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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13, 2–6, 8–11, and 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites:
13. A gas sorption rotor arrangement for an air treatment system comprising:
a gas sorption rotor comprising rotor media;
a rotor cassette at least partly surrounding the rotor media; and
a sealing device arranged between a face of the rotor media that opposes a face of the rotor cassette, wherein the sealing device comprises:
a sealing frame attached to the face of the rotor cassette;
a contact portion with a contact surface arranged in contact with the rotor media;
a biasing element, arranged such that one end of the biasing element is attached to the sealing frame and the other end of the biasing element is attached to the contact portion such that the contact surface is biased against the face of the rotor media; and
at least one flexible sheet, arranged between the biasing element and a portion of the sealing frame to which the biasing element is attached,
wherein the contact surface comprises a metallic material. Emphasis added.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by—“a sealing device arranged between a face of the rotor media that opposes a face of the rotor cassette”—as this limitation does not indicate the sealing device being arranged between two (or more) elements. Instead it says that the sealing device is arranged between “a face of the rotor media” without explaining what other element the sealing device is arranged between.
Claim 13 is also indefinite because “the other end of the biasing element” lacks antecedent basis (as a biasing element could have more than two ends).
To overcome these rejections, claim 13 could be amended to read:
13. A gas sorption rotor arrangement for an air treatment system comprising:
a gas sorption rotor comprising rotor media;
a rotor cassette at least partly surrounding the rotor media; and
a sealing device arranged between a face of the rotor media that opposes a face of the rotor cassette and the face of the rotor cassette, wherein the sealing device comprises:
a sealing frame attached to the face of the rotor cassette;
a contact portion with a contact surface arranged in contact with the rotor media;
a biasing element, arranged such that one end of the biasing element is attached to the sealing frame and another end of the biasing element is attached to the contact portion such that the contact surface is biased against the face of the rotor media; and
at least one flexible sheet, arranged between the biasing element and a portion of the sealing frame to which the biasing element is attached,
wherein the contact surface comprises a metallic material.
Claims 2–6, 8–11, and 14–16 are indefinite because they depend from claim 13.
Also, claim 9 recites:
9. The gas sorption rotor arrangement according to claim 13, wherein the flexible sheet comprises one of a woven stainless steel sheet; an aramid sheet, or a rubber sheet. Emphasis added.
Claim 9 is indefinite because the semicolon (;) makes it unclear whether “aramid sheet, or rubber sheet” are included in the claimed list. To overcome this rejection, claim 9 could be amended to read:
9. The gas sorption rotor arrangement according to claim 13, wherein the flexible sheet comprises one of a woven stainless steel sheet[[;]], an aramid sheet, or a rubber sheet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 2–6, 8–11, and 14–16 would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues are resolved.
Independent claim 13 is allowable over Kurosawa et al., US 6,527,837 in view of Mattia, US 4,409,006. Specifically, claim 13 requires that the at least one flexible sheet is arranged between the biasing element and a portion of the sealing frame to which the biasing element is attached. In Kurosawa, the following are similar to the claimed elements:
The resilient sheet strip 115 is similar to the claimed “at least one flexible sheet”
The spring 111 is similar to the “biasing element”
The L-shaped mounting plate 107 is similar to the “sealing frame.”
In Kurosawa, the sheet strip 115 is provided along the top, horizontal leg of the L-shaped mounting plate 107, as seen in Fig. 9. The sheet strip 115 is not located along the side, vertical leg of the mounting plate 107. Also, the spring 111 is attached to the side, vertical leg of the mounting plate 107, also seen in Fig. 9. Therefore, Kurosawa differs differs from claim 13 because the sheet strip 115 is not arranged between the spring 111 and a portion of the mounting plate 107 to which the biasing element is attached, as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
792
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mattia fails to cure the deficiencies of Kurosawa because Mattia was relied on in the previous rejection for providing a reason to modify the sealing material 105 of Kurosawa to comprise a metallic material, with Mattia providing no motivation for rearranging the orientation of the sheet strip 115 of Kurosawa.
The dependent claims would be allowable because they depend from claim 13.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 17 and 18 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 13, 2–6, 8–11, and 14–16, drawn to a gas sorption rotor, classified in B01D53/06.
II. Claims 17, drawn to a gas sorption rotor, classified in B01D53/06.
III. Claim 18, drawn to a gas sorption rotor, classified in B01D53/06.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related gas sorption rotors. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j).
Here, the gas sorption rotor of Invention I could have a different structure than Invention II. This is because in Invention I, the biasing element (not the at least one flexible sheet) biases the contact portion against the face of the rotor media, whereas in Invention II, the resilient part (which includes the at least one flexible sheet) biases the contact portion against the face of the rotor media. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions I and III are directed to related gas sorption rotors. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j).
Here, the gas sorption rotor of Invention I could have a different structure than Invention III. This is because in Invention I, the biasing element (not the at least one flexible sheet) biases the contact portion against the face of the rotor media, whereas in Invention III, the resilient part (which includes the at least one flexible sheet) biases the contact portion against the face of the rotor media. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions II and III are directed to related gas sorption rotors. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j).
Here, the gas sorption rotor of Invention II could have a different structure than Invention III, because Invention II requires a retaining element while Invention III lacks this feature. Also, Invention III requires that the at least one flexible sheet has a longitudinal side edge folded in a direction toward the rotor, while Invention II lacks this feature. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The structural differences between Inventions I–III necessitate a different field of search where the search for one Invention is not likely to find art pertinent to the other Inventions (e.g., employing different search queries). See MPEP 808.02(C). For instance, searching for Invention I would require a different field of search than Inventions II or II because in Invention I, the biasing element (rather than the at least one flexible sheet) biases the contact surface against the face of the rotor media. Likewise, searching for Invention II would require a different field of search than Invention III because Invention II comprises a retaining element (lacking in Invention III) while Invention III requires that the at least one flexible sheet has a longitudinal side edge folded in a direction toward the rotor (lacking in Invention II).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 17 and 18 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Erb et al., US 9,772,036 B2 (rotary wheel with sealing element); Okano et al., US 7,753,995 B2 (revolving gas adsorption concentrator with sealing element); Pereira, US 4,185,686 (sealing apparatus for rotary heat exchanger); Handa, US 4,084,634 (seal assembly for rotary disc-type matrix); Tank, US 3,977,465 (sealing element for regenerative heat exchanger).
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
