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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “by means of” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 211035232 U) in view of Pemberton (US 20160179107 A1)
In regards to claim(s) 1, Wang discloses an oxygen-hydrogen integrated machine (title), comprising a machine housing (cabinet body 1; Fig. 1), wherein a molecular sieve oxygen generation module (molecular sieve type oxygen generating mechanism; top of p. 2) and an electrolytic hydrogen generation module (electrolytic hydrogen production mechanism) are provided in the machine housing, an oxygen-hydrogen interface (air outlet 15; Fig. 1) is provided on one side of the machine housing (front panel of cabinet body 1; middle of p. 3; Fig. 1), the molecular sieve oxygen generation module and the electrolytic hydrogen generation module respectively output oxygen and hydrogen
While Wang discloses individual flow regulating valves, Wang does not disclose the combination of pressure regulator followed by an orifice to control the flow of each gas from each source. Wang does not disclose the machine operates with pressures from each pressure regulator are set to the same pressure.
Pemberton discloses a device to regulate the flow rate of a gas source (abstract). Pemberton discloses a pressure regulator 118 ([0063]; Fig. 3) that has an outlet 108 ([0060]; Fig. 3) which is connected to a fixed-size flow orifice 174 ([0103]; Fig. 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the flow regulating valves of Wang with Pemberton’s pressure regulator and fixed-size flow-orifice because the substituted components were known, their functions were known in the art (in the art of gas handling, each solution provides a way to control the flow rates of each respective gas), one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B). The result of the substitution would have been predictable because Pemberton teaches that “[t]he end user may be provided with a sizing guide, or point-of use flow measuring equipment can determine which combination of flow selector setting and orifice size is optimal for the application.” ([0105]). Therefore, for a given flow rate ratio in the case of Wang, Pemberton teaches optimization of the orifice size; a given flow rate with an optimized orifice size would mean that the operating pressure is a results effective variable. Furthermore, as H2 is meant to be present in 3% or less, the flow rate of H2 is much lower than the flow rate of O2. To optimize the pressure/orifice size relationship to achieve the desired ratio, the optimization would vary from similar sized orifices (with a corresponding high pressure O2 output from the valve, relative to the H2 output from the valve) to disparate sized orifices with similar O2/H2 output pressures, which would likely be a safer scenario. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
In regards to claim(s) 3, the ratio of outputs of the oxygen and hydrogen generators should be the same size as desired by Wang to have steady operation.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pemberton, and in further view of Zhang (CN 109568758 A).
In regards to claim(s) 2, Wang in view of Pemberton does not disclose an oxygen storage tank feeding the pressure regulator. Wang in view of Pemberton does not disclose a hydrogen storage tank feeding the pressure regulator.
Zhang pertains to providing a hydrogen-oxygen molecular suction therapy instrument (abstract) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Wang. Zhang discloses the hydrogen storage and oxygen storage tanks (abstract). 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 Wang in view of Pemberton with Zhang’s tanks because Zhang teaches such stabilizes the operation (Zhang, abstract). As applied in claim 1, when the outlet pressure of each regulator is the same, in order to maintain the same ratio as taught by Wang, the storage tanks should be sized in the same ratio as volume is proportional to flow rate for a stabilized condition.
In regards to claim(s) 4, Wang discloses the hydrogen-oxygen interface (air outlet) connected to the oxygen and hydrogen, however Wang does not disclose the gas-mixing valve.
Zhang discloses a gas-mixing valve (gas-mixing device 9; abstract). 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 Wang in view of Pemberton with Zhang’s mixing device because Zhang teaches such achieve the treatment effect to the human body (Zhang, p. 6, bottom).
In regards to claim(s) 5, Zhang discloses a first limiter and a second limiter downstream of the tanks and upstream of the control valves (Zhang, p. 5, bottom).
In regards to claim(s) 9, Wang discloses a compressor, a gas production filter connected to the compressor, and a plurality of molecular sieve tanks connected thereto. However, Wang does not disclose the output connected to the oxygen tank.
Zhang pertains to providing a hydrogen-oxygen molecular suction therapy instrument (abstract) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Wang. Zhang discloses the hydrogen storage and oxygen storage tanks (abstract). 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 Wang in view of Pemberton with Zhang’s tanks because Zhang teaches such stabilizes the operation (Zhang, abstract).
In regards to claim(s) 14, Wang in view of Pemberton does not disclose check valves inputting to the oxygen and hydrogen storage tanks.
Zhang discloses each electrolytic outlet is provided with a check valve (p. 5, top). 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 Wang in view of Pemberton with Zhang’s check valves because Zhang teaches that such prevents backflow of gas discharged to the water electrolysis device inside (Zhang, p. 5, top).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pemberton and Zhang, and in further view of Yi (CN 110284148 A).
In regards to claim(s) 6, Wang in view of Pemberton and Zhang does not disclose an output-end of a gas-mixing valve is connected with a flow regulating valve.
Yi pertains to an oxygen respirator (abstract) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Wang and Zhang. Yi discloses a hydrogen-oxygen mixed gas outlet nozzle 10 is provided with a gas flow adjusting valve 14 (p. 4, top). 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 Wang in view of Pemberton and Zhang with Yi’s valve because Yi teaches that such is used to control the flow outlet amount (Yi, p. 4, top).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pemberton, Zhang and Yi, and in further view of Lin (US 20230212766 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 7, Wang in view of Pemberton, Zhang and Yi does not disclose a nebulizer coupled to the outlet.
Lin pertain to electrolytically providing gases for the prolongation of human life ([0002]) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Wang, Zhang and Yi. Lin discloses a nebulizer coupled to the gas outlet passageway ([0007]). 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 Wang in view of Pemberton, Zhang and Yi with Lin’s nebulizer because Lin teaches that such allows the formation of healthy gas (Lin, [0007]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pemberton, and in further of Lin’032 (KR 20160045032 A).
In regards to claim(s) 8, Wang discloses a control circuit board, a power supply device with a display screen, a power switch, all connected to the hydrogen and oxygen generating devices (p. 2, Figures). However, Wang does not disclose a LED indicator lamp.
Lin’032 pertains to electrolytic generation of gases for health promotion (p.2, top) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Wang. Lin’032 discloses a LED light emitting device (p. 19). 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 Wang in view of Pemberton with Lin’032’s LED lamp because Lin’032 teaches such allows the user of an indication of what occurs in the container/apparatus (Lin’032, p. 19).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pemberton, and Zhang, and in further view of Lin’985 (US 20200352985 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 10, Wang discloses the plurality of molecular sieves are mounted on a vertical plate, along with the compressor and the valves (outside of housing; Figures) and also the control circuit board (see display and connections, Figures). However, Wang does not disclose a plurality of condensing fans and a condenser.
Lin’985 pertains to gases that prolong human lifetime ([0002]) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Wang and Zhang. Lin’985 discloses a condenser and a condensing fan ([0055]). 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 Wang in view of Pemberton, and Zhang with Lin’985’s condenser and fan because Lin’985 teaches such allows a fully coupled device (Lin’985, [0007]). While Lin’985 only discloses one fan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the fans as the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pemberton, in further view of JP 6808256 B1 and in further view of Kurashina (US 20120209434 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 11, Wang discloses a pure water tank connected via a pure water pipe to an electrolytic tank (a water storage tank are connected with the electrolyzer; the pipe in inherent to connect; abstract). However, Wang does not disclose a solid polymer membrane, sintered cathode, sintered anode or a hydrogen-water separator.
JP’256 pertains to hydrogen electrolysis system that improves human health (p. 2, top) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Wang. JP’256 discloses a solid polymer membrane (p. 6, top) and a hydrogen-water separator (p. 4, bottom). JP’256 also discloses the electrodes comprises molded bodies (p. 6). 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 Wang in view of Pemberton with JP’256’s SPE and separator because all claimed elements were known, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (maintains separation of the oxygen and hydrogen in the electrolyzer, and removes water from the hydrogen gas) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
Even though JP’256 discloses the electrodes comprises molded bodies (p. 6), Wang in view of Pemberton and JP’256 does not disclose sintered electrodes.
Kurashina pertains to water electrolysis with a SPE membrane ([0008]) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as JP’256. Kurashina discloses the anode and cathode are comprised of sintered body (electrically conductive porous body; [0029]). 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 Wang in view of Pemberton and JP’256 electrodes by using sintered electrodes of Kurashina because all claimed elements were known, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (molded body electrodes and sintered electrodes are both porous) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pemberton, in further view of JP 6808256 B1 and Kurashina, and in further view of Zhang.
In regards to claim(s) 12, Wang in view of Pemberton, JP’256 and Kurashina does not disclose an oxygen-water separator delivering gas to a filter of the molecular sieve oxygen module via an oxygen pipe.
Zhang discloses an oxygen-water separator delivering gas to a filter of the molecular sieve oxygen module via an oxygen pipe (p. 6, bottom). 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 modified Wang with Zhang’s oxygen-water separator because Zhang teaches the oxygen and hydrogen performance of inhaled by people is stable, the quality is good (Zhang, p. 6, bottom).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pemberton, in further of Lin’032, and in further view of JP’256.
In regards to claim(s) 13, modified Wang does not disclose an orientation sensor for monitoring an inclination angle of the machine housing is provided in the machine housing, and connected to the circuit board.
JP’256 discloses a tilt sensor 36 connected to the control board 4 in the portable hydrogen suction device 1 (p. 5, middle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Wang with JP’256’s tilt sensor because JP’256 teaches that such allows for the sounding of an alarm and stopping hydrogen production (JP’256, p. 5, middle).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pemberton, in further of Lin’032, and in further view of Barrott (US 20210299161 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 15, modified Wang does not disclose wherein the controller is connected to a wireless communication device.
Barrott pertains to therapeutic hydrogen gas generation and delivery (title) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Wang and Lin’032. Barrott discloses wherein the controller (107) has communication hardware 415 and a wireless interface 420, including Bluetooth and/or WiFi ([0103]). 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 modified Wang with Barrott’s wireless communication device/hardware because Barrott teaches that such allows for remote control by the consumer (Barrott, [0103]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-8760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571)272-7769. 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.
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights