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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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 § 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.
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, 2, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 1359504 A), hereinafter Harris, in view of Czajka (EP 0826925 A2), hereinafter Czajka.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Harris discloses a hydrotorch assembly comprising:
a hydrogen source (“an electrolytic device or apparatus is employed for the purpose of splitting up water into hydrogen and oxygen” page 1, line 35);
a hydrogen supply line having a first end connected to and in fluid communication with said hydrogen source (The larger diameter line 15 near the top as seen in figure 1 and upstream of bore 11);
a torch (“a blow pipe of the type illustrated in the drawings I employ a valve casing 10” page 1, line 67) having a first gas conduit, said first gas conduit having an inlet connected to and in fluid communication with a second end of the hydrogen supply line, and an outlet (Smaller diameter line 15 within 10) connected to and in fluid communication with a nozzle (“A nozzle 24” page 1, line 103) through which exiting gas is ignited to produce a flame that extends outwardly from the nozzle (“commingled oxygen and hydrogen or other combustible gas issues and produces a thin elongated preheating flame” page 2, line 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
682
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Harris does not disclose:
a flame arrester comprising a compressed air source,
a compressed air supply line having a first end connected to and in fluid communication with said compressed air source, and a second end connected to the first gas conduit near the inlet and in fluid communication with the first gas conduit and the hydrogen supply line; and
a control valve disposed in the compressed air supply line for controlling the supply of compressed air to the first gas conduit of the torch, wherein introduction of compressed air into the hydrogen supply line interrupts the flow of hydrogen through the first gas conduit;
wherein the control valve comprises a mechanical on-off valve to enable and disable the flow of compressed air to the first gas conduit of the torch.
However, Czajka teaches:
a flame arrester comprising a compressed air source,
a compressed air supply line having a first end connected to and in fluid communication with said compressed air source, and a second end connected to the first gas conduit near the inlet and in fluid communication with the first gas conduit and the fuel supply line; and
a control valve disposed in the compressed air supply line for controlling the supply of compressed air to the first gas conduit of the torch, wherein introduction of compressed air into the fuel supply line interrupts the flow of fuel through the first gas conduit;
wherein the control valve comprises a mechanical on-off valve to enable and disable the flow of compressed air to the first gas conduit of the torch (“Should now e.g. the burner 5 'are switched off, the valve d' is closed and thus the supply of fuel gas / oxygen mixture via lines 3 and 3 'in the Burner 5 'interrupted. Simultaneously with the closing of the valve d ', the valve e' opened in the inert or purge gas supply line 4 ', so that now only Inert or purge gas flows from the supply line 4 'into the burner 5' and this rinses” and “Nitrogen or a nitrogen-containing gas is advantageously used as the inert or purge gas Gas mixture, especially air or compressed air, is used” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
PNG
media_image2.png
424
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Czajka’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the features as is taught in Czajka, in the hydrotorch assembly disclosed by Harris because Czajka states “a safe shutdown of the burner without the danger of flame retreat into the burner.” Therefore, including the features taught by Czajka will prevent flame retreat into the burner and improve safety.
Regarding claim 2, Harris, as modified by Czajka, discloses the hydrotorch assembly according to claim 1, wherein the hydrogen source comprises a hydrogen generator for generating hydrogen gas on demand (“an electrolytic device or apparatus is employed for the purpose of splitting up water into hydrogen and oxygen in order to obtain the oxygen and the hydrogen thus liberated has ordinarily been discarded. The object of my invention, therefore, is to utilize this hydrogen thus generated during the electrolytic process thereby economizing in the use of gas” page 1, line 35).
Regarding claim 9, Harris, as modified by Czajka, discloses the hydrotorch assembly according to claim 1, further comprising a valve disposed in the first gas conduit of the torch for controlling the flow of gas supplied to the nozzle (14 associated with 15).
Regarding claim 10, Harris, as modified by Czajka, discloses the hydrotorch assembly according to claim 1, further comprising:
an oxygen source (The source of oxygen to lines 16);
an oxygen supply line having a first end connected to and in fluid communication with said oxygen source, and a second end (Element 16 upstream of 12) connected to and in fluid communication with a second gas conduit of the torch (Element 16 adjacent first gas conduit 15), said second gas conduit having an inlet connected to and in fluid communication with the second end of the oxygen supply line (At 12) and a second end connected to and in fluid communication with the nozzle of the torch (“injector tube 29 arranged at the end of the oxygen pipe 16” page 1, line 108); and
a gas control valve disposed in the second gas conduit for controlling the flow of oxygen from the oxygen source to the nozzle (14 associated with 16).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris, in view of Czajka, and further in view of Zhang (CN 202390543 U), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 3, Harris, as modified by Czajka, discloses the hydrotorch assembly according to claim 2, further comprising a power source for providing electrical power to the hydrogen generator (an “electrolytic device” requires an electrical power source).
Harris does not disclose a rheostat for controlling the rate of hydrogen production.
However, Zhang teaches a rheostat for controlling the rate of hydrogen production (“electrolysing speed the prepared electrolyte is added into an electrolyzer, water source, using cable switch, rheostat and an electrolyzer in series connection and then connected with direct current power supply” paragraph [0020]).
PNG
media_image3.png
566
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Zhang’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a rheostat for controlling the rate of hydrogen production as is taught in Zhang, in the hydrotorch assembly disclosed by Harris because the court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and when there is an art-recognized need for adjustment such would have been obvious. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In the present case, the difference between the claims and the prior art adjustability of the power source/hydrolysis speed. Zhang demonstrates that there is an art-recognized need for adjustment of these parameters and is therefore obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Harris, as modified by Czajka and Zhang, discloses the hydrotorch assembly according to claim 3, wherein the hydrogen generator further includes an electrolyzer electrically coupled to the power source and having a cathode and an anode disposed within the hydrogen generator, said hydrogen generator being filled with an electrolyte solution (The examiner points out that electrolysis is the electrical separation of hydrogen and oxygen from water which requires an anode, cathode, and an electrolyte solution. For example, Zhang relies on positive and negative plates 8 and 10 respectively and electrolyte 18).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris, in view of Czajka, and further in view of Inamdar (WO 2024023609 A1), hereinafter Inamdar.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Harris, as modified by Czajka, discloses the hydrotorch assembly according to claim 1.
Harris, as modified by Czajka, does not disclose a bubble tank having an inlet port connected to and in fluid communication with the hydrogen source along a first length of the hydrogen supply line and an outlet port connected to and in fluid communication with the torch at a point along a second length of the hydrogen supply line, wherein the bubble tank is filled with distilled water.
However, Inamdar teaches a bubble tank having an inlet port connected to and in fluid communication with the hydrogen source along a first length of the hydrogen supply line and an outlet port connected to and in fluid communication with the terminus at a point along a second length of the hydrogen supply line, wherein the bubble tank is filled with distilled water (“Oxyhydrogen exits from the pipe (62) and floats through the distilled water present in the bubble tank (60) towards an upper side of the bubbler tank (60). Oxy hydrogen is purified while travelling through the distilled water and delivered through an outlet (65)” paragraph [0034]).
In view of Inamdar’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a bubble tank having an inlet port connected to and in fluid communication with the hydrogen source along a first length of the hydrogen supply line and an outlet port connected to and in fluid communication with the terminus at a point along a second length of the hydrogen supply line, wherein the bubble tank is filled with distilled water as is taught in Inamdar, in the hydrotorch assembly disclosed by Harris because Inamdar states that the oxy hydrogen is purified while traveling through the bubble tank. Therefore, including the bubble tank as taught by Inamdar will ensure purity of the hydrogen and oxygen produced in Harris.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris, in view of Czajka, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Petrovic (WO 9809001 A1), hereinafter Petrovic.
Regarding claim 8, Harris, as modified by Czajka and Zhang, discloses the hydrotorch assembly according to claim 7.
Harris, as modified by Czajka and Zhang, does not disclose wherein the electrolyte solution is a mixture of potassium hydroxide and distilled water.
However, Petrovic teaches wherein the electrolyte solution is a mixture of potassium hydroxide and distilled water (“To use the device 100, the tank 6 is partly filled with electrolyte as is the electroiyser 8. The electrolyte may be any suitable aqueous solution, such as distilled or potable water with addition of NaOH or KOH as catalyst” page 7, line 9).
PNG
media_image4.png
462
710
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Zhang does not disclose the specific claimed electrolyte. However, the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In this regard, it is noted that Petrovic teaches the claimed electrolyte is suitable for electrolysis. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the electrolysis electrolyte of Petrovic in the electrolysis generator of Harris.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris, in view of Czajka, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Jo (US 20200400137 A1), hereinafter Jo.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Harris, as modified by Czajka and Zhang, discloses the hydrotorch assembly according to claim 3, wherein the compressed air source comprises:
a compressor to compress air to a desired pressure (Czajka discloses compressed air which requires a compressor).
Harris, as modified by Czajka and Zhang, does not disclose:
an air reservoir connected to and in fluid communication with the compressor for receiving and storing said compressed air; and
a sensor for measuring and monitoring the pressure inside the air reservoir;
wherein said compressor is electrically coupled to the power source, and a relay is provided for enabling and disabling the supply of power from the power source to the compressor based upon information provided by the sensor.
However, Jo teaches:
an air reservoir connected to and in fluid communication with the compressor for receiving and storing said compressed air (“an air tank 230 configured to store the air compressed by the air compressor 210” paragraph [0013]); and
a sensor for measuring and monitoring the pressure inside the air reservoir (“a pressure sensor 250 configured to measure a pressure of the air stored in the air tank 230” paragraph [0013]);
wherein said compressor is electrically coupled to the power source, and a relay is provided for enabling and disabling the supply of power from the power source to the compressor based upon information provided by the sensor (“The controller 260 collects data, which are related to the pressure of the air in the air tank 230, from the pressure sensor 250, and stops the operation of the air compressor 210 when the pressure of the air stored in the air tank 230 exceeds the first reference value, thereby effectively preventing a loss of power caused by operating the air compressor 210 at all times” paragraph [0033]).
PNG
media_image5.png
332
524
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Jo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include:
an air reservoir connected to and in fluid communication with the compressor for receiving and storing said compressed air; and
a sensor for measuring and monitoring the pressure inside the air reservoir;
wherein said compressor is electrically coupled to the power source, and a relay is provided for enabling and disabling the supply of power from the power source to the compressor based upon information provided by the sensor as is taught in Jo, in the hydrotorch assembly disclosed by Kim because Jo states that ceasing operation of the compressor saves power. Therefore, including the teachings of Jo will save power in the assembly of Kim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wade (GB 325380 A) “admission of air to the mixing chamber of the burner in such a manner that the risk of back-firing is avoided” page 1, line 69
PNG
media_image6.png
418
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Chiang (US 5244558 A)
PNG
media_image7.png
472
668
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kim (KR 20030037080 A)
PNG
media_image8.png
520
718
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
312
648
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Kim (KR 100322315 B1)
PNG
media_image10.png
724
386
media_image10.png
Greyscale
McDonald (US 20170145960 A1) “Rheostat 170 may be configured to control the amperage from battery 110 to anode 135. Rheostat 170 may be controlled by the vehicle's electronic control unit. Responsive to the vehicle's electronic control unit determining that more hydrogen is required by the vehicle, rheostat 170 may dynamically control and increase the amperage from battery 110 to anode 135. Responsive to the vehicle's electronic control unit determining that less hydrogen is required by the vehicle, rheostat 170 may dynamically control and decrease the amperage from battery 110 to anode 135. Rheostat 170 may be configured to dynamically control the amperage from battery 110 to anode 135 based on the amount of hydrogen currently required by the vehicle” paragraph [0040]
PNG
media_image11.png
526
614
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Gurvey (US 20180141145 A1)
PNG
media_image12.png
508
456
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Horri (US 20200115806 A1) “1430 g of potassium hydroxide in 980 ml of distilled water” paragraph [0124]
PNG
media_image13.png
414
484
media_image13.png
Greyscale
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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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 Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762