DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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(s) is/are:
Claims 1-20 recite the generic placeholder “drying devices” followed by functional limitation without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited functional limitation. To find support for the above recited generic placeholder, examiner looked in to [0011] of the specification and FIG.5A-5C. The specific paragraph and the figures recite specific structures of the drying devices.
Claim 1 recites generic placeholder “measuring devices”, without reciting structure. [0085] and [0086] of the specification recites the measuring devices can be flow meter, thermometer and pressure gauge.
Claims 1-7,11-12,15,16, also recite the generic placeholder, “controlling device” followed by functional limitation without reciting specific structure to perform the functional limitations. [0026] of the specification recites structure for the controlling device such as the controlling device has a processor and a system memory including logic module.
Claim 13 recites generic placeholder, “controller” followed by functional limitation without reciting specific structure to perform the functional limitations. [0128] of the specification recites the controller has can include PLC, or a printed circuit board to perform the recites functional limitations.
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.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3,18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermans (US 20210170325 A1) in view of Yudovsky et al. (US 20130098477 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Herman teaches, an air drying system (adsorption dryer having adsorption vessels, [0049]) comprising:
a plurality of drying devices (two adsorption vessels where each vessel can be used to dry air so each adsorption section is itself a drying device, [0049] and [0084]), each including an intake port that draws air into the plurality of drying devices (each adsorption vessel has inlet 6 for intaking air, [0026] and [0064]), and an exhaust port that discharges air from the plurality of drying devices (each adsorption vessel has air outlet 7 for discharging dried air, [0026] and [0064]);
a plurality of measuring devices (temperature sensor and means for measuring pressure dew point installed either at the inlet an outlet of each adsorption vessel, [0055] and [0057]), each installed on an exhaust pipe coupled to the exhaust port of each of the plurality of drying devices,
a plurality of valves (each adsorption vessel has outlet valve 21 or 22, [0084]), each installed on the exhaust pipe (each adsorption vessel has outlet valve 21 or 22 at outlet pipe 6, [0084] and Figure 1), the plurality of valves controlling the flow rates of air discharged from the plurality of drying devices (dried air from the adsorption vessels are flown out to the external network via outlets valves 21 or 22, [0026] and [0084]); and
a controlling device (controller unit) that receives data from the plurality of measuring devices (controller unit receiving data such as pressure, temperature and relative humidity to determine, adsorption settings, [0031] and [0087].
Hermans does not teach the details of the plurality of measuring devices measuring flow rates of air discharged from the plurality of drying devices and controls the plurality of valves such that the flow rates of air discharged from the plurality of drying devices are uniform. But Hermans teaches plurality valves at each outlet of each adsorption vessels and the valves are controlled to let dried air out to external network as taught in [0084].
Yudovsky et al. teaches, the plurality of measuring devices measuring flow rates of air discharged from the plurality of drying devices (the flow of gas at each outlet is controlled by the controller. In order to control flow, the current flow must be measured by some means such as flow meter, without knowing the current flow, outlet flow rate cannot be controlled, [0098]);
controls the plurality of valves such that the flow rates of air discharged from the plurality of drying devices are uniform (the controller controls the outlet flow rate of each outlet valves such that uniform flow is maintained, [0098]).
Hemans and Yudovsky et al. are analogous art because they are trying to solve the same field of endeavor that is releasing conditioned air/gas through multiple outlets by controlling outlet valves.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air dryer system having plurality of dryers and plurality of measuring devices and outlet valves as taught by Hermans by applying the known technique of using the measuring devices to measure outlet flow and the control the valves such that flow rates of the air discharged are uniform as taught by Yudovsky et al. as an improvement to the air drying system to yield predictable results for controlling air flow rates consistently through the outlet valves.
Hermans teach:
[0084] The adsorption dryer 1 further comprises an outlet valve 21 or 22 for allowing the gas from the dryer outlet 5 to reach an external network (not shown). It goes without saying that, if the adsorption dryer 1 comprises two or more adsorption vessels 21, each of said adsorption vessels 2 can comprise one outlet valve 21 or 22.
[0055] Preferably, said controller unit C further comprises means to measure a pressure dew point or a relative humidity within said at least one adsorption vessel 2. Said means can be in the shape of a sensor such as for example a temperature sensor and/or a pressure sensor positioned within said at least one adsorption vessel 2, or at the inlet 6 of said adsorption vessel 2, or on the dryer outlet 52.
Yudovsky et al. teach:
[0098] The flow of gas through the multi-channel gas distribution apparatus shown in FIG. 18 may not be uniform among the three channels. The uniformity of gas flow between the channels can be affected by a number of factors including, but not limited to, gas pressure, vacuum pressure, temperature, flow rate and from static pressure drops along the length. FIG. 19 shows another embodiment of a gas distribution apparatus 1900 in which the delivery channel 1902 splits into three separate channels 1902a, 1902b, 1902c each with its own outlet valve 1912a, 1912b, 1912c. The
apparatus 1900 shown includes an inlet end 1904 connected through an inlet valve 1914 to an inlet 1910. The delivery channel 1902 includes a plurality of apertures 1908 spaced along the length of each of the separate channels 1902a, 1902b, 1902c. The apertures can be evenly spaced or unevenly spaced along the length of the channels. Each channel has a separate outlet 1912a, 1912b, 1912c with separate outlet valves 1916a, 1916b, 1916c. Each of the outlet valves 1916a, 1916b, 1916c is connected to a controller 1950 that can independently control each of the outlet valves 1916a, 1916b,
1916c. In this embodiments, the controller 1950 can set the outlet valves to closed, fully open, or at any point in between. For example, if the flow of gas through one of the channels is lower than the others3, the controller 1950 may open the outlet valve of that channel to accelerate the flow or may open the outlet valves of the other channels to accelerate flow and cause less gas to exit the channels through the apertures to cause a more uniform flow.
Regarding claim 2 combination of Hermans and Yudovsky et al. teach the details of the air drying system according to claim 1. In addition Yudovsky et al. teaches, wherein in case that a flow rate of air discharged from one of the plurality of drying devices is less than the flow rates of air discharged from another ones of the plurality of drying devices4, the controlling device controls the plurality of valves5 to increase the flow rate of air discharged from the one of the plurality
of drying devices (when the controller determines the gas flow rate from one of the outlet is lower than the other outlets, the controller opens the corresponding outlet more to accelerate the gas flow rate through that outlet to maintain uniform flow rate among the outlet valves, [0098]).
Regarding claim 3 combination of Hermans and Yudovsky et al. teach the details of the air drying system according to claim 1. In addition Yudovsky et al. teaches, wherein in case that a flow rate of air discharged from one of the plurality of drying devices6 is greater than the flow rates of air discharged from another ones of the plurality of drying devices5, the controlling device controls the plurality of valves7 to reduce the flow rate of air discharged from the one of the plurality of
drying devices (similarly when the controller determine one of the outlet has higher flow than the other outlets, the controller can partially close the corresponding valve/outlet to maintain uniform outlet air/gas flow rate, [0098]).
Regarding claim 18, combination of Hermans and Yudovsky et al. teach the claimed air drying system. Therefore together they teach the method for controlling an air drying system including plurality of drying devices performing the functional limitations of the claimed method as discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, combination of Hermans and Yudovsky et al. teach the claimed air drying system. Therefore together they teach the method for controlling an air drying system including plurality of drying devices performing the functional limitations of the claimed method as discussed above in claims 2 and 3.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermans (US 20210170325 A1) in view of Yudovsky et al. (US 20130098477 A1) and WO600 (WO 2021062600 A1).
Regarding claim 4 combination of Hermans and Yudovsky et al. teach the air drying system of claim 1.
Neither in combination nor individually, Hermans and Yudovsky et al. teach the details of wherein the controlling device determines whether each of the plurality of drying devices has malfunctioned, based on the measured flow rates of air discharged from the plurality of drying devices. However Hermans teaches plurality of drying devices being controller by controller as taught in [0036] and Yudovsky et al. teaches to control the outlets to maintain uniform flow among the outlets.
WO600 teaches, wherein the controlling device (controlling unit in view of Hermans [0031] and [0036]) determines whether each of the plurality of drying devices has malfunctioned (determine faulty fuel line due to exceeding flow rate at the restriction valve of the injector, page 2, 7th and 8th paragraph), based on the measured flow rates of air discharged from the plurality of drying devices (multiple injectors having multiple restriction valves and when the flow rate in of the restrictive valves exceeds the restrictive flow rate, that faulty fuel injector with faulty flow restrictive valve is automatically closed that is determining malfunction based on discharged flow rate of medium from the injector (drying device in view of Hermans), page 2, 7th and 8th paragraph).
Hermans, Yudovsky et al. and WO600 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor having multiple outlets, each discharging fluid or gas at certain flowrates.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air drying system having plurality of drying devices controlled by controller and discharging dry air at certain flow rates as taught by combination of Hermans and Yudovsky et al. by simple substitution of the known concept of determining whether the fuel injector (drying devices in view of Hermans) have malfunctioned (faulty) based on discharging flow rate as taught by WO600 to the known element which is the drying device to obtain predictable results of determining which one of the drying devices has malfunctioned based on the measured discharge flow rate from the drying devices.
WO600 teach:
(page 2, 7th and 8th paragraph) A number of restriction valves are provided at both ends of the connection node between the fuel pipeline and each of the injectors8, and the outlet of the restriction valve faces the connection node, when passing through the restriction The flow restriction valve is closed when the flow rate of the valve exceeds the restriction flow rate of the flow restriction valve.
In the engine fuel system proposed by the present invention, a restrictor valve is provided at both ends of the connecting node of the fuel injector and the fuel pipeline. When the fuel pipeline or the fuel injector leaks, the in the fuel pipeline exceeds the restrictive flow of the restrictor valve. The restrictor valve is automatically closed9, the fuel line or injector will stop leaking, and other injectors can continue to work under the two-way fuel supply arrangement. Avoid engine shutdown due to lack of a cylinder to work.
Regarding claim 5 combination of Hermans, Yudovsky et al. and WO600 teach the air drying system of claim 1. In addition WO600 teaches, wherein in case that one of the plurality of drying devices is determined to have malfunctioned (when one of the fuel injectors (dryers in view of Hermans) have exceeding discharge flow rate, the fuel injector is faulty/malfunctioned) page 2, 7th and 8th paragraph), the controlling device closes one of the plurality of valves that controls a flow rate of air discharged from the one of the plurality of valves (the fuel injector with exceeding discharge flow rate automatically closes the restrictive valve, page 2, 7th and 8th paragraph).
Regarding claim 6 combination of Hermans, Yudovsky et al. and WO600 teach the air drying system of claim 5. In addition Yudovsky et al. teaches, wherein the controlling device increases opening degrees of another ones of the plurality of valves (to maintain uniform flow rate among the outlet valves, outlet with less flow rate can be opened to accelerate discharge flow rate, [0098]).
Regarding claim 20, combination of Hermans, Yudovsky et al. and WO600 teach the claimed air drying system. Therefore together they teach the method for controlling an air drying system including plurality of drying devices performing the functional limitations of the claimed method as discussed above in claims 4-6.
Claim(s) 7-9,11-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Hermans (US 20210170325 A1) in view of JP36 (JP 2003275536 A) and Pahwa et al. (US 20140345153 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hermans teaches, an air drying system (adsorption dryer having adsorption vessels, [0049]) comprising:
an outer air inlet (an inlet of one of the adsorption vessel through which air/gas is passed inside the vessel, [0026]);
a drying device comprising an intake port coupled (adsorption dryer has two adsorption vessels, each has inlet such as intake port, [0064] and [0084]), an exhaust port (each adsorption vessel has outlet for discharging dried air, [0064] and [0084]), a first tower (adsorption dryer has two adsorption vessels, [0064] and [0084]), and a second tower (adsorption dryer has two adsorption vessels, [0064] and [0084]);
a first measuring device (sensor, [0055]) that measures at least one of a temperature of air drawn into the intake pipe (temperature sensor at the inlet of the adsorption vessel measuring inlet air temperature, [0055] and [0057]), a relative humidity of air drawn into the intake pipe (sensor for measuring relative humidity at the inlet pipe, [0055] and [0057]), and a pressure of air drawn into the intake pipe (pressure sensor at the inlet of the adsorption vessel for measuring inlet pressure, [0055] and [0057]), and outputs an outer air conditioning signal including a measured value (the controller receiving all the measured data such as inlet pressure, humidity, temperature and outlet data for controlling the adsorption process with real time data, [0055], [0058] and [0075]); and
a controlling device that receives the outer air conditioning signal (controller receiving all the measured data to control the adsorption and regeneration process, [0075]), wherein
an adsorbent is disposed in each of the first tower and the second tower (each of the adsorption vessel has adsorbent material at the bottom of the vessels/tower, [0051]),
one of the first tower and the second tower performs an adsorption process of dehumidifying air drawn from the intake port and discharging dried air (out of the two adsorption vessels, one adsorption vessel can perform adsorption that is drying air based on the vessel condition, [0051], [0055] and [0065]), another one of the first tower and the second tower performs a regeneration process of desorbing water from the adsorbent (out of the two adsorption vessels, one adsorption vessel can perform regeneration based on the vessel condition where the moisture captured by the adsorbent is removed, [0115], [0051], [0055] and [0065]), the exhaust port discharges the dried air (dried air discharged from the adsorption vessel via outlet valve, [0084] and [0090]).
Hermans et al. does not teach the details of a receiver tank that stores air drawn from the outer air inlet, a drying device coupled to the receiver tank, the controlling device calculates a length of time for which the adsorption process is allowed to be continuously performed in the one of the first tower and the second tower. However Hermans explicitly teaches to determine the time to perform regeneration based on the received measured pressure, humidity and temperature data of the air as taught in [0058], [0075], [0085] and [0092]). And the inlet air is directly fed to the adsorption vessels instead of first being stored on a receiver tank.
JP36 teaches, a receiver tank that stores air drawn from the outer air inlet (receiver tank storing received air and passing the received air to the dehumidifying towers-drying towers, [0004] and [0027]),
a drying device coupled to the receiver tank (receiver tank is connected to two dehumidifying tower- dryers of drying device, [0004] and [0027]).
Hermans and JP36 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is air dryer or dehumidifiers.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air drying system having plurality of air drying towers/vessels as taught by Hermans by applying the known technique of coupling a receiver tank to the air drying towers/dehumidifying towers as taught by JP36 as an improvement to the air drying system to yield predictable results of feeding inlet air to the drying towers by suppressing a change in inlet air flow rate as taught by JP36 in [0059].
Neither in combination nor individually Hermans and JP36 teach the details of the controlling device calculates a length of time for which the adsorption process is
allowed to be continuously performed in the one of the first tower and the second tower. However Hermans explicitly teaches to determine the time to perform regeneration based on the received measured pressure, humidity and temperature data of the air as taught in [0058], [0075], [0085] and [0092]) but not specifically the adsorption time.
Pahwa et al. teaches, the controlling device calculates a length of time for which the adsorption process is allowed to be continuously performed in the one of the first tower and the second tower (algorithm residing on the PLC (controller) determines the parameters such as drying time (adsorption/dehumidification) based on the measured parameters raw material such as [0071], [0072], [0078], [0092] and [0093]).
Hermans, JP36 and Pahwa et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is air dryer or dehumidifiers.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air drying system calculating regeneration time based on the measured parameters of the inlet and outlet air as taught by combination of Hermans and JP36 by applying the known technique of determining length of time for adsorption based on real time measured data as taught by Pahwa et al. as an improvement to the air drying system to yield predictable results for determining appropriate times for adsorption and regeneration.
For claim 8, combination of Hermans, JP36 and Pahwa teaches the air drying system according to claim 7. In addition JP36 teaches, wherein the first measuring device comprises a flow meter (flow meter installed at the outlet to measure discharged air flow rate, [0023]), and the outer air conditioning signal further includes a flow rate of air flowing through the intake pipe (the flow meter is installed in the outlet. There are two locations where the flowmeter can be installed, either at the inlet or at the outlet. To someone of ordinary skill in the art it will be obvious to try to choose the position of installing the flowmeter from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as at the inlet or outlet with reasonable expectation of success of measuring either inlet or outlet air flow rate, MPEP.2143.I.(E), [0023] and [0031]).
For claim 9, combination of Hermans, JP36 and Pahwa et al. teaches the air drying system according to claim 7. In addition Pahwa et al. teaches, wherein the controlling device (programmable logic controller, [0093]) comprises:
a processor (controller having microprocessor or PLC which has processors and memory devices residing inside it, [0102] and [0093]); and
a system memory including a logic module executable by the processor (PLC has memory which is essential for storing the control programs executable by processors, configuration data, and I/O statuses, [0102] and [0093]),
wherein the logic module calculates the length of time for which the adsorption process is allowed to be continuously performed in the one of the first tower and the second tower (the PLC of the smart dehumidifier calculates the length of time for both adsorption/dehumidification and regeneration based on real-time measured parameters both at inlet and outlet of the dehumidifying towers, [0053], [0062] and [0092]).
For claim 11, combination of Hermans, JP36 and Pahwa et al. teaches the air drying system according to claim 7. In addition Pahwa et al. teaches, the controlling device includes a first node that is electrically connected to the drying device and outputs a drying device control signal (the control means (controlling device has a neuron-node through which electrical signals such as moisture content (humidity) of the air at the inlet of the dehumidifier (dryer) is obtained (electrically connected to the drying machine to obtain signals) and based on the measured parameter, the control means outputs proper drying time, [0092], [0078], [0065] and [0059]) and
in case that the length of time for which the adsorption process is allowed to be continuously performed has passed (after a calculative time interval as taught in [0118] of Hermans, the control means such the as the PLC can control the time for adsorption and regeneration for each dehumidifying towers based on real time measured parameters to maintain optimum dehumidifying conditions, [0037],[0065] and [0092]10), the controlling device outputs, to the first node (the control mean connected to neurons for measuring parameters, [0092], [0078], [0065] and [0059]), the drying device control signal to instruct to perform a tower switching process such that the regeneration process is performed in the one of the first tower and the second tower (the control means such the as the PLC can control the time for adsorption and regeneration for each dehumidifying towers based on real time measured parameters, [0037],[0065] and [0092]11), and the adsorption process is performed in the another one of the first tower and the second tower (the control means such the as the PLC can control the time for adsorption and regeneration for each dehumidifying towers based on real time measured parameters, [0037],[0065] and [0092]12).
For claim 12, combination of Hermans, JP36 and Pahwa et al. teaches the air drying system according to claim 11. In addition Hermans teaches, wherein
the drying device further comprises at least two drying devices (there are two adsorption vessels,[0053] and [0055], and
the controlling device controls the tower switching process to be performed among the at least two drying devices (after calculative time interval, the adsorption vessels are switched to perform adsorption and regeneration in comparison to previous cycle of adsorption and regeneration since once vessel cannot be used infinitely to perform adsorption due to desiccant saturation, [0114]-[0118]).
For claim 13, combination of Hermans, JP36 and Pahwa et al. teaches the air drying system according to claim 11. In addition JP36 teaches, wherein the drying device further comprises a controller that controls a flow of air in the drying device in response to the drying device control signal (based on the flowmeter reading at the outlets, the valves are controlled by the control system, [0030]-[0031] and [0023]).
For claim 17, combination of Hermans, JP36 and Pahwa et al. teaches the air drying system according to claim 7. In addition Hermans teaches, wherein the length of time for which the adsorption process is allowed to be continuously performed depends on at least one of the temperature of air drawn into the intake pipe (temperature sensor at the inlet pipe to measure inlet temperature of the air, [0055] and [0057]), the relative humidity of air drawn into the intake pipe (pressure dewpoint sensor at the inlet pipe to measure relative humidity, [0055] and [0057]), and the pressure of air drawn into the intake pipe (pressure sensor at the inlet pipe of each of the adsorption vessel to measure inlet pressure of the air, [0055] and [0057]).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Hermans (US 20210170325 A1) in view of JP36 (JP 2003275536 A) and Pahwa et al. (US 20140345153 A1) in further view of WO600 (WO 2021062600 A1).
Regarding claim 14, combination of Hermans, JP36 and Pahwa et al. teach the air drying system according to claim 7. In addition Hermans teaches, a valve installed on an exhaust pipe coupled to the exhaust port (outlet valve 21 or 22 installed at the outlet of each adsorption vessel to discharge dried air, [0024],[0064] and [0084]);
an inner air outlet that discharges air drawn into the exhaust pipe (each adsorption vessel has an outlet coupled to an outlet valve to discharge dried air, [0024],[0064] and [0084]); and
a second measuring device that measures at least one of a temperature of air drawn into the exhaust pipe (temperature sensor at the outlet pipe of each of the adsorption vessel to measure outlet pressure of the air, [0055] and [0057]), a relative humidity of air drawn into the exhaust pipe (pressure dewpoint sensor at the outlet pipe of each of the adsorption vessel to measure outlet humidity of the air, [0055] and [0057]), and a pressure of air drawn into the exhaust pipe (pressure sensor at the outlet pipe of each of the adsorption vessel to measure outlet pressure of the air, [0055] and [0057]), and outputs an inner air conditioning signal including a measured value (the controller unit measures and receives all the measured parameters such as inlet/outlet temperature and others also parameters related to the inner , [0055] and [0057]),
wherein the controlling device receives the inner air conditioning signal (controller receives all the measured data, data measured at inlet, inside the vessel and outlet of each adsorption vessel, [0055],[0057]-[0058]),
and controls the adsorption process to be suspended in the drying device (based on the measured parameters, stop the controller stop the regeneration cycle. Someone one of ordinary skill in the art can substitute the concept of stopping the regeneration cycle based on parameters to stop the adsorption cycle based on the measured parameters to obtain predictable results of stopping both absorption cycle and regeneration cycle when needed, [0011],[0059] and [0060]).
Neither in combination nor individually Hermans, JP36 and Pahwa et al. teach the details of determines whether the drying device has malfunctioned.
WO600 teaches, determines whether the drying device has malfunctioned (determine faulty fuel line due to exceeding flow rate at the restriction valve of the injector, page 2, 7th and 8th paragraph).
Hermans, JP36 and Pahwa et al. and WO600 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which controlling outlet of multiple outlets.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air drying system having plurality of drying devices controlled by controller and discharging dry air at certain flow rates as taught by combination of Hermans, JP36 and Pahwa et al. by simple substitution of the known concept of determining whether the fuel injector (drying devices in view of Hermans) have malfunctioned (faulty) based on discharging flow rate as taught by WO600 to the known element which is the drying device to obtain predictable results of determining which one of the drying devices has malfunctioned based on the measured parameters of the drying devices.
Regarding claim 15 combination of Hermans, JP36, Pahwa et al. and WO600 teach the air drying system according to claim 14. In addition Pahwa et al. teaches, wherein the controlling device (programmable logic controller, [0093]) comprises:
a processor (controller having microprocessor or PLC which has processors and memory devices residing inside it, [0102] and [0093]); and
a system memory including a logic module executable by the processor (PLC has memory which is essential for storing the control programs executable by processors, configuration data, and I/O statuses, [0102] and [0093]).
In addition WO600 teaches, wherein the logic module (PLC in view of Pahwa et al.) compares the measured value included in the inner air conditioning signal with a preset value and determines whether the drying device has malfunctioned based on the comparison (when the measured outlet flow rate exceeds the restriction flow rate (preset value), the injector (adsorption vessel in view of Hermans) is determined to be faulty and the outlet valve is automatically closed, page 2, 6th-8th paragraph).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Hermans (US 20210170325 A1) in view of JP36 (JP 2003275536 A) and Pahwa et al. (US 20140345153 A1) in further view of WO600 (WO 2021062600 A1) and Seaton (US 20060230928 A1).
Regarding claim 16, combination of Hermans, JP36, Pahwa et al. and WO600 teach the air drying system according to claim 14. In addition Hermans teaches, wherein the drying device further comprises at least two drying devices (adsorption dryer has two adsorption vessels, each adsorption vessel is a dryer itself to two dryers, [0064]), and
the controlling device controls opening degrees of the valve installed on the exhaust pipe of each of the at least two drying devices. (controller unit controlling adsorption and regeneration process for each of the adsorption vessel and their corresponding valves based on measured parameters13, [0055], [0068] and [0075]). Neither in combination nor individually, Hermans, JP36, Pahwa et al. and WO600 teach the details of a pipe diameter of the intake pipe coupling each of the at least two drying devices to the receiver tank, opening degrees of the valve installed on the exhaust pipe of each of the at least two drying devices.
Seaton teaches, based on a pipe diameter of the intake pipe coupling
each of the at least two drying devices to the receiver tank14 (the size of the valve whether at inlet or outlet is associated with the size of the pipe to adjust flow control, [0009], opening degrees of the valve installed on the exhaust pipe of each of the at least two drying devices15 (proper sizing of the valves in relation to size of the pipe ensures opening and closing frequency of the valve for proper flow control, [0009]).
Hermans, JP36, Pahwa et al., WO600 and Seaton are analogous are because they are from same field of endeavor that is conditioning a medium such as air or gas or fuel by performing sequential steps.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air drying system having plurality of drying devices controlled by controller and discharging dry air at certain flow rates as taught by combination of Hermans, JP36 and Pahwa et al. and WO600 by applying known concept of opening degrees of sizing of the valves based on pipe diameter whether inlet or outlet pipe diameter as taught by Seaton as an improvement to the air drying system to yield predictable results for controlling the flow of medium with appropriate pipe and valve size to allow for appropriate air/gas flow as taught by Seaton in [0008].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Cited prior art of record Hermans teaches an air drying system having two adsorption vessels, each performing air drying based measured inlet and outlet parameters such as temperature, pressure and humidity of the air entering and leaving the adsorption vessels as taught in [0055]-[0057]. However no specific equation reciting the relationship of the measured parameters are disclosed.
Cited prior art of record, Pahwa et al. teaches to perform dehumidification using real time measured parameters to determine times for adsorption or dehumidification but no specific equation reciting the relationship of the measured parameters are disclosed.
Therefore neither in combination nor individually, Hermans, Pahwa et al. and any other cited prior arts of record teach claim 10 as a whole. As such, neither in combination nor individually, Hermans, Pahwa et al. and any other cited prior arts of record teach The air drying system according to claim 9, wherein the outer air conditioning signal further includes the temperature of air drawn into the intake pipe, the relative humidity of air drawn into the intake pipe, and the pressure of air drawn
PNG
media_image1.png
135
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
into the intake pipe, the processor calculates the length of time for which the adsorption process is allowed to be continuously performed, based on an absolute humidity of air drawn into the intake pipe calculated by a following equation,
in the Equation, x2 is the absolute humidity of air drawn into the intake pipe, Pis the
pressure (hPa) of air drawn into the intake pipe, cp is the relative humidity of air drawn into the intake pipe, and Psis a saturated vapor pressure based on the temperature of air drawn into the intake pipe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harm et al. (US 20170014755 A1) teaches air drying devices having two adsorption sections performing uninterruptable drying of the inlet air/gas as taught in [0005] and [0014] based on measured parameters received by analysis section controlling air drying.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANZUMAN SHARMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7365. The examiner can normally be reached M and Th 7:00am - 3:00pm and Tue 8:00am-12:00pm.
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, KAMINI SHAH can be reached at (571)272-2279. 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.
/ANZUMAN SHARMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Each adsorption vessel is a dryer with individual inlet and outlet with outlet valves 21 and 22.
2 Both inlet and outlet temperature, pressure and humidity are measured by sensors.
3 The outlet gas flow rate must be measured by some means such as flow meter. Otherwise how the controller will the know the current flow rates at each outlet.
4 Adsorption vessels in view of Hermans
5 Outlet valves 21 or 22 in view of Hermans.
6 Adsorption vessels in view of Hermans.
7 Outlet valves 21 or 22 in view of Hermans.
8 Multiple channels with multiple outlet valves.
9 Faulty fuel injector/drying device is closed when discharge flow rate exceeds restriction flow rate indicating malfunction/fault.
10 See also Hermans [0026], [0038] and [0114]-[0116] for switching between adsorption towers for adsorption and regeneration.
11 See also Hermans [0026] and [0038] for switching between adsorption towers for adsorption and regeneration.
12 See also Hermans [0026] and [0038] for switching between adsorption towers for adsorption and regeneration.
13 See also JP36 [0023] where the control system adjusts the flowrate at the outlet by controlling the valves.
14 Receiver tank in view of [0027] of JP36.
15 Adsorption vessels in view of Hermans.
Prosecution Insights