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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1-7 and 21-28
Withdrawn Claims: 8-10 and 12-13
Cancelled claims: 11 and 14-20
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04 MARCH 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1 and 7, the addition of new claim 28, and the cancellation of claim 11 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claims 1 and 7, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been modified to account for the newly added limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04 MARCH 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claim 1, that Yamamoto teaches a seal gas exhaust device (i.e., breather valve) but does not teach the newly added limitations of the breather valve which include exhausting the gas to the exhaust pipe and relieving pressure by adding back gas from the same exhaust pipe and that when the relative pressure of the inert gas in the storage space is -30 mmAq, the breather valve allows external gas to enter the tank, and therefore claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 04 MARCH 2026, Page 10, Paragraphs 1-4).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Yamamoto explicitly teaches the use of Kaneko breather valves, and supporting documentation from Kaneko teaches that breather valves have common exhaust and source areas, which is typically the local air if there is no environmental contamination issue, but that the breather valves have configurations where both the intake and the exhaust can be set up to be connected with piping. Furthermore, Kaneko teaches that the standard specifications of the breather valves is to have a vacuum setting of -0.2 kPa to -3 kPa, which is -20 mmAq to -305 mmAq, and so the valves are capable of the limitations of instant claim 1 which require the valves to vent at or above 50 mmAq and allow external gas to enter at or below -30 mmAq. Therefore, Kaneko, which is explicitly reference by Yamamoto, reads on the newly amended limitations of instant claim 1 and so instant claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claims 2-7 and 21-27, that these claims are allowable because they depend upon instant claim 1 and instant claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 04 MARCH 2026, Page 10, Paragraph 5).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, instant claim 1 is not allowable and so instant claims 2-7 and 21-27 are also not allowable.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claim 7, that the prior art does not teach a common header for the exhaust valves on each of the tanks and therefore instant claim 7 is allowable (Arguments filed 04 MARCH 2026, Page 10, Paragraph 6 to Page 11, Paragraph 4).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7 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. Specifically Ishihara teaches a common exhaust header for nitrogen gas in a series of oxygen removal devices for the production of ultra-pure water for semiconductor manufacturing. Furthermore, common headers for inert gas blanketing and inert gas exhausting are well-known in the art as shown by the Cashco videos described in the additional prior art section of the conclusion of this document because tank farms are common and these features prevent all tanks in a tank farm from experiencing detrimental effects from too little pressure or too much pressure. Therefore, instant claim 7 is not allowable.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motomura Japanese Patent Application No. JP 2008086879 A (hereinafter Motomura) in view of Asahi et al US Patent Application No. 20210069647 A1 (hereinafter Asahi), in view of Compressed Gas Technologies, CGT Admin, “What is a Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) Generator?”, 08 May 2020, https://nitrogen-generators.com/what-is-a-psa-nitrogen-generator/ (hereinafter CGT), in view of Yamamoto International Patent Application No. WO 2022038897 A1 (hereinafter Yamamoto) with support from Silent Technology Kaneko, ‘Ventilation Equipment’, 2012, https://kaneko.co.jp/eng/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/catalog-231a.pdf (hereinafter Kaneko) and in view of Hussein et al US Patent Application No. 20190226592 A1 (hereinafter Hussein).
Regarding Claim 1, the first two references, Motomura and Asahi, teach the fundamental system of the instant application. The remaining prior art CGT, Yamamoto, , Hussein, and Kaneko, which is explicitly described by Yamamoto as an exemplary breather valve, are used to demonstrate common equipment used in the art that may or may not be taught in every instance of a description of a system as complicated as an ultrapure water system, such as safety and maintenance systems involving variations of piping and valving.
Motomura teaches an ultrapure water production system (i.e., an ultrapure water supply apparatus)
composed of the following in series: an activated carbon tank (i.e., a first filtering device; Fig. 1, #1),
an intermediate water tank (i.e., a first tank between and directly connected to each of the first filtering device and the second filtering device; Fig. 1, #2),
a reverse osmosis membrane device (i.e., a second filtering device connected to the first filtering device; Fig. 1, #3),
a degassing device (Fig. 1, #4), which is preferably a membrane degassing device with an ultrafiltration membrane (i.e., a third filtering device connected to the second filtering device; Paragraph 0025, Machine Translation),
a first ion exchange device (i.e., a fourth filtering device connected to the third filtering device; Fig. 1, #5),
a second ion exchange device (Fig. 1, #6), a primary pure water tank (i.e., a second tank; Fig. 1, #7), and a secondary pure water tank (i.e., a third tank; wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth filtering devices includes at least one selected from an activated carbon filter device, an ion exchange resin device, a reverse osmosis membrane device, and a hollow fiber membrane device; Fig. 1, #11; Paragraphs 0036-0037, Machine Translation).
Motomura further teaches that the primary pure water tank and the secondary pure water tank are sealed with nitrogen gas (i.e., a gas supply connected to each of the second tank, and the third tank; the gas supply configured to supply an inert gas; a gas supply pipe that connects the gas storage tank and the tank body; Paragraphs 0036-0037, Machine Translation) with the purpose being to prevent dissolution of gasses such as carbon dioxide and to prevent ultrapure water from coming into contact with air (Paragraph 0008, Machine Translation).
Motomura does not teach the explicit ordering of four filtering devices with three interposing holding tanks, a second tank between and directly connected to each of the second filtering device and the third filtering device and a third tank between and directly connected to each of the third filtering device and the fourth filtering device.
However, Asahi teaches in Fig. 11 below a configuration of four filtering devices with interposing tanks for the purpose of providing stable separation with constant flow-rate filtration (Paragraph 0006).
PNG
media_image1.png
519
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Asahi is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a membrane filtration device for water treatment (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the ultrapure water production system as taught by Motomura with the alternating filters and tanks as taught by Asahi because the tanks would provide stability to the constant flow-rate filtration.
Motomura in view of Asahi does not explicitly teach a gas supply device connected to each of the first tank, the second tank, and the third tank, the gas supply configured to supply an inert gas.
However, CGT teaches a pressure swing adsorption generator (i.e., a gas supply device), a nitrogen buffer tank (i.e., a gas storage tank that stores the inert gas; Fig., #3), and a particulate filter (i.e., a parallel filter device; a first filter positioned on the gas supply pipe; Fig., #4) which supplies on-site nitrogen generation with a savings of 80-90% of costs (Page 1, Paragraph 1).
CGT is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to industrial nitrogen production at high purity (Page 1, Paragraph 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the ultrapure water production system made obvious by Motomura in view of Asahi with the nitrogen generator as taught by CGT because the nitrogen generator would reduce nitrogen costs by 80-90%.
Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT does not teach (1) a breather valve coupled to the tank body and connected to a storage space in the tank body, (2) an exhaust pipe connected to the breather valve and extending away from the breather valve to an external space, (3) wherein the breather valve of each of the first, second, and the third tank is configured to allow an external gas to enter the tank body from the exhaust pipe when a relative pressure of the inert gas in the storage space is less than about -30 mmAq, and (4) allow the inert gas in the tank body to escape from the tank body through the exhaust pipe when a relative pressure of the inert gas in the storage space is greater than about 50 mmAq.
However, Yamamoto teaches a seal gas exhaust device (i.e., a breather valve; Fig. 1A, #12) for the purpose of preventing the pressure in the storage container from becoming excessively high (i.e., coupled to the tank body and connected to a storage space in the tank body; Paragraph 0028, Machine Translation), where the seal exhaust device can be a breather valve (Paragraph 0029, Machine Translation) and a valve (Fig. 1A, #13c) for controlling the flow of the seal gas that opens when the pressure in the gas phase section (Fig. 1A, #60) of the storage vessel becomes lower than a predetermined supply start pressure (i.e., a pressure control valve on the gas supply pipe; Paragraph 0032, Machine Translation).
Yamamoto further teaches where the seal gas exhaust device exhausts the seal gas to the outside of the storage container and any known seal gas exhaust device can be used, specifically the KN series manufactured by Kaneko Sangyo Co. Ltd (Paragraphs 0028-0029, Machine Translation).
Kaneko further teaches with a figure (shown below), ventilation equipment which shows piping located on and extending away from the exhaust of the breather valve (i.e., an exhaust pipe connected to the breather valve and extending away from the breather valve to an external space; Page 5),
PNG
media_image2.png
448
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
274
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
that the breather valves include models where the intake and exhaust are connected by piping (Page 7)
PNG
media_image4.png
294
786
media_image4.png
Greyscale
that it is known to use a seal gas unit with a breather valve to maintain safety while not deteriorating the effect of the nitrogen sealing, explicitly describing the use in the semiconductor industry (Page 13) wherein the standard specifications for the vacuum side are -0.2 kPa to -3 kPa, or -20 mmAq to -305 mmAq (i.e., wherein the breather valve of each of the first, second, and the third tank is configured to allow an external gas to enter the tank body from the exhaust pipe when a relative pressure of the inert gas in the storage space is less than about -30 mmAq),
and the pressure side are 0.2 kPa to 3 kPa, or 20 mmAq to 305 mmAq (i.e., allow the inert gas in the tank body to escape from the tank body through the exhaust pipe when a relative pressure of the inert gas in the storage space is greater than about 50 mmAq; Page 6, “Standard Specifications”).
Kaneko is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a breather valve for storage tanks (Page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with the breather valve taught by Kaneko because Yamamoto explicitly states that the Kaneko breather vales are suitable alternative breather valves for the application.
Yamamoto is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a gas seal tank for use in an ultrapure water production apparatus (Paragraph 0001, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the ultrapure water production apparatus as made obvious by Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT with the seal gas exhaust device as taught by Yamamoto because the seal gas exhaust would prevent the pressure in the storage container from becoming excessively high.
However, Hussein teaches that bypasses are typically installed around targeted equipment in order to avoid shutdowns (i.e., a bypass filter pipe connected to the gas supply pipe so as to bypass the first filter; Paragraph 0003).
Hussein is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to gas valve assemblies (Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the seal gas line made obvious by Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko with the bypass line as taught by Hussein because the bypass would allow the filter to be maintained or replaced without shutting down the entire process.
Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first, second, and third tanks further includes an exhaust pipe connected to the breather valve. However, Motomura teaches multiple tanks with a nitrogen seal with a reason of preventing air and carbon dioxide contamination for the pure water and Yamamoto teaches a seal gas exhaust device with an exhaust pipe (Fig. 1A, #12) on a tank with a nitrogen seal. Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))(See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to apply the nitrogen seal to all tanks and to apply the exhaust pipe connected to the seal gas exhaust device to all sealed tanks because one would want to prevent contamination of the purified water and also prevent pressure build-up in the sealed tanks.
Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein does not explicitly teach the supply of inert gas to all tanks and does not explicitly teach that all tanks have a breather valve. However, Motomura teaches multiple tanks with a nitrogen seal with a reason of preventing air and carbon dioxide contamination for the pure water and Yamamoto teaches a seal gas exhaust device on a tank with a nitrogen seal. Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))(See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to apply the nitrogen seal to all tanks and to apply the seal gas exhaust device to all sealed tanks because one would want to prevent contamination of the purified water and also prevent pressure build-up in the sealed tanks.
Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein does not explicitly a second filter positioned on the bypass filter pipe. However, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))(See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to duplicate the filters on the gas supply pipe because filters need to be regularly changed and/or maintained and then one could perform the maintenance without shutting down the process.
Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein does not teach the explicit range of relative pressure of less than about -30 mmAq and greater than about 50 mmAq for the opening and closing of the breather valve in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the pressure ranges for the breather valve operation that correspond to the claimed range while experimenting with the range made obvious by Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein.
Regarding Claim 2, CGT further teaches a pressure swing adsorption generator with a nitrogen buffer tank (Fig., #3) located just before the particulate filter where the particulate filter is located before the going to the rest of the process (i.e., wherein the parallel filter device is between the gas storage tank and the pressure control device; Fig., #4).
Yamamoto further teaches a valve which is located in proximity to the storage vessel (i.e., wherein the parallel filter device is between the gas storage tank and the pressure control device; Fig. 1A, #13c) for controlling the flow of the seal gas that opens when the pressure in the gas phase section (Fig. 1A, #60) of the storage vessel becomes lower than a predetermined supply start pressure (i.e., a pressure control valve on the gas supply pipe; Paragraph 0032, Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 3, Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein does not explicitly teach wherein the pressure control valve comprises a plurality of pressure control valves, and the plurality of pressure control valves are disposed in parallel to each other. However, Motomura teaches multiple tanks with a nitrogen seal with a reason of preventing air and carbon dioxide contamination for the pure water and Yamamoto teaches a valve (Fig. 1A, #13c) for controlling the flow of the seal gas that opens when the pressure in the gas phase section (Fig. 1A, #60) of the storage vessel becomes lower than a predetermined supply start pressure (Paragraph 0032, Machine Translation). Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))(See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to apply the pressure control valve to all sealed tanks because one would want to prevent contamination of the purified water and also control the pressure of each tank individually.
Regarding Claim 4, Hussein further teaches that industrial fluid delivery systems routinely include one or more fluid valves, such as a control valve (i.e., a main valve on the gas supply pipe; Fig. 3, #55; Paragraph 0025), configured to completely terminate fluid flow through the system so that fluid from upstream of the valve does not reach other components of the system that are downstream (Paragraph 0002) and that bypasses are typically installed around targeted equipment in order to avoid shutdowns (i.e., wherein the gas supply device further includes a bypass device on the gas supply pipe, wherein the bypass device includes: a bypass pipe that bypasses the gas supply pipe; a bypass valve on the bypass pipe; and a main valve on the gas supply pipe so as to be disposed in parallel to the bypass valve; Paragraph 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the seal gas line made obvious by Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein with the main valve as taught by Hussein because the main valve would terminate fluid flow downstream for performing work on the equipment.
Regarding Claim 5, Motomura further teaches nitrogen gas supply lines (i.e., wherein the gas supply pipe comprises a plurality of gas supply pipes, and each of the plurality of gas supply pipes is connected to a corresponding one of the second tank and the third tank; Fig. 1, #L8 and L13; Paragraphs 0039-0040, Machine Translation).
Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of gas supply pipes is connected to a corresponding one of the first tank. However, Motomura teaches multiple tanks with a nitrogen seal with a reason of preventing air and carbon dioxide contamination for the pure water and Asahi teaches a configuration of four filtering devices with interposing tanks for the purpose of providing stable separation with constant flow-rate filtration (Paragraph 0006). Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))(See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to apply the nitrogen seal to all tanks because one would want to prevent contamination of the purified water.
Regarding Claim 6, Yamamoto further teaches that the seal gas supply device (Fig. 1A, #13) has a pressure detection unit (i.e., a pressure measurement device) that detects the pressure of the gas phase portion of the storage vessel (i.e., configured to measure a pressure of the storage space in the tank body; Paragraph 0032, Machine Translation).
Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first, second, and third tanks further includes a pressure measurement device. However, Motomura teaches multiple tanks with a nitrogen seal with a reason of preventing air and carbon dioxide contamination for the pure water and Yamamoto teaches the seal gas supply device (Fig. 1A, #13) has a pressure detection unit that detects the pressure of the gas phase portion of the storage vessel (Paragraph 0032, Machine Translation). Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))(See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to apply the nitrogen seal to all tanks and to apply the seal gas supply device to all sealed tanks because one would want to prevent contamination of the purified water.
Regarding Claim 21, Hussein further teaches a valve apparatus (Fig. 3, #13) that has two sets of double block and bleed valves (i.e., wherein the bypass device includes at least one shutoff valve on the gas supply pipe) on either side of a control valve (Fig. 3, #55; Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 22, Hussein further teaches a valve apparatus (Fig. 3, #13) that has two sets of double block and bleed valves on either side of a control valve (i.e., wherein the at least one shutoff valve includes a first shutoff valve on a first side of the main valve and a second shutoff valve on a second, opposite side of the main valve; Fig. 3, #55; Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 23, Hussein further teaches a valve apparatus (Fig. 3, #13) that has two sets of double block and bleed valves on either side of a control valve (i.e., the main valve includes an automatic valve; Fig. 3, #55; Paragraph 0025) and that an example bypass valve (Fig. 1, #35 or 36) may be actuated by a handle (i.e., wherein the bypass valve includes a manual valve; Fig. 1, #30 or 38).
Regarding Claim 24, Yamamoto further teaches a valve (Fig. 1A, #13c) for controlling the flow of the seal gas that opens when the pressure in the gas phase section (Fig. 1A, #60) of the storage vessel becomes lower than a predetermined supply start pressure (i.e., a pressure control valve on the gas supply pipe; Paragraph 0032, Machine Translation).
Hussein further teaches that industrial fluid delivery systems routinely include one or more fluid valves, such as a control valve (i.e., the pressure control valve; Fig. 3, #55; Paragraph 0025), configured to control the rate of fluid flow through the system so that fluid from upstream of the valve does not reach other components of the system that are downstream (Paragraph 0002) and that bypasses are typically installed around targeted equipment in order to avoid shutdowns (i.e., a first pressure control pipe connected to the gas supply pipe and that bypasses a portion of the gas supply pipe; Paragraph 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the seal gas line made obvious by Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein with bypass valve as taught by Hussein because the bypass would allow the main valve to be maintained or replaced without shutting down the entire process.
Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein does not explicitly teach a second pressure control pipe connected to the gas supply pipe and that bypasses a portion of the gas supply pipe; a first pressure control valve on the first pressure control pipe; a second pressure control valve on the second pressure control pipe; and a reserve valve on the gas supply pipe. However, Hussein teaches that bypasses are known in the art for preventing shutdown. Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))(See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to apply a duplicated control valve on the bypass line and to duplicate the bypass line again because the system would add redundancy and prevent shutdowns during maintenance and/or repair periods.
Regarding Claim 25, Hussein further teaches a valve apparatus (Fig. 3, #13) that has two sets of double block and bleed valves (i.e., wherein the pressure control valve includes: at least one shutoff valve on the first pressure control pipe) on either side of a control valve (Fig. 3, #55; Paragraph 0025).
Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein does not explicitly teach at least one shutoff valve on the second pressure control pipe. However, Hussein teaches that fluid valves are known in the art for the purpose of preventing fluid from upstream of the valve from reaching other components of the system that are downstream. Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))(See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to apply a duplicated shut off valve on the bypass line because the system would add redundancy and prevent shutdowns during maintenance and/or repair periods.
Regarding Claim 26, Hussein further teaches a valve apparatus (Fig. 3, #13) that has two sets of double block and bleed valves (i.e., wherein the at least one shutoff valve on the first pressure control pipe includes a first shutoff valve upstream the first pressure control valve and a second shutoff valve downstream the first pressure control valve) on either side of a control valve (Fig. 3, #55; Paragraph 0025).
Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one shutoff valve on the second pressure control pipe includes a third shutoff valve upstream the second pressure control valve and a fourth shutoff valve downstream the second pressure control valve. However, Hussein teaches that fluid valves are known in the art for the purpose of preventing fluid from upstream of the valve from reaching other components of the system that are downstream. Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))(See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to apply a duplicated shut off valve on the bypass line because the system would add redundancy and prevent shutdowns during maintenance and/or repair periods.
Regarding Claim 27, Hussein further teaches that double block and bleed valves are a requirement for isolating equipment on pressurized systems (i.e., wherein the parallel filter device includes), bypasses are typically installed around targeted equipment in order to avoid shutdowns (Paragraph 0003), and such a valve apparatus (Fig. 3, #13) has two sets of double block and bleed valves (i.e., a first filter shutoff valve on the gas supply pipe upstream the first filter; a second filter shutoff valve on the gas supply pipe downstream the first filter) on either side of a piece of equipment (Paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the seal gas line made obvious by Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein with double block and bleed valve apparatus as taught by Hussein because the double block and bleed valve apparatus allow the filter to be maintained or replaced without shutting down the entire process.
Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein does not explicitly teach a third filter shutoff valve on the bypass filter pipe upstream the second filter; and a fourth filter shutoff valve on the bypass filter pipe downstream the second filter. However, Hussein teaches that double block and bleed valves are known in the art for the purpose of preventing fluid from upstream of the valve from reaching other components of the system that are downstream and preventing shutdown of an entire process when performing work on a piece of equipment. Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))(See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to apply a duplicated shut off valve on the bypass line for the filter because the system would add redundancy and prevent shutdowns during maintenance and/or repair periods.
Regarding Claim 28, Kaneko further teaches that when using nitrogen gas sealing with a keeper valve (i.e., breather valve) that has a pressure setting of up to 3 kPa, the pressure setting for the nitrogen gas sealing is 1.5 kPa, or 153 mmAq, at a maximum which means 153 mmAq or less, and meant to be less than the pressure that will trigger the breather valve to vent inert gas from the tank (i.e., wherein the pressure control valve is configured to allow the inert gas in the gas supply pipe to have a relative pressure of about 30 mmAq; Page 20, section (5)).
Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein does not teach the explicit value of the relative pressure of the inert gas of the gas supply pipe of about 30 mmAq in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the pressure ranges for the breather valve operation that correspond to the claimed range while experimenting with the range made obvious by Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto in view of Hussein with support from Kaneko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishihara et al US Patent No. 5766321 A (hereinafter Ishihara).
Regarding Claim 7, Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein does not teach wherein the exhaust pipe of each of the first, second, and third tanks comprises a common exhaust pipe connected to the breather valve of each of the first, second, and third tanks.
However, Ishihara teaches a discharge main pipe (Fig. 6, #62) which is connected to inert gas discharge pipes (i.e., wherein the exhaust pipe of each of the first, second, and third tanks comprises a common exhaust pipe connected to the breather valve of each of the first, second, and third tanks; Fig. 6, #61a & 61b) for the purpose of handling large amounts of inert gas (Col. 9, Lines 38-45) in a dissolved oxygen reducing apparatus (Col. 1, Lines 5-7).
Ishihara is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to removing dissolved oxygen from water in semiconductor manufacturing processes (Col. 1, Lines 10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the ultrapure water production apparatus as made obvious by Motomura in view of Asahi in view of CGT in view of Yamamoto with support from Kaneko in view of Hussein with the discharge main pipe as taught by Ishihara because the main discharge pipe would be able to handle large quantities of inert gas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cashco has two videos: Tank Blanketing Animation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8P_3m0wFNc, 22 NOVEMBER 2017 and Pilot Operated Relief Valve Animation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOjFaXvq8S8, 11 OCTOBER 2018, which demonstrate the use of common headers for tank farms which require inert gas blanketing (to protect from vacuum effects on tanks) and common headers for exhaust valves for tank farms (to protect from excessive pressure effects on tanks).
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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights