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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 82–95 in the reply filed on November 10, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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.
Independent claim 82 recites the limitation:
“a pressure reduction device connected to the degasification housing, wherein during operation, the pressure reduction device is configured to lower the pressure in the degasification zone relative to the pressure in the main flow channel”
This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it recites the generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “during operation, the pressure reduction device is configured to lower the pressure in the degasification zone relative to the pressure in the main flow channel” without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the broadest reasonable interpretation is the structure, material or act described in the specification as performing the entire claimed function and equivalents to the disclosed structure, material or act. Here, the disclosure says that the pressure reduction device comprises a piston, cylinder and piston actuator. See Spec. [0024]. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “pressure reduction device” limitation is a piston, cylinder and piston actuator, and equivalents.
For dependent claims 83, 84, 86, 89–95, the “pressure reduction device” limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation is a piston, cylinder and piston actuator, and equivalents.
For dependent claims 85, 87 and 88, the “pressure reduction device” limitation does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because claim 85 provides sufficient structure by saying that the pressure reduction device comprises a piston, a cylinder, and a piston actuator, while claims 87 and 88 depend from claim 85.
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 82–95 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 82 recites:
“at least one flow passage extending between the main flow channel and a degasification zone, the flow passage being configured to allow communication between the degasification zone and the main flow channel…
at least one valve which is moveable between a closed position and an open position, wherein in the closed position the valve obstructs the flow passage, and closes off the degasification zone from the main flow channel and wherein in the open position the valve does not obstruct the flow passage…
a pressure reduction step, during which the gas outlet and the at least one valve are closed, wherein the pressure reduction device is configured to degas the gas-containing liquid by reducing the pressure, wherein at a start of the pressure reduction step, a liquid level in the degassing device is at the overflow threshold level and the outlet closing body closes off the outlet tube, and…” Emphasis added.
Claim 82 is indefinite because it initially introduces “at least one flow passage” (which potentially includes multiple flow passages) but then appears to refer to this element in the singular by describing “the flow passage.” This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it is intended that there are multiple flow passages or a single flow passage.
Likewise, claim 82 is indefinite because it initially introduces “at least one valve” (which potentially includes multiple valves) but then appears to refer to this element in the singular by describing “the valve.” This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it is intended that there are multiple valves or a single valve. The claim is further indefinite because it simultaneously refers to “the valve” and “the at least one valve” creating confusion about whether a single or potentially multiple valves are being claimed.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the relevant limitations of claim 82 are interpreted to read:
“a flow passage extending between the main flow channel and a degasification zone, the flow passage being configured to allow communication between the degasification zone and the main flow channel…
a valve which is moveable between a closed position and an open position, wherein in the closed position the valve obstructs the flow passage, and closes off the degasification zone from the main flow channel and wherein in the open position the valve does not obstruct the flow passage…
a pressure reduction step, during which the gas outlet and the
Claims 83–95 are indefinite because they depend from claim 82.
Also, claim 83 recites:
83. The degassing device according to claim 82, wherein the device comprises two flow passages, a first flow passage being a branch flow passage, the branch flow passage being configured to branch off a branch flow being a portion of the main flow, and a second flow passage being a return flow passage extending between the degasification zone and the main flow channel, the return flow channel being configured to return a return flow to the main flow channel. Emphasis added.
Claim 83 is indefinite because it is unclear if either of the “two flow passages” refers to the “at least one flow passage” of claim 82. More specifically, the claim could be interpreted such that either of the “two flow passages” refers to the “at least one flow passage” because of the common usage of the term “flow passage.” But the claim could also be interpreted such that neither of the “two flow passages” refers to the “at least one flow passage” because the claim fails to explicitly state that the “at least one flow passage” comprises “two flow passages.” Further clarification is required. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 83 is interpreted such that the “at least one flow passage” of claim 82 can refer to either of the “two flow passages” of claim 83.
Claim 84 recites:
84. The degassing device according to claim 82, wherein the degassing device comprises a first valve which is moveable between a closed position and an open position, wherein in the closed position the first valve obstructs the branch flow passage and closes off the degasification zone from the main flow channel and wherein in the open position the first valve does not obstruct the branch flow passage, and
comprises a second valve which is moveable between a closed position and an open position, wherein in the closed position the first valve obstructs the return flow passage and closes off the degasification zone from the main flow channel and wherein in the open position the second valve does not obstruct the return flow passage. Emphasis added.
Claim 84 is indefinite because it is unclear whether either of the “first valve” or the “second valve” refers to the “at least one valve” of claim 82. Specifically, the claim could be interpreted such that either of the “first valve” or the “second valve” refers to the “at least one valve” because of the common usage of the term “valve.” But the claim could also be interpreted such that neither of the “first valve” or the “second valve” refers to the “at least one valve” because the claim fails to explicitly state that the “at least one valve” comprises a “first valve” and a “second valve.” Further clarification is required. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 84 is interpreted such that either of the “first valve” or the “second valve” can refer to “the at least one valve” of claim 82.
Claim 84 is also indefinite because “the branch flow passage” and “the return flow passage” lack antecedent basis, as these terms are introduced in claim 83 but claim 84 depends from claim 82. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 84 is interpreted as if it depends from claim 83.
Claim 87 recites:
87. The degassing device according to claim 85, wherein the piston comprises an actuator end and the first valve is a non-return valve, wherein the actuator end is configured to engage the first valve, wherein the movement of the piston from the retracted state to the extended state moves the first valve from an idle closed position to the open position via the actuator end, and
wherein the movement of the piston from the extended state to the retracted state moves the first valve from the open position to an idle closed position via the actuator end. Emphasis added.
Claim 87 is indefinite because “the first valve” and “the open position” lack antecedent basis as these terms are introduced in claim 84 and not in claims 82 or 85 (from which claim 87 depends).
Claim 88 recites:
88. The degassing device according to claim 85, wherein the branch flow passage extends through the cylinder between the main flow channel and the degasification zone and wherein a piston movement is configured to move the first valve to the closed state,
wherein optionally a cavity is located in the cylinder and between the main flow channel and the piston, wherein a branch flow path extends through the cavity, in particular behind the piston and around a piston drive shaft, and
wherein optionally the cylinder defines a branch flow hole, wherein the branch flow path extends through the branch flow passage, through the cavity and through the branch flow hole into the inner volume. Emphasis added.
Claim 88 is indefinite because “the branch flow passage” lacks antecedent basis as this term is introduced in claim 83 instead of claims 82 or 85 (from which claim 88 depends).
Claim 88 is further indefinite because “the first valve” lacks antecedent basis because this term is introduced in claim 84 instead of claims 82 or 85 (from which claim 88 depends). Claim 88 is also indefinite because “the closed state” lack antecedent basis. Note that claim 84 introduces a “closed position” of the first valve (instead of a closed state).
Claim 88 is also indefinite because it is unclear whether “a piston movement” refers to a movement of “the piston” of claim 85 or to a movement of some other piston. Further clarification is required.
Claim 88 is further indefinite because the language “in particular” is exemplary claim language that creates confusion about the intended scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 89 recites:
89. The degassing device according to claim 82, wherein the first valve is integrated in the pressure reduction device, in particular in the piston, wherein the piston comprises a part which obstructs the branch flow path in the low pressure position. Emphasis added.
Claim 89 is indefinite because “the first valve” lacks antecedent basis because this term is introduced in claim 84 instead of claims 82 or 89.
Claim 89 is also indefinite because “the piston” and “the low pressure position” lack antecedent basis because these terms are introduced in claim 85 instead of claims 82 or 89.
Claim 89 is further indefinite because “in particular” is exemplary claim language that creates confusion about the intended scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 90 recites:
90. The degassing device according to claim 82, wherein the second valve is a non-return valve. Emphasis added.
Claim 90 is indefinite because “the second valve” lacks antecedent basis as this term is introduced in claim 84 instead of claims 82 or 90.
Claim 91 recites:
“wherein optionally the floater chamber comprises the overflow valve defining a gas outlet opening and wherein when a liquid level is higher than the overflow threshold level, the outlet closing body is moved to an upper position, closing the overflow valve…
wherein optionally the overflow valve comprises a backflow preventer configured to allow gas to escape but not to enter the gas outlet, in particular the backflow preventer being a non-return valve, and…” Emphasis added.
Claim 91 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of “a gas outlet opening” is the same as the recitation of “a gas outlet opening” in claim 82.
Claim 91 is also indefinite because “in particular” is exemplary claim language that creates confusion about the intended scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 92 recites:
92. The degassing device according to claim 82, wherein the outlet closing body comprises a gas outlet valve, wherein the gas outlet valve allows gas and/or liquid to flow between the outside and the degasification zone in an open state and closes off the degasification zone in a closed position, in particular the gas outlet valve being a ball valve or a non-return valve. Emphasis added.
Claim 92 is indefinite because “the outside” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 92 is also indefinite because “in particular” is exemplary claim language that creates confusion about the intended scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 95 recites:
95. The degassing device according to claim 82, wherein the outlet closing body is a non-return valve, and the non-return valve is preferably actuated by an actuator, more preferably by the actuator end of the piston. Emphasis added.
Claim 95 is indefinite because “preferably” and “more preferably” is exemplary claim language that creates confusion about the intended scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 82–85, 87, 89–93 and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roffelsen, US 4,718,922.
Regarding claim 82, Roffelsen teaches an apparatus for deaeration of liquid for a heating system with a water boiler, which reads on the claimed “degassing device for degassing a gas-containing liquid in a cooling or heating installation.” See Roffelsen col. 1, ll. 7–10.
The apparatus comprises a system line 5, which reads on the “main flow channel.” See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 1–11. The system line 5 is “defined by a tube extending between a first side and a second side,” as claimed, which is the tube of the line 5, as seen in Fig. 1. Also, in operation, a main flow of liquid flows through the system line 5, as claimed, which is the water flowing through the system line 5. Id.
The apparatus also comprises a suction side line 2, which reads on the “at least one flow passage.” See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, ll. 64–68. The line 2 extends between the system line 5 and a boiler 1 (reading on the “degasification zone”). Id. The suction side line 2 is configured to allow communication between the boiler 1 and the system line 5, as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1.
The apparatus further comprises a housing of the boiler 1, which reads on the “degasification housing defining an inner volume.” See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, l. 64–col. 7, l. 11. The inner volume of the boiler 1 substantially corresponds to the “degasification zone,” as claimed, because air is removed from water within the boiler 1. Id.
The apparatus also comprises a valve 6 which is movable between a closed position and an open position, wherein in the closed position the valve 6 obstructs the suction side line 2 and closes off the boiler 1 from the system line 5 and wherein in the open position the valve 6 does not obstruct the suction side line 2. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 1–11. The valve 6 reads on the “at least one valve.”
The apparatus further comprises a pressure generator 23 fluidly connected to the boiler 1. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 28–41. The pressure generator 23 reads on the “pressure reduction device” because it has a piston 24, a cylinder (the cylinder the piston 24 is in as seen in Fig. 1) and a piston actuator (the device that moves the piston), which is the corresponding structure “pressure reduction device,” as explained in the “Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)” section above. Id. The pressure generator 23 is capable of lowering the pressure of boiler 1 relative to the pressure in the system line 5 when moving from the high pressure position to the normal pressure position. Id.
The apparatus further comprises a deaerator 9 in the housing of the boiler 1. See Roffelsen Fig. 4, col. 7, ll. 12–27. The deaerator 9 reads on the “gas outlet.”
The deaerator 9 comprises a valve 19 that is opened and closed by a float 17 to allow or prevent air from exiting the deaerator 9. See Roffelsen Fig. 4, col. 7, ll. 12–27. The structure of the valve 19 comprises a channel for allowing air to flow through, with an outlet opening at the downstream end of the channel, and a mechanism to open and close the channel to allow or prevent air from escaping, which is operated by the float 17. Id.
The channel of the valve 19 reads on “outlet tube” and the float 17 reads on the “outlet closing body.” The channel of the valve 19 is “closable by” the float 17 because the float 17 operates the mechanism of the valve 19 to open and close the channel to allow or prevent air from escaping the deaerator 9. See Roffelsen Fig. 4, col. 7, ll. 12–27.
The mechanism of the valve 19 reads on the “overflow valve” and the outlet opening of the channel of the valve 19 reads on the “gas outlet opening.” The mechanism of the valve 19 defines the opening the channel 19, as claimed, because the gas is released from the valve 19 downstream from the mechanism of the valve 19 for opening and closing it. The mechanism of the valve 19 is capable of closing the outlet opening of the channel of the valve 19 when a liquid level is higher than an overflow threshold level, which is higher than the float 17, because the float 17 holds the valve 19 in the closed position until the float drops below a certain level. See Roffelsen Fig. 4, col. 7, ll. 22–27.
The following limitations fail to differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art because they describe the manner of operating the device rather than it structure (see MPEP 2114, subsection II):
“wherein the degassing device is configured to carry out a degassing cycle, the degassing cycle comprising:
a pressure reduction step, during which the gas outlet and the at least one valve are closed, wherein the pressure reduction device is configured to degas the gas- containing liquid by reducing the pressure, wherein at a start of the pressure reduction step, a liquid level in the degassing device is at the overflow threshold level and the outlet closing body closes off the outlet tube, and
a gas expulsion step, during which the pressure in the degasification zone is increased and separated gas is passed through the outlet tube and the gas outlet opening.”
Note, however, that the apparatus of Roffelsen is capable of performing the claimed functions by carrying out the claimed “degassing cycle.” Specifically, the apparatus could undergo a “pressure reducing step” during which the outlet of the valve 19 and the valve 6 are closed and wherein the piston 24 is moved from the high pressure position to the normal position thereby reducing pressure in the boiler 1, which could cause degassing. See Roffelsen col. 7, ll. 28–41. At the start of this step, a liquid level in the apparatus could be at the overflow threshold level with the float 17 closing off the channel of the valve 19, because the float 17 is in the closed position until sufficient air is in the deaerator 9 to cause the float to drop down to a level to open the valve 19, with the float 17 operating in this manner regardless of whether the piston 24 is in the normal or high pressure position. Id. at col. 7, ll. 12–41. The apparatus could also undergo a “gas expulsion step” during which the pressure in the boiler 1 is increased and separated gas is passed through the channel of the valve 19 and the outlet opening of the valve 19, because the piston 24 could be moved from the normal position to the high pressure position, with sufficient air being in the deaerator 9 to cause the float 17 to drop to a level where the valve 19 is opened so that air is blown out. Id. at col. 7, ll. 12–41; MPEP 2114, subsection IV (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
PNG
media_image1.png
885
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 83, Roffelsen teaches that the apparatus comprises a suction side line 2 and a pressure side line 3, with reads on “two flow passages.” See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, ll. 64–68. The pressure side line 3 reads on the “branch flow passage” and the suction side line 2 reads on the “return flow passage.” The pressure side line 3 is configured to branch off a branch flow being a portion of the main flow through system line 5, as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1. The suction side line 2 extends between the interior of the boiler 1 (the “degasification zone”) and the system line 5 (the “main flow channel”) and is configured to return a return flow to the system line 5, as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 84, Roffelsen teaches that the apparatus comprises a valve 6 on the pressure side line 3 (the “branch flow passage”) movable between a closed position and an open position. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, l. 64–col. 7, l. 11. The valve 6 on the pressure side line 3 reads on the “first valve.” In the closed position, the valve 6 obstructs the pressure side line 3 and closes off the interior of the boiler 1 (the “degasification zone”) from the system line 5 (the “main flow channel”) and wherein the open position, the valve 6 does not obstruct the pressure side line 3.
The apparatus also comprises a valve 6 on the suction side line 2 (the “return flow passage”) movable between a closed position and an open position. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, l. 64–col. 7, l. 11. The valve 6 on the suction side line 2 reads on the “second valve.” In the closed position, the valve 6 obstructs the suction side line 2 and closes off the boiler 1 from the system line 5 and wherein the open position, the valve 6 does not obstruct the suction side line 2.
Regarding claim 85, Roffelsen teaches that the pressure generator 23 (the “pressure reduction device”) is connected to the housing of the boiler 1 (the “degasification housing”). See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 28–35. The pressure generator 23 comprises a piston 24, a cylinder (the cylinder the piston 24 is in as seen in Fig. 1) and a piston actuator (the device that moves the piston). Id. The piston 24 is movable between a high pressure position (the “idle position”) and a normal pressure position (the “low pressure position”). Id. The cylinder is in open communication with the inner volume inside the housing of the boiler 1. Id.
In the normal pressure position, the “degasification zone” extends into the cylinder (because the water within the interior of the boiler 1 and the cylinder of the piston has gas that could escape into deaerator 9) and is larger than in the high pressure position of the piston 24 (because in the normal pressure position, the piston 24 is moved back to the dotted lines seen in Fig. 1). See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 28–35.
The “degasification zone” is delimited by the housing of the boiler 1and by at least part of the inner surface of the cylinder because water within the interior of the boiler 1 and the cylinder of the piston has gas that could escape into deaerator 9. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, l. 64–col. 7, l. 27.
Also, a retracted position of the piston 24 corresponds to the normal pressure position and an extended position of the piston corresponds to the high pressure position, as the normal pressure position is represented by the dotted lines and the high pressure position is shown in solid lines in Fig. 1. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 28–35.
Regarding claim 87, Roffelsen teaches that the piston 24 comprises an end that faces the inside of the boiler 1, which reads on the “actuator end.” The apparatus also comprises a check valve (a non-return valve) (“first valve”) on the blowoff valve 19. See Roffelsen col. 9, ll. 7–11. The “actuator end” of the piston 24 is capable of engaging the check valve, wherein movement of the piston 24 from the “retracted state” (normal pressure position) to the “extended state” (high pressure position) is capable of moving the check valve from an idle closed position to an open position by the “actuator end” because the piston 24 increases the pressure in the boiler 1 when moving from the normal pressure position to the high pressure position, and this increase in pressure could move the check valve from a closed position to an open position. Id. at col. 7, ll. 28–41. Also, movement of the piston 24 from the “extended state” to the “retracted state” is capable of moving the check valve from the open position to the idle closed position via the “actuator end” because the piston 24 reduces pressure in the boiler 1 when moving from the high pressure position to the normal pressure position, and this reduction in pressure could close the check valve. Id.; MPEP 2114, subsection IV (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 89, Roffelsen teaches that a shutoff valve 25 (“first valve”) is integrated as part of the pressure generator 23 (the “pressure reduction device”). Also, the portion of the piston 24 is a “part which obstructs” the pressure side line 3 (“branch flow path”) because it prevents liquid from moving from the pressure side line 3 to the area behind the piston 24. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 28–35.
Regarding claim 90, Roffelsen teaches that a check valve (“second valve is a non-return valve”) extends outwardly from valve 19. See Roffelsen col. 9, ll. 7–16.
Regarding claim 91, Roffelsen teaches that the deaerator 9 (the “gas outlet”) comprises a chamber that float 17 is located in, which reads on the “floater chamber.” See Roffelsen Fig. 4, col. 7, ll. 22–27. The float 17 is movable within the chamber, which reads on the float 17 is “movable between a floating position and a lower position.” The limitation of—“wherein when liquid level drops below a predetermined liquid level, the floater engages an end of the outlet tube in the lower position, closing off the outlet tube”—fails to differentiate the claim from the prior art because it is a recitation with respect in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, rather than its structure. See MPEP 2114, subsection I. Note that the float 17 is capable of performing this function because the float 17 closes the channel of valve 19 (the “outlet tube”) when it is above a certain level, with the float 17 opening the valve 19 when the float drops to a certain level. The float 17 will continue to keep the valve 19 closed while it is dropping until it reaches the level where it opens the valve. The level where the float 17 has dropped, but continues to keep the valve 19 closed reads on “when liquid level drops below a predetermined liquid level, the floater engages an end of the outlet tube in the lower position, closing off the outlet tube.”
Regarding claim 92, Roffelsen teaches that the float 17 (the “outlet closing body”) is connected to a check valve on the valve 19, wherein the check valve allows gas to flow between the area outside of the apparatus and the interior of the boiler 1 (the “degasification zone”) in an open state and closes off the interior of the boiler 1 in a closed position. See Roffelsen col. 9, ll. 7–16. The check valve reads on the “gas outlet valve.”
Regarding claim 93, Roffelsen teaches that the system line 5 (the “main flow channel”) comprises a valve 6 that connects the line 5 to pressure side line 3 to branch off a portion of the main flow into the interior of the boiler 1 (the “degasification zone”). See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 1–11. The valve 6 reads on the “main flow valve.”
Regarding claim 95, Roffelsen teaches that the float 17 (the “outlet closing body”) is connected to a check valve, which is a non-return valve. See Roffelsen col. 9, ll. 7–16. This reads on “the outlet closing body is a non-return valve.”
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.
Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffelsen, US 4,718,922.
Regarding claim 86, Roffelsen teaches the limitations of claim 82, as explained above.
Roffelsen differs from claim 86 because it is silent as to the pressure generator 23 (the “pressure reduction device”) being located in a lower part of the housing of the boiler 1 (the “degasification housing”).
But the pressure generator 23 is at the connection of the pressure side line 3 and the boiler 1, and the purpose of the pressure side line 3 is to supply water to the boiler. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 6, l. 64–col. 7, l. 27. The reference provides no indication that the location of the pressure side line 3 on the boiler is significant, as long as it can supply water to the boiler 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the connection of the pressure side line 3 and the boiler 1 to a lower part of the housing of the boiler 1 because this would merely represent obvious rearrangement of parts with no significant change of function, because the pressure side line 3 would be able to supply water to the boiler if attached at the location seen in Fig. 1 or if attached at a lower part of the housing. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection VI, C.
With this modification of moving the connection of the pressure side line 3 and the housing of the boiler 1 to a lower part of the housing, the pressure generator 23 would be located at the lower part of the housing of the boiler 1 (the “degasification housing”) because the pressure generator 23 is located at the connection of pressure side line 3 and the boiler 1. See Roffelsen Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 28–41. The pressure generator 23 would be configured to be operated below a liquid level in the housing of the boiler 1 because the lower part of the housing of the boiler 1 is below a water level at the top of the boiler 1.
Claim 88 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffelsen, US 4,718,922 in view of Wieczorek et al., US 2008/0179236 A1.
Regarding claim 88, Roffelsen teaches that pressure side line 3 (“branch flow passage”) extends through the cylinder where the piston 24 is located, between the system line 5 (the “main flow channel”) and the interior of the boiler 1 (the “degasification zone”), as seen in Fig. 1.
Roffelsen differs from claim 88 because it is silent as to a piston movement being configured to move the valve 6 on the pressure side line 3 (“first valve”) to a closed state.
But Wieczorek teaches a filter element comprising a magnetically actuated valve that has a piston that moves to open and close the valve to control fluid flow. See Wieczorek abstract, [0051]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the valve of Wieczorek as the valve 6 of Roffelsen because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Claim 94 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffelsen, US 4,718,922 in view of Delmas et al., US 2019/0139793 A1.
Regarding claim 94, Roffelsen teaches that the apparatus comprises a “control unit” configured to control the pressure generator 23 (the “pressure reduction device”), which is the mechanism that instructs the pressure generator 23 to move the piston 24 between the normal pressure position and the high pressure position. See Roffelsen col. 7, ll. 28–41. Note that even if the control mechanism is human operation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an automated controller as the mechanism to move the piston 24 because this would merely represent automating an otherwise manual activity. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection III.
Roffelsen differs from claim 94 because it is silent as to at least one sensor with the sensor being configured to read out the at least one sensor and with the pressure generator 23 comprising the sensor, and with the sensor being configured to measure a pressure in the interior of the boiler 1 (the “degasification zone).
But the pressure generator is configured to move the piston 24 between the high pressure position and the normal pressure position to increase or decrease the pressure within the boiler 1. See Roffelsen col. 7, ll. 28–41. With this in mind, Delmas teaches a boiler comprising a pressure sensor that is used to control the pressure in the boiler. See Delmas [0017]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pressure generator 23 to comprise a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure in the boiler 1 with the sensor sending this information to the controller of the pressure generator 23 to assist the pressure generator determining whether to increase or decrease the pressure within the boiler 1.
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