DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 11/18/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is found persuasive and claims 14 and 15 will be examined.
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 9 and 10 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 9 is indefinite because it is unclear where is the ‘free side’ of the blocks. The relationship of the elements of this claim are not clearly defined. The Examiner will assume that the claim is meant to mean that the top filter of the stack only has the positioning element on its underside and the bottom filter of the stack has the positioning element on its topside.
Claim 10 recites the phrase “such as” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With further regards to claim 10, the phrase “a combination of materials” is vague without metes and bounds.
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 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strohm et al. US Patent 7,857,969 in view of Lammers et al. US Patent 10,786,779 and in further view of Kline et al. US Publication 2014/0360891.
Regarding claim 1, Strohm teaches a device for purifying gas comprising (see Figures 1, 2, and 4):
a) A filter vessel 4 comprising an outlet 3 (bottom of vessel in Figure 4) for purified gas, at least two filter blocks 1 stacked vertically in the vessel 4 (column 3 lines 48-60);
b) Further comprising positioning elements 6 arranged between two consecutive blocks 1 in Figure 1, where the positioning element may comprise pins 7 (Figure 2a, column 4 line 16) in both the upper and lower surfaces of the positioning element 6, where the projection presses into the filter block to create an opening (see Figure 4, column 4 lines 13 -16 and lines 26-35, where the sharp projections in element 6 fit into the filter 1); and
c) The positioning elements are located annularly in the outer circumference of the blocks 1 (See Figure 4 where top, middle and bottom elements are located on the edges of filter 1).
Strohm does not explicitly disclose a purifying agent (desiccant) in the filter. However, this practice can easily be done as shown in Lammers who includes drying agents in their filter stack to absorb moisture. Thus, it would have been obvious to include drying agents or desiccants in the filter stack for absorbing moisture (column 6 line 56 – column 7 line 2).
Strohm’s device comprises protrusions 7 that pierce into the filter block 1 and does not explicitly teach an existing hole already existing in the filter block to accept the pins of the positioning element.
However, Kline teaches a vessel with stacked adsorbents in Figure 4B comprising pins 419B that fit through the holes (partial circle holes on the edges of each filter 400B) and secure into nuts 403B at the top to position the filter stack.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter securing means in Strohm with the pins from Kline to provide stability in a filter stack.
PNG
media_image1.png
813
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Strohm teaches that the positioning element fits annularly around the filter 1 and the protrusion pins are at the top and bottom of the element. Kline teaches spacers 403B and corresponding hole in 407B that accept the pins 419B (Figure 4B).
Regarding claim 3, Strohm’s Figure 2a teaches the protrusions 7 are about evenly distributed along the circumferential wall of the blocks.
Regarding claim 4, Kline teaches the spacers 403B and corresponding hole in 407B are about evenly distributed in the circumferential wall and are spaced between at least two blocks 400B.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Strohm teaches in Figure 2a and 2b that the protrusions 7 are on both the top and bottom sides of a spacer open ring 6.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Strohm does not teach the spacer comprising central equal-length arms and a circular spacer with the pins on each side.
However, Kline teaches a plus-shaped “+” spacer 703B in Figure 7 that is situated in the center of the filter blocks, the arms of the “+” are about equal length and comprise a central pin through the top and bottom of the “+”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a “+” arm configuration with central pins to stabilize the filter stacks in the center.
PNG
media_image2.png
182
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the topmost filter of the stack comprises the positioning elements on its underside including protrusion pins pointing down to secure the stack and the bottom filter of the stack comprises the positioning element on its topside including protrusion pins pointing up (Figures 1 and 4, also 112 2nd paragraph interpretation above).
Regarding claim 10, Strohm implicitly teaches the element 6 should be strong enough to secure the filter stack and be a seal, thus liquid/gas impermeable (column 3 lines 49-60 indicate the nature of the element 6). Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand from Strohm’s disclosure as a whole, that the element 6 should be made of a material that is impermeable and structurally supportive.
Regarding claim 11, Strohm teaches a flow ring 8 which is a casing that surrounds the filter stack (Figure 2a, column 4 line 6).
Regarding claim 12, Strohm does not explicitly disclose a drying agent (desiccant) in the filter. However, this practice can easily be done as shown in Lammers who includes drying agents in their filter stack to absorb moisture. Thus, it would have been obvious to include drying agents or desiccants in the filter stack for absorbing moisture (column 6 line 56 – column 7 line 2).
Regarding claim 13, Lammers teaches their filter stack is connected to a compressor (Lammers, column 6 line 47). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Strohm by connecting the inlet/outlet to a compressor in order to provide a driving force to move air through the system.
Regarding claim 15, Strohm teaches method for assembling a device for purifying gas comprising (see Figures 1, 2, and 4):
a) Providing a filter vessel 4 comprising an inlet and outlet 3 (bottom of vessel in Figure 4) for purified gas;
b) Providing at least two filter blocks 1 stacked vertically in the vessel 4 (column 3 lines 48-60);
c) Providing positioning elements 6 that contain pins on both sides of the element (Figure 2B)
d) Arranging the filter blocks into a stack (Figure 4)
e) Arranging the positioning elements 6 arranged between two consecutive blocks 1 in Figure 1, where the positioning element may comprise pins 7 (Figure 2a, column 4 line 16) in both the upper and lower surfaces of the positioning element 6, where the projection presses into the filter block to create an opening (see Figure 4, column 4 lines 13 -16 and lines 26-35, where the sharp projections in element 6 fit into the filter 1); wherein the positioning elements are located annularly in the outer circumference of the blocks 1 (See Figure 4 where top, middle and bottom elements are located on the edges of filter 1);
f) Arranging further filter blocks 1 on top of the exposed pins of the filter stack in the vessel and repeating the stacking steps to complete the filter stack in the vessel.
Strohm does not explicitly disclose a purifying agent (desiccant) in the filter. However, this practice can easily be done as shown in Lammers who includes drying agents in their filter stack to absorb moisture. Thus, it would have been obvious to include drying agents or desiccants in the filter stack for absorbing moisture (column 6 line 56 – column 7 line 2).
Strohm’s device comprises protrusions 7 that pierce into the filter block 1 and does not explicitly teach an existing hole already existing in the filter block to accept the pins of the positioning element.
However, Kline teaches a vessel with stacked adsorbents in Figure 4B comprising pins 419B that fit through the holes (partial circle holes on the edges of each filter 400B) and secure into nuts 403B at the top to position the filter stack.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter securing means in Strohm with the pins from Kline to provide stability in a filter stack.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strohm et al. US Patent 7,857,969 in view of Kline et al. US Publication 2014/0360891.
Regarding claim 14, Strohm teaches:
a) Positioning elements 6 arranged between two consecutive blocks 1 in Figure 1, where the positioning element may comprise pins 7 (Figure 2a, column 4 line 16) in both the upper and lower surfaces of the positioning element 6, where the projection presses into the filter block to create an opening (see Figure 4, column 4 lines 13 -16 and lines 26-35, where the sharp projections in element 6 fit into the filter 1); and
b) The positioning elements are located annularly in the outer circumference of the blocks 1 (See Figure 4 where top, middle and bottom elements are located on the edges of filter 1).
Strohm’s device comprises protrusions 7 that pierce into the filter block 1 and does not explicitly teach an existing hole already existing in the filter block to accept the pins of the positioning element.
However, Kline teaches a vessel with stacked adsorbents in Figure 4B comprising pins 419B that fit through the holes (partial circle holes on the edges of each filter 400B) and secure into nuts 403B at the top to position the filter stack.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter securing means in Strohm with the pins from Kline to provide stability in a filter stack.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
