the speed of the compressor to a speed set point, the one or more controllers are configured to generate the compressor control signal based on a difference between (a) a measured speed signal generated by a speed sensor, and (b) the speed set point. (Paragraph 95, the controller can monitor the speed sensor and maintain the compressor speed substantially constant by adjusting the duty cycle controlling the current source)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Taylor in view of Sprinkle with the ability to regulate the speed of the compressor to a set point based on a difference between a measured signal and the speed set point in order to maintain the required compressor speed.
Regarding claim 31, Taylor in view of Sprinkle teaches the method of claim 17, but is silent as to wherein to regulate speed of the compressor to a speed set point, the one or more controllers are configured to generate the compressor control signal based on a difference between (a) a measured speed signal generated by a speed sensor, and (b) the speed set point.
However, Deane teaches a portable gas fractionalization system (Abstract) wherein to regulate the speed of the compressor to a speed set point, the one or more controllers are configured to generate the compressor control signal based on a difference between (a) a measured speed signal generated by a speed sensor, and (b) the speed set point. (Paragraph 95, the controller can monitor the speed sensor and maintain the compressor speed substantially constant by adjusting the duty cycle controlling the current source)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Taylor in view of Sprinkle with the ability to regulate the speed of the compressor to a set point based on a difference between a measured signal and the speed set point in order to maintain the required compressor speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-14, 16, 18-30, and 32 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.
Regarding claims 2-8 the prior art does not teach wherein the imbalance control system includes a sampler to sample on or more values of the characteristic parameter over a cycle and compute a measure of imbalanced based on the sampled values and an imbalance controller to compute at least one phase duration adjustment from the measure of imbalance.
Regarding claims 9-14, the prior art does not teach wherein the evaluation comprises a comparison between (a) a first sample value of the characteristic parameter, the first sample value being associated with at least one first phase for one of the at least two canisters, and (b) a second sample value of the characteristic parameter, the second sample value being associated with at least one second phase for another one of the at least two canisters, wherein the at least one first phase and the at least one second phase are corresponding phases.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach wherein the compressor control signal is a pulse width modulation (PWM) waveform and the characteristic parameter is a duty cycle of the PWM waveform.
Regarding claims 18-24, the prior art does not teach wherein to generate the dynamic adjustment to the one or more durations, the one or more controllers: samples one or more values of the characteristic parameter over a cycle, and computes a measure of imbalance based on the sampled values; and compute at least one phase duration adjustment from the measure of imbalance.
Regarding claims 25-30, the prior art does not teach wherein the evaluation comprises comparing (a) a first sample value of the characteristic parameter, the first sample value being associated with at least one first phase for one of the at least two canisters, and (b) a second sample value of the characteristic parameter, the second sample value being associated with at least one second phase for another one of the at least two canisters, wherein the at least one first phase and the at least one second phase are corresponding phases.
Regarding claim 32, the prior art does not teach, wherein the compressor control signal is a pulse width modulation (PWM) waveform and the characteristic parameter is a duty cycle of the PWM waveform.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET M LUARCA whose telephone number is (303)297-4312. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am - 3:30 pm MT.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785