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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lung from Claim 1, line 9 and the nozzles to ensure a correct venting and fire extinguishers in case of a fire from Claim 3, line 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 2, last paragraph, line 1 “BR020104381” should likely read “BR0201043B1”.
On page 3, last paragraph, line 1 “US1035903282” should likely read “US10359032B2”.
On page 7, third paragraph, line 1 “Figure is” should likely read “Figure 2 is”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 1 “Anti-explosive” should likely read “An anti-explosive”.
In Claim 1, line 8 “a regulating valve that normalizes its pressure” should likely read a regulating valve that normalizes the regulating valve’s pressure”.
In Claim 1, line 10 “the pressure” should likely read “a pressure”.
In Claim 2, line 2 “a PLC” should likely read “the PLC”.
In Claims 2-3, line 1 “The Anti-explosive” should likely read “The anti-explosive”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 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 1 recites the limitation "the gas supply" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number of compression stages" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the unloading cylinder" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the trailer" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that the limitation “a transport trailer” is recited later in the Claim at line 13. For purposes of examination, “the trailer” from line 11 will be interpreted as being the same as “a transport trailer” from line 13.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “receive gas from a transport trailer that delivers the gas at a predetermined supply pressure which, through installed valves, produces decompression until it passes below 200 bar”. However, the specification recites “The compressor installed inside the anti-explosion coverage receives gas from a trailer transporting the gas at a pressure of 250 bar and the supply to the user is 200 bar, so the decompression of this gas will not be necessary until it goes below 200 bar, with valves installed in the refueling station” at page 6 second paragraph. Therefore, it is unclear if the decompression occurs until the pressure is below 200 bar or only after the pressure goes below 200 bar. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the explosion" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al (US 2021/0164618) in view of Del Campo (US 6,732,769).
Regarding Claim 1, Hashimoto et al disclose a natural gas compressor1 (compressor 10 with compressor system shown in Figure 1) with selective dosing (via 61; ¶ 45) specially designed to improve efficiency in compressors located in remote areas where a gas pipeline is out of reach2. The compressor comprising:
an inlet pressure sensor (51) located next to an inlet nozzle (from 13 in Figure 1; where “nozzle” is being broadly defined as a spout at the end of a pipe, hose or tube and supported in Applicant’s Figure 1 where element 2 shows an open pipe; therefore the valve 13 functions as a nozzle when attached to conduit 11), said inlet nozzle (13) being linked to a controller (44) driven by a programmable logic controller (40) which automates the gas supply according to an inlet pressure indicated by said inlet pressure sensor (¶ 39) and which determines the number of compression stages to be performed (¶ 35 and ¶ 47), said controller (44) being associated with a regulating valve (14; with the association via reading sensor 51 sand controlling valve 13) that normalizes its pressure (¶ ¶ 37) before entering a lung (as best understood, 12) dosing the gas towards the unloading cylinder (to 20), wherein a supply pressure of the natural gas3 compressor decreases when the pressure in the trailer is reduced (by the pressure reducer as disclosed in ¶ 37), and wherein the natural gas compressor4 to receive gas from a transport trailer (16) that delivers the gas at a predetermined supply pressure (¶ 37) which, through installed valves, produces decompression until it passes below 200 bar (to at least 6 bar (or 0.6MPa) as disclosed by ¶ 37),
but fails to expressly disclose where the natural gas compressor is an anti-explosive natural gas compressor, and where the compressor is located is located inside an anti-explosive cover.
Del Campo teaches a compressed natural gas station (Figure 1b) with an anti-explosive natural gas compressor (Col 3, lines 32-39) where the compressor (Col 7, lines 6-13) is located is located inside an anti-explosive cover (Col 7, lines 6-13).
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 Hashimoto et al with the system as taught by Del Campo for the advantage of adhering to global regulations to protect people from risk of explosion, as taught by Del Campo (Col 1, lines 21-23 and Col 2, lines 11-13).
Regarding Claim 3, Del Campo teaches where the whole assembly of claim 1 is inside an anti- explosion enclosure (Figure 1b) consisting of vertical steel plates (Col 3, lines 19-23) covering the entire perimeter of the compressor (Figure 1b), specially designed to direct the explosion upwards (Col 3, lines 1-5), nozzles (valves as taught in Col 3, lines 39-54) to ensure a correct venting and fire extinguishers in case of a fire (Col 3, lines 39-54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
1 The recitation of the actual fluid handled has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
2 The recitation “specially designed to improve efficiency in compressors located in remote areas where a gas pipeline is out of reach” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
3 The recitation of the actual fluid handled has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
4 The recitation of the actual fluid handled has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.