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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Unnecessary word.
Claim 15 recites: “The recombiner as claimed in claim 4, the at least one passage for rising gaseous flow which is passively generated so as to create a suction through the blocks by Venturi effect.” The word “which” appears to be unnecessary in this limitation.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Repeated term.
Claim 16 recites: “The panel of claim 14, wherein the largest the largest dimension is greater than or equal to 0.5m.” The term “the largest” is duplicated in this limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: a structure for supporting the blocks one above the other and/or one next to the other in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant discloses on paragraphs [0065]-[0067] of published specification that: “This recombiner 1 comprises a support structure for catalytic blocks which may be designed to be suspended within the enclosure to be protected, and to this end may comprise in the upper part a set of suspension elements 2, as illustrated. These suspension elements 2 are for example height-adjustable. In the variants (not shown), the recombiner 1 is designed for wall mounting, to be suspended from an arm bracket, or to be placed on the ground. In the example illustrated, the recombiner 1 comprises a body 3 housing the catalytic blocks as described below, over which is a conduit 4 forming a chimney and connected to the suspension elements 2 at the upper end.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-4 and 14-17 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 2 recites: “The recombiner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the support structure holds the blocks one above the other.” There is no mention of a support structure previously in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that applicant may be referring to the structure for supporting the blocks as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites: “The recombiner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the support structure comprises racks…” There is no mention of a support structure previously in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that applicant may be referring to the structure for supporting the blocks as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites: “The recombiner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the support structure comprises a body…” There is no mention of a support structure previously in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that applicant may be referring to the structure for supporting the blocks as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 14 recites: “A monolithic panel catalytic dihydrogen recombiner produced with an alveolar structure of low thermal conductivity having a thickness which is 1 to 20 times smaller than its largest dimension.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It is unclear as to which dimension the applicant refers to.
Claims 15-17 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims 4 and 14, respectively.
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 1-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (JPH02137703A-relied on machine translation, hereinafter Kimura) and as evidenced by Azo Materials (Alumina-Aluminium Oxide-Al2O3-A Refractory Ceramic Oxide. Azo Materials, hereinafter Azo).
In regards to Claim 1, Kimura discloses a catalytic dihydrogen recombiner, comprising:
at least one first catalytic block of an alveolar substrate (#101), made of a material with low thermal conductivity, having a first catalytic coating (platinum or palladium based metal particles coated on the ceramic-alumina base) (see figure 8 and paragraph [0001]),
at least one second catalytic block of an alveolar substrate (#102), made of a material with low thermal conductivity, having a second catalytic coating (platinum or palladium based metal particles coated on the ceramic-alumina base), said second substrate having the same cross-section as the first (see figure 8 and paragraph [0001]),
a structure (#15) for supporting the blocks (#101, #102) one above the other and/or one next to the other (see figure 8 and paragraph [0001]).
Examiner notes that although Kimura does not explicitly disclose that the ceramic-alumina base has low thermal conductivity, applicant discloses on paragraph [0018] of published specification that “A material with low thermal conductivity means a material with a thermal conductivity of less than or equal to 20 Wm−1K.−1 at 20° C.” In view of this, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Kimura’s ceramic-alumina base is reasonably a material with low thermal conductivity. This is evidenced by Azo.
Azo discloses the properties of alumina base refractory ceramic oxide. Azo clearly discloses that the thermal conductivity of alumina base refractory ceramic oxide has a minimum value of 12 W/mk (see table 1). In view of this, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Kimura’s ceramic-alumina base is reasonably a material with low thermal conductivity, as claimed by the applicant.
In regards to Claim 2, Kimura discloses wherein the support structure (#15) holds the blocks (#101, #102) one above the other (see figure 8 and paragraph [0001]).
In regards to Claim 3, Kimura discloses wherein the support structure (#15) comprises racks (#15) supporting the blocks (#101, #102) (see figure 8 and paragraph [0001]).
Examiner notes that although Kimura does not explicitly disclose wherein the racks are arranged to allow individual extraction of each rack independently of the other rack or racks, making the racks integral or separable from the pipe is a mere engineering design choice in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for improving the ease of maintenance and/or replacement of the catalytic blocks and/or racks.
In regards to Claim 4, Kimura discloses wherein the support structure further comprises a body (pipe P) defining a conduit, at least one passage for a rising gaseous flow being arranged between the catalytic blocks (#101, #102) and said body (pipe P) (see figure 8 and paragraph [0001]).
In regards to Claim 5, Kimura discloses wherein each substrate (#101, #102) has a structure with parallel channels (see figure 8 and paragraph [0001]).
In regards to Claim 6, Kimura discloses the recombiner as claimed in claim 1. Although Kimura does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second catalytic coatings differ at least in the nature of the catalyst, changing the type of catalytic coatings for each catalytic block is a mere engineering design choice in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for purifying different types of pollutants in the exhaust gas and hence, improving purification efficiency within the system, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regards to Claim 7, Kimura discloses the recombiner as claimed in claim 1. Although Kimura does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second catalytic coatings differ at least in the quantity of the catalyst, changing the amount of catalytic coatings for each catalytic block is a mere engineering design choice in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for increasing the amount of purification of a particular pollutant in the exhaust gas and hence, improving purification efficiency within the system, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regards to Claim 8, Kimura discloses the recombiner as claimed in claim 1. Although Kimura does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second catalytic blocks have a different thicknesses, adjusting/changing the thickness of the first and second catalytic blocks to have different thicknesses is a mere engineering design choice in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for increasing the contact time of a particular pollutant in the exhaust gas with the catalyst within the catalytic block and hence, improving purification efficiency within the system, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regards to Claim 9, Kimura discloses the recombiner as claimed in claim 1. Kimura discloses wherein the first and second catalytic blocks (#101, #102) have a same thickness (see figure 8 and paragraph [0001]).
In the alternative, although Kimura does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second catalytic blocks have a same thicknesses, adjusting/changing the thickness of the first and second catalytic blocks to have the same thicknesses is a mere engineering design choice in order to obtain a desired end-result, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regards to Claim 13, Kimura discloses comprising at least three blocks of a ceramic alveolar substrate (#101, #102, #103) having a catalytic coating arranged one above the other (see figures 8a-8b and paragraph [0001]).
Claims 1, 4, 10-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino, M. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2001/0055360, hereinafter Ogino) in view of Kimura and as evidenced by Azo.
In regards to Claim 1, Ogino discloses a catalytic dihydrogen recombiner (#30) comprising:
at least one first catalytic block of an alveolar substrate (#37a) (see figures 1 and 8 and paragraphs [0026]-[0027]),
at least one second catalytic block of an alveolar substrate (#37a), said second substrate having the same cross-section as the first (see figure 8 and paragraphs [0026]- [0027]),
a structure (#51) for supporting the blocks (#37a) one above the other and/or one next to the other (see figure 8 and paragraph [0028]).
Ogino is silent in regards to wherein the first catalytic block is made of a material with low thermal conductivity and having a first catalytic coating, wherein the second catalytic block is made of a material with low thermal conductivity and having a second catalytic coating.
However, Kimura teaches an oxygen-hydrogen recombiner suitable for catalytically recombining hydrogen and oxygen gases. The oxygen-hydrogen recombiner comprises three honeycomb catalyst blocks (#101, #102, #103), i.e. at least one first catalytic block of an alveolar substrate and at least one second catalytic block of an alveolar substrate, made of a ceramic-alumina base, i.e. a material with low thermal conductivity, and platinum-based metal particles having catalytic activity are supported on a surface of the ceramic-alumina base honeycomb catalyst blocks (#101, #102, #103) (see figure 8 and paragraph [0001]).
Examiner notes that although Kimura does not explicitly disclose that the ceramic-alumina base has low thermal conductivity, applicant discloses on paragraph [0018] of published specification that “A material with low thermal conductivity means a material with a thermal conductivity of less than or equal to 20 Wm−1K.−1 at 20° C.” In view of this, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Kimura’s ceramic-alumina base is reasonably a material with low thermal conductivity. This is evidenced by Azo.
Azo discloses the properties of alumina base refractory ceramic oxide. Azo clearly discloses that the thermal conductivity of alumina base refractory ceramic oxide has a minimum value of 12 W/mk (see table 1). In view of this, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Kimura’s ceramic-alumina base is reasonably a material with low thermal conductivity, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the catalytic dihydrogen recombiner as disclosed by Ogino by substituting a known honeycomb material in the first and second catalytic blocks for another known honeycomb material, such as with a material with low thermal conductivity, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Kimura teaches an oxygen-hydrogen recombiner suitable for catalytically recombining hydrogen and oxygen gases, wherein the oxygen-hydrogen recombiner comprises three honeycomb catalyst blocks, i.e. at least one first catalytic block of an alveolar substrate and at least one second catalytic block of an alveolar substrate, made of a ceramic-alumina base, i.e. a material with low thermal conductivity, and platinum-based metal particles having catalytic activity are supported on a surface of the ceramic-alumina base honeycomb catalyst blocks, wherein the honeycomb block with ceramic-alumina base is a material suitable for supporting platinum based metal catalysts without generating high pressure losses and hence, improving catalyst performance (see figure 8 and paragraph [0001]).
In regards to Claim 4, Ogino discloses wherein the support structure comprises a body (#31) defining a conduit, at least one passage (#33) for a rising gaseous flow being arranged between the catalyst blocks (#37a) and said body (#31) (see figure 1 and paragraph [0026]).
In regards to Claim 10, Ogino discloses a heating element (#39) situated close to at least one of the blocks (#37a) (see figure 1 and paragraph [0027]).
In regards to Claim 11, Ogino discloses comprising at least one resistive heating track (#39b) arranged on at least one of the substrates (#37a) (see figure 8 and paragraph [0029]).
In regards to Claim 14, Ogino discloses a monolithic panel catalytic dihydrogen recombiner produced with an alveolar structure (#37a) having a thickness which is 1 to 20 times smaller that its largest dimension (see figure 8 and paragraphs [0026] and [0028]). Ogino is silent in regards to wherein the monolithic panel catalytic dihydrogen recombiner produced with an alveolar structure is of low thermal conductivity.
However, Kimura teaches an oxygen-hydrogen recombiner suitable for catalytically recombining hydrogen and oxygen gases. The oxygen-hydrogen recombiner comprises three honeycomb catalyst blocks (#101, #102, #103), monolithic panel catalytic dihydrogen recombiner, made of a ceramic-alumina base, i.e. a material with low thermal conductivity, and platinum-based metal particles having catalytic activity are supported on a surface of the ceramic-alumina base honeycomb catalyst blocks (#101, #102, #103) (see figure 8 and paragraph [0001]).
Examiner notes that although Kimura does not explicitly disclose that the ceramic-alumina base has low thermal conductivity, applicant discloses on paragraph [0018] of published specification that “A material with low thermal conductivity means a material with a thermal conductivity of less than or equal to 20 Wm−1K.−1 at 20° C.” In view of this, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Kimura’s ceramic-alumina base is reasonably a material with low thermal conductivity. This is evidenced by Azo.
Azo discloses the properties of alumina base refractory ceramic oxide. Azo clearly discloses that the thermal conductivity of alumina base refractory ceramic oxide has a minimum value of 12 W/mk (see table 1). In view of this, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Kimura’s ceramic-alumina base is reasonably a material with low thermal conductivity, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the catalytic dihydrogen recombiner as disclosed by Ogino by substituting a known honeycomb material in the monolithic panel catalytic dihydrogen recombiner for another known honeycomb material, such as with a material with low thermal conductivity, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Kimura teaches an oxygen-hydrogen recombiner suitable for catalytically recombining hydrogen and oxygen gases, wherein the oxygen-hydrogen recombiner comprises three honeycomb catalyst blocks, monolithic panel catalytic dihydrogen recombiner, made of a ceramic-alumina base, i.e. a material with low thermal conductivity, and platinum-based metal particles having catalytic activity are supported on a surface of the ceramic-alumina base honeycomb catalyst blocks, wherein the honeycomb block with ceramic-alumina base is a material suitable for supporting platinum based metal catalysts without generating high pressure losses and hence, improving catalyst performance (see figure 8 and paragraph [0001]).
In regards to Claim 15, Ogino, in view of Kimura, discloses the recombiner as claimed in claim 4. Although Ogino, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one passage for rising gaseous flow is passively generated so as to create a suction through the blocks by Venturi effect, Ogino, as modified above, discloses substantially the same recombiner as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Ogino’s recombiner, as modified above, is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 16, Ogino, in view of Kimura, discloses the recombiner as claimed in claim 14. Although Ogino, as modified above, is silent in regards to wherein the largest dimension is greater than or equal to 0.5m, adjusting/changing the size of the largest dimension of the monolithic panel to an optimum size, such as greater than or equal to 0.5m, as claimed by the applicant, is a mere engineering design choice and is within one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation, in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for improved fit within the recombiner which avoids leakage of unreacted pollutants, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to Claim 17, Ogino, in view of Kimura, discloses the recombiner as claimed in claim 16. Ogino discloses wherein the panel (#37a) takes the form of a generally square or rectangular slap with a long side (see figures 1 and 8).
Although Ogino, as modified above, is silent in regards to wherein the long side measures more than 0.5m, the thickness of such a panel being at least 5 times smaller than the size of the slab, the thickness being between 5 and 10cm, adjusting/changing the length and thickness of the panel to an optimum length and thickness as claimed by the applicant, is a mere engineering design choice and is within one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation, in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for improved fit within the recombiner which avoids leakage of unreacted pollutants, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Furkasov et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0077202, hereinafter Furkasov).
In regards to Claim 12, Kimura discloses the recombiner as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising at least one temperature sensor for measuring the temperature close to at least one of the blocks.
However, Furkasov teaches a system for the monitoring and catalytic elimination of hydrogen and combustible gases in the air. The system is for the rapid elimination of hydrogen in an emergency, produced by a large concentration of hydrogen and as a tool for a rapid and safe method for measuring the concentration of hydrogen in a gaseous medium which contains oxygen (see paragraph [0002]). The system comprises a hydrogen recombiner (recombiner A) and a monitoring detector (#21 thermocouple) for detecting an increase in temperature in a solid catalyst block (#2) within the hydrogen recombiner because of an increase in concentration of hydrogen within the recombiner in an emergency situation. The thermocouple (#21) is installed in the solid catalyst block (#2) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0041]-[0042] and [0050]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the recombiner as disclosed by Kimura, by further including at least one temperature sensor for measuring the temperature close to at least one of the blocks, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Furkasov teaches a system for the monitoring and catalytic elimination of hydrogen and combustible gases in the air, wherein the system comprises a hydrogen recombiner (recombiner A) and a monitoring detector (thermocouple) for detecting an increase in temperature in a solid catalyst block within the hydrogen recombiner because of an increase in concentration of hydrogen within the recombiner in an emergency situation, whereby the thermocouple is installed in the solid catalyst block for efficiently detecting a temperature increase in the solid catalyst block because of an increase in concentration of hydrogen within the recombiner in an emergency situation, thereby providing useful safety means for preventing explosions by fire, such as those in which explosive concentrations of hydrogen and combustible gases buildup, including nuclear power stations, and also in electrochemical industries etc. (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0006] and [0041]-[0042] and [0050]-[0051]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights