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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A (fig. 7), claims 1-3 and 7, in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2011-230062 (hereinafter JP ‘062).
As regarding claim 1, JP ‘062 discloses the claimed invention for a gas solution supply apparatus comprising: a gas dissolving unit that dissolves a source gas in a source liquid to produce a first gas solution (4A); a first gas-liquid separator (51A and [0023]) that stores the first gas solution produced and produces a second gas solution through gas-liquid separation of the first gas solution; a pressure reducer (60) that depressurizes the second gas solution produced in the first gas-liquid separator; and a second gas-liquid separator (51B) that stores the second gas solution having been depressurized and produces a third gas solution through gas-liquid separation of the second gas solution, wherein the third gas solution is supplied to a point-of-use (fig. 1; no number).
As regarding claim 2, JP ‘062 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘062 discloses the claimed invention for a first pressurizer (3A and [0019]) that pressurizes the source liquid to be supplied to the gas dissolving unit.
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(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011-230062 (hereinafter JP ‘062) as applied supra, and further in view of Mazzei (US 20030080037) or Lanzingh (US 20150122126).
As regarding claim 3, JP ‘062 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘062 discloses the claimed invention except for a second pressurizer that pressurizes the third gas solution to be supplied to the point-of-use. Mazzei (or Lanzingh) teaches a second pressurizer (Mazzei - 48 or Lanzingh - 118) that pressurizes the third gas solution to be supplied to the point-of-use. Both Mazzei (or Lanzingh) and JP ‘602 are directed to a gas-liquid separator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention was made to provide a second pressurizer that pressurizes the third gas solution to be supplied to the point-of-use as taught by Mazzei (or Lanzingh) in order to pressurize the separated gas solution downstream of the gas-liquid separator so as to inhibit degassing and provide a controlled-pressure gas-containing liquid to the point-of-use.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011-230062 (hereinafter JP ‘062) as applied supra, and further in view of Ozawa et al (US 20190015801; hereinafter Ozawa).
As regarding claim 7, JP ‘062 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘062 discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the source gas is a mixture of a first source gas and a second source gas, and a partial pressure of the second source gas is higher than a partial pressure of the first source gas, and a solubility of the second source gas is higher than a solubility of the first source gas. Ozawa discloses wherein the source gas is a mixture of a first source gas and a second source gas, and a partial pressure of the second source gas is higher than a partial pressure of the first source gas, and a solubility of the second source gas is higher than a solubility of the first source gas ([0065]-[0066] and [0072]). Both JP ‘062 and Ozawa are directed to a gas-liquid separator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the source gas is a mixture of a first source gas and a second source gas, and a partial pressure of the second source gas is higher than a partial pressure of the first source gas, and a solubility of the second source gas is higher than a solubility of the first source gas as taught by Ozawa in order to allow a desired gas composition to be dissolved and supplied at reduced operating pressure while improving dissolution efficiency and suppressing degassing during delivery to the point-of-use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights