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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites:
14. The gas sorption rotor arrangement according to claim 13, wherein one sealing device is arranged on each side of the rotor media. Emphasis added.
Claim 14 is indefinite because “each side of the rotor media” lacks antecedent basis because the rotor media does not necessarily have only two sides, as it could comprise front, back, left and right-hand sides. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear which sides are referenced by “each side.”
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.
Claims 13, 3–6, 10, 11 and 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosawa et al., US 6,527,837 B2 in view of Mattia, US 4,409,006.
Regarding claim 13, Kurosawa teaches a rotary adsorber, which reads on the claimed “gas sorption rotor arrangement.” See Kurosawa Fig. 7, col. 8, ll. 57–60.
The rotary adsorber comprises a rotor 101 including gas adsorptive element 204, which reads on the “gas sorption rotor comprising rotor media.” See Kurosawa Fig. 9, col. 9, ll. 52–62.
The rotary adsorber also comprises a “rotor cassette at least partly surrounding the rotor media,” which includes case 102, partitioning plate 103 and connecting portion 108. See Kurosawa Figs. 7, 9, col. 9, ll. 9–37.
The rotary adsorber further comprises a “sealing device” (including mounting plate 107 and sealing material 105) arranged between the face of the adsorptive element 204 (the face of 204 in contact with sealing material 105) that opposes “a face of rotor cassette” (the face of connecting portion 108 that contacts mounting plate 107). See Kurosawa Fig. 9, col. 9, ll. 20–37.
The “sealing device” comprises the mounting plate 107 reads on the “sealing frame attached to the face of the rotor cassette.” See Kurosawa Fig. 9, col. 9, ll. 20–37.
The “sealing device” also comprises the sealing material 105, which contacts an end surface M of the adsorptive element 204. See Kurosawa Fig. 9, col. 9, ll. 63–67. The sealing material 105 reads on the “contact portion with a contact surface arranged in contact with the rotor media.”
The “sealing device” further comprises a spring 111 and a resilient sheet strip 115 arranged between the mounting plate 107 and the sealing material 105 such that the sealing material 105 is biased against the face of the adsorptive element 204. See Kurosawa Fig. 9, col. 9, ll. 27–37. The spring 111 and the resilient sheet strip 115 collective read on the “resilient part, arranged between the sealing frame and the contact portion such that the contact surface is biased against the face of the rotor media.”
The resilient sheet strip 115 (a component of the “resilient part”) is a flexible sheet because it is resilient and is made of a flexible material, such as expanded black lead. See Kurosawa Fig. 9, col. 10, ll. 49–53. The resilient sheet strip 115 is also arranged between the mounting plate 107 and the sealing material 105. See Kurosawa Fig. 9, col. 10, ll. 38–42. This reads on the “resilient part comprises at least one flexible sheet arranged between the sealing frame and the contact portion.”
PNG
media_image1.png
893
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kurosawa differs from claim 13 because it is silent as to the sealing material 105 (the “contact surface”) comprising a metallic material.
But the rotary adsorber is configured to for resisting high temperatures. See Kurosawa col. 3, ll. 20–25. Also the adsorptive element 204 can be made of ceramic fiber paper. Id. at col. 6, ll. 40–47. Further the sealing material 105 is required to have heat resistance. Id. at col. 9, ll. 39–44.
With this in mind, Mattia teaches a rotary adsorber apparatus comprising a rotating adsorber bed 12 and a seal 44 that contacts the adsorber bed. See Mattia Fig. col. 3, ll. 1–22. The seal 44 can be made of suitable materials that can withstand the operating conditions of the adsorber, such as elastomeric materials or metallic materials. See Mattia col. 3, ll. 14–19. The metallic materials are beneficial because they are suitable for applications involving high temperatures. Id.
PNG
media_image2.png
853
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to manufacture the sealing material 105 of Kurosawa from the metallic materials used to make the seal 44 of Mattia, to provide a suitable material that has heat resistance, as required by Kurosawa. See MPEP 2144.07 (the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use establishes a prima facie case of obviousness).
Regarding claim 3, Kurosawa teaches that the “resilient part” comprises the spring 111, which is attached to the sealing material 115 (the “contact portion”) on one side and to the mounting plate 107 (the “sealing frame”) on another side, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 4, Kurosawa teaches that the “resilient part” comprises a rod member 109 (the “at least one retaining element”) and engaging portion 112 (the “at least one retaining fastener”) securing the spring 111 (the “at least one biasing element”) to the sealing material 105 (the “contact portion”). See Kurosawa Fig. 9, col. 9, ll. 20–37.
Regarding claim 5, Kurosawa teaches that the rod member 109 (the “at least one retaining element”) is an “elongated strip,” as claimed, because it is a relatively low, narrow and relatively thin piece of material, as seen in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 6, Kurosawa teaches that the sealing material 105 (the “contact portion”) comprises a cylinder hole 114 (the “recess”) for receiving a distal end of the engaging portion 112 (the “at least one retaining fastener”) when it extends through the sealing material 105. See Kurosawa Fig. 9, col. 10, ll. 32–36.
Regarding claim 10, Kurosawa teaches that the resilient sheet strip 115 (the “at least one flexible sheet”) is configured to be arranged between the vertical leg of mounting plate 107 (the “retaining element”) and the sealing material 105 (the “contact portion”) along the back edge of the resilient sheet strip 115, as seen in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 11, Kurosawa teaches that the “sealing device substantially corresponds to a circumference of a circle sector,” as claimed, because arc-shaped section 103b comprises the sealing material. See Kurosawa Fig. 9, col. 9, ll. 9–37.
Regarding claim 14, Kurosawa teaches that “one sealing device is arranged on each side of the rotor media,” as claimed, because a partitioning plate 103 on the left-hand side of the adsorptive element 204 and a partitioning plate 103 on the right-hand side of the adsorptive element 204 includes a sealing device. See Kurosawa Fig. 7, col. 9, ll. 9–37.
Regarding claim 15, Kurosawa teaches that the sealing device is arranged to seal a regeneration section of the gas sorption rotor, as claimed, because the sealing device seals a portion of the rotor that receives recycling gas. See Kurosawa col. 3, ll. 37–49.
Regarding claim 16, Kurosawa teaches that a shape of the sealing device corresponds to a cross-sectional shape of a regeneration section of the gas sorption rotor, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 7 where partitioning plates 103 (each with a seal) correspond to a cross-sectional shape of a section of the rotor receiving recycling gas.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosawa et al., US 6,527,837 B2 in view of Mattia, US 4,409,006 and in further view of Pawson et al., US 2008/0060351 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Kurosawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as explained above.
Kurosawa as modified differs from claim 2 because Mattia is silent as to the metallic material used to fabricate the seal 44 (which is used to make the seal material 105 of Kurosawa). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the metallic material comprises a ferrous metallic material.
But Pawson teaches a seal useful in a gas filtration device, with the seal being manfuactured from stainless steel. See Pawson [0013]. It would have been obvious for the metallic material of the seal 44 of Mattia (used to make the seal material 105 of Kurosawa) to be stainless steel because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosawa et al., US 6,527,837 B2 in view of Mattia, US 4,409,006 and in further view of Krywitsky, US 2009/0226243 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Kurosawa as modified teaches that the resilient sheet strip 115 is chemically stable at temperature exceeding 200°C (“at least up to 150 degrees Celsius,” as claimed). See Kurosawa col. 3, ll. 20–25.
Kurosawa as modified differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the resilient sheet strip 115 comprises fibers or threads forming a flexible weave.
But Kurosawa teaches that the resilient sheet strip 115 exhibits a shock absorbing action so that sealing material 105 is not damaged during operation. See Kurosawa col. 10, ll. 32–53. Also, the resilient sheet strip 115 can be made of a material, such as expanded black lead. Id. The material of the resilient sheet strip 115 improves heat resistance and wear resilience of the adsorber. Id.
With this in mind, Krywitsky teaches a packing material 160 made from braided, expanded graphite yarn. See Krywitsky Fig. 4, [0053]. The packing material is beneficial because it has good thermal and chemical resistance and provides great mechanical strength. Id. It would have been obvious to use the packing material of Krywitsky as the material of the resilient sheet strip 115 to provide a material having good thermal and chemical resistance and great mechanical strength.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosawa et al., US 6,527,837 B2 in view of Mattia, US 4,409,006 and in further view of Saito et al., US 2012/0262784 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Kurosawa as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as explained above.
Kurosawa as modified differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to the resilient sheet strip 115 comprising a woven stainless steel sheet, an aramid sheet or a rubber sheet, as claimed.
But the But Kurosawa teaches that the resilient sheet strip 115 exhibits a shock absorbing action so that sealing material 105 is not damaged during operation. See Kurosawa col. 10, ll. 32–53.
With this in mind, Saito teaches a shock-absorbing member made of sheet of felt made of aramid fibers. See Saito [0040].
It would have been obvious to use the felt material of Saito as the material used to make the resilient sheet strip 115 of Kurosawa because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 16 in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending 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.
Conclusion
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