DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/2/2024, 6/20/2024, and 3/28/2025 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Amikura et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0330631 A1, hereinafter Amikura).
Regarding claim 1, Amikura teaches an apparatus for monitoring inerting in an exhaust gas discharge of a production facility (see Abstract; see also Fig. 1; see also [0028], [0033]-[0034], and [0086]-[0090], apparatus 1 for monitoring inerting an exhaust gas discharge 30 of a production facility 10; it is noted that the term facility has been taken according to the standard definition as a place, amenity, or piece of equipment provided for a particular purpose), the apparatus comprising: a first flow measuring unit (see Fig. 1, [0028], and [0032], considered the portion of the main control unit 42 that reads and controls signals from mass flow controllers (MFC)); a second flow measuring unit (see Fig. 1 and [0034], considered the portion of the main control unit 42 that reads and controls signals from the flow control mechanism 54); and a monitoring unit (see Fig. 1, considered portion of the main control unit 42 that reads and controls the dilution controller 45), wherein: the first flow measuring unit is connectable to a first flow meter arranged in a first supply line of a first gas to the production facility (see Fig. 1, [0028], and [0032], considered the portion of the main control unit 42 that reads and controls signals from mass flow controllers (MFC), considered as including flow measuring and controlling devices, and arranged in a first supply line 26 of a first gas G of the production facility 10), the second flow measuring unit is connectable to a second flow meter arranged in a second supply line of a second gas to the exhaust gas discharge (see Fig. 1, portion of the main control unit 42 connects to a second flow meter 54 in a second supply line 50 of a second gas 52 to the exhaust gas discharge line 46), the first flow measuring unit is configured to determine a first gas quantity of the first gas supplied to the production facility based on a measured value provided by the first flow meter (see [0033], the first flow measuring unit portion of the main control unit 42 checks and manages flow rates of the MFC’s for each supply gas), the second flow measuring unit is configured to determine a second gas quantity of the second gas supplied to the exhaust gas discharge based on a measured value provided by the second flow meter (see Fig. 1 and [0034], portion of the main control unit 42 reads and controls a second gas quantity of the second gas 52 supplied to the exhaust gas discharge 46 via the flow rate control mechanism 54), and the monitoring unit is configured to trigger a safety-related control function based on the first gas quantity and the second gas quantity (see [0033]-[0034] and [0084]-[0090], monitoring unit 42 triggers safety-related control functions, specifically the management of prevention of explosion of exhaust gas, based on the various first gas quantities of G1-n and subsequently the second (dilution) gas 52 quantity).
Regarding claim 2, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Amikura teaches a processing unit configured to determine a target value for the second gas quantity based on the first gas quantity (see [0084]-[0090], processing unit within main control unit 42 determines target value of the second (dilution) gas 52).
Regarding claim 4, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Amikura teaches a flow rate control unit (45) connectable to a flow rate controller (54) disposed in the second supply line (50) to the exhaust gas discharge (46), wherein the flow rate control unit is configured to control a gas supply of the second gas through the second supply line based on the first gas quantity (see [0033]-[0034] and [0084]-[0090], flow rate control unit 45 controls dilution has supply based on the first gas quantities G1-n as described).
Regarding claim 10, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Amikura teaches that the first gas includes hydrogen (see Fig. 2, use of combustible gases including hydrogen shown).
Regarding claim 11, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Amikura teaches that the second gas is an inert gas (see [0034], use of inert gas Nitrogen).
Regarding claim 12, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Amikura teaches that the inert gas is nitrogen (see [0034], use of inert gas Nitrogen).
Regarding claim 14, Amikura teaches method for monitoring inerting in an exhaust gas discharge of a production facility (see Abstract; see also Fig. 1; see also [0028], [0033]-[0034], and [0086]-[0090], apparatus 1 for monitoring inerting an exhaust gas discharge 30 of a production facility 10; it is noted that the term facility has been taken according to the standard definition as a place, amenity, or piece of equipment provided for a particular purpose), comprising: providing a first flow measuring unit (see Fig. 1, [0028], and [0032], considered the portion of the main control unit 42 that reads and controls signals from mass flow controllers (MFC)), a second flow measuring unit (see Fig. 1 and [0034], considered the portion of the main control unit 42 that reads and controls signals from the flow control mechanism 54), and a monitoring unit (see Fig. 1, considered portion of the main control unit 42 that reads and controls the dilution controller 45); connecting the first flow measuring unit to a first flow meter disposed in a first supply line of a first gas to the production facility (see Fig. 1, [0028], and [0032], considered the portion of the main control unit 42 that reads and controls signals from mass flow controllers (MFC), considered as including flow measuring and controlling devices, and arranged in a first supply line 26 of a first gas G of the production facility 10); connecting the second flow measuring unit to a second flow meter arranged in a second supply line of a second gas to the exhaust gas discharge (see Fig. 1, portion of the main control unit 42 connects to a second flow meter 54 in a second supply line 50 of a second gas 52 to the exhaust gas discharge line 46); determining a first gas quantity of the first gas supplied to the production facility based on a measured value provided by the first flow meter (see [0033], the first flow measuring unit portion of the main control unit 42 checks and manages flow rates of the MFC’s for each supply gas); determining a second gas quantity of the second gas supplied to the exhaust gas discharge based on a measured value provided by the second flow meter (see Fig. 1 and [0034], portion of the main control unit 42 reads and controls a second gas quantity of the second gas 52 supplied to the exhaust gas discharge 46 via the flow rate control mechanism 54); and triggering a safety-related control function based on the first gas quantity and the second gas quantity (see [0033]-[0034] and [0084]-[0090], monitoring unit 42 triggers safety-related control functions, specifically the management of prevention of explosion of exhaust gas, based on the various first gas quantities of G1-n and subsequently the second (dilution) gas 52 quantity).
Regarding claim 15, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claim 14.
Furthermore, Amikura teaches determining a target value for the second gas quantity based on the first gas quantity (see [0084]-[0090], processing unit within main control unit 42 determines target value of the second (dilution) gas 52).
Regarding claim 17, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claim 14.
Furthermore, Amikura teaches controlling, by a flow rate control unit (45), a gas supply of the second gas through the second supply line based on the first gas quantity (see [0033]-[0034] and [0084]-[0090], flow rate control unit 45 controls dilution has supply based on the first gas quantities G1-n as described), wherein the flow rate control unit (45) is connectable to a flow rate controller (54) disposed in the second supply line (50) to the exhaust gas discharge (46).
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.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 13, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura.
Regarding claim 3, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Amikura above fails to specifically teach that the monitoring unit is configured to trigger the safety-related control function in response to the second gas quantity falling below the target value.
However, as provided above, Amikura does teach that the monitoring unit is configured to trigger the safety-related control functions (see [0033]-[0034] and [0084]-[0090], monitoring unit 42 triggers safety-related control functions, specifically the management of prevention of explosion of exhaust gas, based on the various first gas quantities of G1-n and subsequently the second (dilution) gas 52 quantity).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the apparatus of Amikura such that additional safety control functions were provided based on the detection of low amounts of the second (dilution) gas source. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the need to cease operation of the facility if dilution gas falls below a lower limit in order to ensure explosive gases are not released from the apparatus.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4.
Amikura above fails to specifically teach that the flow rate controller has a defined maximum delivery rate; and a value of the maximum delivery rate is stored in the flow rate control unit; and a processing unit that is configured to determine a target value for the second gas quantity based on the first gas quantity, wherein the monitoring unit triggers the safety-related control function in response to the target value exceeding the value for the maximum delivery rate.
However, as described above, Amikura does teach that the monitoring unit is configured to trigger the safety-related control functions (see [0033]-[0034] and [0084]-[0090], monitoring unit 42 triggers safety-related control functions, specifically the management of prevention of explosion of exhaust gas, based on the various first gas quantities of G1-n and subsequently the second (dilution) gas 52 quantity).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Amikura such that such that additional safety control functions were provided based on the detection of excess amounts of flammable gases supplied to the facility exceeding the maximum amount of dilution gas that could be provided by the flow rate control mechanism. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the need to cease operation of the facility if the required amount of dilution gas was unable to be provided in order to ensure explosive gases are not released from the apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Amikura above fails to teach that the monitoring unit is of multi-channel redundant design.
However, Amikura does teach that a single control unit (42) controls and regulates the exhaust unit, power supplies, gas supply unit, valves, and exhaust gas processing unit (see [0032]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Amikura with a multi-channel redundant design. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a redundant controller design would ensure safe operation of a system that utilizes explosive gases.
Regarding claim 16, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claims 14 and 15.
Amikura above fails to specifically teach triggering the safety-related control function in response to the second gas quantity falling below the target value.
However, as provided above, Amikura does teach that the monitoring unit is configured to trigger the safety-related control functions (see [0033]-[0034] and [0084]-[0090], monitoring unit 42 triggers safety-related control functions, specifically the management of prevention of explosion of exhaust gas, based on the various first gas quantities of G1-n and subsequently the second (dilution) gas 52 quantity).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method of Amikura such that additional safety control functions were provided based on the detection of low amounts of the second (dilution) gas source. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the need to cease operation of the facility if dilution gas falls below a lower limit in order to ensure explosive gases are not released from the apparatus.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claims 14 and 17.
Amikura above fails to specifically teach that the flow rate controller has a defined maximum delivery rate; and a value of the maximum delivery rate is stored in the flow rate control unit; and determining a target value for the second gas quantity based on the first gas quantity, and triggering the safety-related control function in response to the target value exceeding the value for the maximum delivery rate.
However, as described above, Amikura does teach that the monitoring unit is configured to trigger the safety-related control functions (see [0033]-[0034] and [0084]-[0090], monitoring unit 42 triggers safety-related control functions, specifically the management of prevention of explosion of exhaust gas, based on the various first gas quantities of G1-n and subsequently the second (dilution) gas 52 quantity).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method and device of Amikura such that such that additional safety control functions were provided based on the detection of excess amounts of flammable gases supplied to the facility exceeding the maximum amount of dilution gas that could be provided by the flow rate control mechanism. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the need to cease operation of the facility if the required amount of dilution gas was unable to be provided in order to ensure explosive gases are not released from the apparatus.
Claims 7-9 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Matsushima et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0106955 A1, hereinafter Matsushima).
Regarding claims 7, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Amikura above fails to specifically teach that the safety-related control function includes at least one of shutting off a supply of the first gas and shutting down the production facility.
Matsushima teaches an inerting exhaust system (see Fig. 1, all elements) including safety-related control functions (see [0048], if the exhaust gas treatment apparatus is shut down do to failure, error signals and safety-related control functions are implemented as described); wherein the safety-related control function includes at least one of shutting off a supply of the first gas and shutting down the production facility (see [0048], failure of the exhaust gas treatment apparatus results in a shut off of the supply of first gas (hydrogen)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Amikura with the safety-related control functions of Matsushima. This ensures that exhaust gases remain below the lower explosive limit as suggested by Matsushima (see Abstract).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Amikura above fails to specifically teach that the safety-related control function includes initiating an emergency flush; wherein the emergency flush includes opening a bypass valve in the second supply line.
Matsushima teaches an inerting exhaust system (see Fig. 1, all elements) including safety-related control functions (see [0048], if the exhaust gas treatment apparatus is shut down do to failure, error signals and safety-related control functions are implemented as described); wherein the safety-related control function includes initiating an emergency flush; wherein the emergency flush includes opening a bypass valve in the second supply line (see [0048] and [0108], failure of the exhaust gas treatment apparatus results in a shut off of the supply of first gas (hydrogen) and purging of the dry pumps 51 via bypass valve 18 as described).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Amikura with the safety-related control functions of Matsushima. This ensures that gases within the system remain below the lower explosive limit as suggested by Matsushima (see Abstract).
Regarding claims 20, Amikura above teaches all of the limitations of claim 14.
Amikura above fails to specifically teach that the safety-related control function includes at least one of shutting off a supply of the first gas and shutting down the production facility.
Matsushima teaches an inerting exhaust system (see Fig. 1, all elements) including safety-related control functions (see [0048], if the exhaust gas treatment apparatus is shut down do to failure, error signals and safety-related control functions are implemented as described); wherein the safety-related control function includes at least one of shutting off a supply of the first gas and shutting down the production facility (see [0048], failure of the exhaust gas treatment apparatus results in a shut off of the supply of first gas (hydrogen)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method of Amikura with the safety-related control functions of Matsushima. This ensures that exhaust gases remain below the lower explosive limit as suggested by Matsushima (see Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855