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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/22/2026 have been fully considered. Prior arts Hu and Sesmat have been used to address the amendments to the claims. Regarding Applicant’s states that claim 12 has not being addressed. The Examiner did not examine claim 12 because it was dependent upon a withdrawn claim.
Please see the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to the claims overcome the 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1–4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (CN 111734605 A) in view of Lee et al. (US PGPub 20210305594 A1), in further view of Sesmat et al. (FR 3105343 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu discloses a device for decompressing an explosive gas (Para. 4) from a first container (Para. 40, where the collected gas source can be held in a container), and for compressing the explosive gas into a second gas container (Para. 42, where the second gas container is the collection tank and Para. 45 discloses the explosive gas being compressed), characterised in that it comprises the device comprising: a source of compressed air (Para. 39, where the source is the pneumatic gas) but does not disclose the compressed air outside of an explosive zone nor does Hu disclose the specifics of the pneumatic actuation.
Lee teaches a source of compressed air (800), positioned outside a perimeter (20) of an explosive atmosphere zone around the first container (200) in order to improve safety and reliability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the boundary of Hu with an explosion–proof zone as taught by Lee in order to ensure the safety of the materials as well as operators.
The Hu–Lee combination does not explicitly teach the perimeter being determined based on the explosive gas in the first container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the equipment (compressor) according to an explosive area since it has been held that “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. MPEP §2143(I)(E). Here, there are only two options either locating equipment inside or outside explosive areas which is based on design conditions.
Therefore, the Hu–Lee combination is capable of teaching the perimeter being determined based on the explosive gas in the first container.
Sesmat teaches a pneumatic booster (30) equipped with an expansion chamber (17) and a compression chamber (23) in order to convey the working fluid to operate the pumping system (Para. 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive interface of Hu with a pneumatic booster pump as taught by Sesmat in order to pump the explosive gas from one container to a second container.
In Hu paragraph 39, a drive gas enters through the drive interface. Per the Hu–Sesmat combination, Hu’s driving cavity 101 includes Sesmat’s inlet and outlet ports that are connecter to the expansion and compression chambers, respectively. Therefore, Sesmat’s expansion and compression chambers are connected to and supplied by Hu’s drive gas.
PNG
media_image1.png
728
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Hu Annotated Fig. 1
The Hu–Lee–Sesmat combination teaches a pneumatic booster (Sesmat 30) equipped with an expansion chamber (Sesmat 17) and a compression chamber, (Sesmat 23) positioned inside the perimeter of the explosive atmosphere zone; a first pipe (Hu Annotated Fig. 1), for air, between the compressed air outlet of the source of compressed air and an inlet of the expansion chamber (Sesmat 17); a second pipe (Hu Annotated Fig. 1), for air, connected to an outlet of the expansion chamber (Sesmat 23); a third pipe (Hu Annotated Fig. 1), for gas, between the first container Hu Annotated Fig. 1) and an inlet of the compression chamber; and a fourth pipe (Hu Annotated Fig. 1), for compressed gas, between an outlet of the compression chamber and the second gas container Hu Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 2, the Hu–Lee–Sesmat combination teaches a means for determining a perimeter of an explosive atmosphere zone around the first container (Hu Annotated Fig. 1) but does not explicitly teach determining a perimeter of an explosive atmosphere zone around the first container based on the explosive gas in the first container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a perimeter of an explosive atmosphere zone around the first container based on the explosive gas in the first container since it has been held that “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. MPEP §2143(I)(E). Here, the type of gas in the first container is a necessary element when designing a perimeter of the explosive atmosphere zone. Without knowing the type of gas used, understanding the parameters required to ensure the safety of elements outside of the perimeter of the explosive atmosphere zone cannot be determined. Therefore, the Hu–Lee–Sesmat combination is capable of teaching determining a perimeter of an explosive atmosphere zone around the first container based on the explosive gas in the first container.
Regarding Claim 3, the Hu–Lee–Sesmat combination does not explicitly teach determining a perimeter of an explosive atmosphere zone comprises a means for collecting an item of information representative of the perimeter of the explosive atmosphere zone based on the explosive gas in the first container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a perimeter of an explosive atmosphere zone comprises a means for collecting an item of information representative of the perimeter of the explosive atmosphere zone based on the explosive gas in the first container, since it has been held that “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. MPEP §2143(I)(E). Here, the type of gas in the first container is a necessary element when designing a perimeter of the explosive atmosphere zone. Knowing contributing factors (such as an item of information representative of the perimeter) that directly affect the design of the explosive atmosphere zone is required in order to ensure the safety inside and outside of the explosive atmosphere zone. Therefore, the Hu–Lee–Sesmat combination is capable of teaching determining a perimeter of an explosive atmosphere zone comprises a means for collecting an item of information representative of the perimeter of the explosive atmosphere zone based on the explosive gas in the first container.
Regarding Claim 4, the Hu–Lee–Sesmat combination does not explicitly teach determining a perimeter of an explosive atmosphere zone comprises a means for calculating the perimeter based on the explosive gas in the first container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a perimeter of an explosive atmosphere zone comprises a means for calculating the perimeter based on the explosive gas in the first container since it has been held that “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. MPEP §2143(I)(E). Here, the type of gas in the first container is a necessary element when designing a perimeter of the explosive atmosphere zone. Without knowing the type of gas used, understanding the parameters required to ensure the safety of elements outside of the perimeter of the explosive atmosphere zone cannot be determined. Therefore, the Hu–Lee–Sesmat combination is capable of teaching a perimeter of an explosive atmosphere zone comprises a means for calculating the perimeter based on the explosive gas in the first container.
Regarding Claim 6, the Hu–Lee–Sesmat combination does not explicitly teach measuring the distance between the compressed air source and the pneumatic booster, and a means for comparing the distance measured with the perimeter representative of the explosive atmosphere zone determined.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the distance between the compressed air source and the pneumatic booster, and a means for comparing the distance measured with the perimeter representative of the explosive atmosphere zone determined, since it has been held that “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. MPEP §2143(I)(E). Knowing contributing factors (such as distance between the compressed air source and the pneumatic booster) that directly affect the design of the explosive atmosphere zone is required in order to ensure the safety inside and outside of the explosive atmosphere zone. Therefore, the Hu–Lee–Sesmat combination is capable of teaching measuring the distance between the compressed air source and the pneumatic booster, and a means for comparing the distance measured with the perimeter representative of the explosive atmosphere zone determined.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (CN 111734605 A) in view of Lee et al. (US PGPub 20210305594 A1), in further view of Sesmat et al. (FR 3105343 A1), in further view of Mahmoudian et al. (US PGPub 20200271110 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the Hu–Lee–Sesmat combination does not explicitly teach issuing an alert when the distance measured is inside the perimeter of the explosive atmosphere zone determined.
Mahmoudian teaches an alarm when a threshold is exceeded (Para. 17) in order to alert an operator of the conditions and prevent damage (Para. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Belousov–Lee combination with an alarm as taught by Mahmoudian in order to protect apparatuses and people.
The Hu–Lee–Sesmat–Mahmoudian combination teaches issuing an alert when the distance measured is inside the perimeter of the explosive atmosphere zone determined.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM EST).
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753