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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 11-19 in the reply filed on April 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Group II, Claim 20 has been withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Missing word “one”.
Claim 13 recites: “…wherein a temperature sensor is/are arranged on or in the gas outlet and/or a flow velocity sensor is/are arranged in or on the at least gas inlet or the pollutant gas inlet.” The word “one” is missing after the word “least”.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 13 as reciting “…wherein a temperature sensor is/are arranged on or in the gas outlet and/or a flow velocity sensor is/are arranged in or on the at least one gas inlet or the pollutant gas inlet.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is: a device for setting a volumetric flow before it is introduced into the reactor vessel in claim 12.
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.
Applicant discloses on paragraph [0034] of published specification that: “Ideally, the pollutant gas reacts completely inside the reactor vessel until shortly before exhaust 11. By regulating and adjusting the volume flow rates, which can be done by valve control of valves at the gas inlet and the pollutant gas inlet 8 by a device (not shown for overview reasons) for adjusting a volumetric flow rate, for example a computer, this exothermic reaction is ideally controlled. For this purpose, a temperature sensor 13 can also be arranged centrally in the exhaust flow, which continuously measures the temperature and transmits it as a control or regulating parameter to this device for setting a volumetric flow. In addition, in the embodiment example shown in FIG. 1, it can also be provided that the flow velocity or the volumetric flow in at least one inlet pipe is measured and also transmitted to said device as a control or regulating parameter. Preferably, this measurement is made via a Pitot tube or a pitot head in the direction of flow.”
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 § 102
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.
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.
Claims 11-2 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR10-1519553B1, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Kim).
In regards to Claim 11, Kim discloses an apparatus (#100) for purifying a process gas containing at least one pollutant gas, comprising:
a reactor vessel (#110) which is designed as a centrifugal separator and which has a cylindrical region (#111) and a tapering region (#118) and into which oxygen or an oxygen-containing gas can be introduced as a reaction gas into at least one gas inlet (#113 air inlet pipes) arranged on the cylindrical region (#111) and can be discharged through at least one gas outlet (outlet end of discharge pipe #116) arranged on the tapering region (#118) (see figures 2a-2c and figure 5b below and paragraphs [0041] and [0045]), wherein
the at least one gas inlet (#113) is arranged and formed to introduce a defined volumetric flow of the reaction gas into the reactor vessel (#110) tangentially to a circumferential surface of the cylindrical region (#111) (see figures 2a-2c and 5b below and paragraphs [0041] and [0045]), and
a pollutant gas inlet (#112) which is arranged on the cylindrical region (#111) and is designed to introduce a defined volumetric flow of the process gas containing at least one pollutant gas into the reactor vessel (#110) (see figures 2a-2c and 5b below and paragraphs [0041] and [0043]), so that
the at least one pollutant gas and the reaction gas are mixed with each other in the direction of the gas outlet and chemically react with each other on their way through the reactor vessel (see figures 2a-2c and figure 5b below and paragraphs [0041], [0043] and [0045]-[0047]), and
the gas outlet (outlet end of discharge pipe #116) is arranged and designed to discharge process gas not reacted in the chemical reaction and reaction products of the chemical reaction from the reactor vessel (#110) (see figure 2a-2c and figure 5b below and paragraphs [0048] and [0051]; Kim shows in figure 5b wherein the discharge pipe #116 has an outlet end arranged on the tapering region #118, i.e. at least one gas outlet arranged on the tapering region.).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 12, Kim discloses wherein the defined volumetric flow of the process gas containing at least one pollutant gas and/or the defined volumetric flow of the reaction gas can be set by a device for setting a volumetric flow before it is introduced into the reactor vessel (see paragraph [0044]; Kim discloses a valve (#112a) is installed in the semiconductor waste gas inlet pipe (#112) so as to regulate the supply amount of semiconductor waste gas or to bypass it. Furthermore, a blower (#112b) may be installed in the semiconductor waste gas inlet pipe (#112) to blow semiconductor waste gas. This is considered equivalent to the defined volumetric flow of the process gas containing at least one pollutant gas can be set by a device for setting a volumetric flow before it is introduced into the reactor vessel, as claimed by the applicant.).
In regards to Claim 14, Kim discloses wherein a heating device (#114) is arranged in or on the reactor vessel (#110) for supporting the chemical reaction (see figures 2a-2c and 5b and paragraphs [0040]-[0041] and [0046]).
In regards to Claim 15, Kim discloses wherein the pollutant gas inlet (#112) is arranged at an end face of the cylindrical region (#111) of the reactor vessel (#110 (see figures 2a-2c and 5b and [0043]).
In regards to Claim 16, Kim discloses wherein the tapering region (#118) of the reactor vessel (#110) is formed as a conically tapering region (see figures 2a-2c and 5b and paragraphs [0041] and [0051]).
In regards to Claim 17, Kim discloses wherein the gas outlet is curved in an arcuate manner by 90º (see figure 5b below).
PNG
media_image2.png
685
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 18, Kim discloses wherein the pollutant gas inlet (#112) is arranged opposite the gas outlet (outlet end of discharge pipe #116) and is formed to introduce the pollutant gas into the reactor vessel rotationally symmetrically with respect to a longitudinal axis of the gas outlet (see figures 2a-2b and 5b and paragraphs [0041]-[0042] and [0051]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
In regards to Claim 19, Kim discloses wherein a filter element, a scrubber (#130) and/or a collecting container for reaction products is attached to the gas outlet (see figure 5b and paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
Examiner notes that although Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the scrubber is removably attachable to the gas outlet, making the scrubber separable is a mere engineering design choice in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for ease of maintenance and/or replacement, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Smith, J. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0071548, hereinafter Smith).
In regards to Claim 13, Kim discloses the apparatus as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a temperature sensor is/are arranged on or in the gas outlet and/or a flow velocity sensor is/are arranged in or on the at least one gas inlet or the pollutant gas inlet.
However, Smith teaches an apparatus and method for treating a gas exhausted from a process chamber. The apparatus comprises an abatement device, i.e. reactor vessel, which receives exhaust gas, i.e. pollutant gas inlet, from a process chamber. The exhaust gas is pumped to the abatement device and a purge gas is added to the exhaust gas to optimize the abatement of the exhaust gas. The amount of purge gas added is adjusted in response to the reception of data from a sensor located between the process chamber and the pump. A controller may receive date indicative of the variation of the gas composition obtained by monitoring one or more variable flow control devices used to supply gas to the process chamber. The opening and closing of one or more valves for supplying gases to the process chamber may be detected and/or the conductance of one or more mass flow controllers for controlling the rate at which gases are supplied to the process chamber may be detected, for example by monitoring signals supplied to these devices (see paragraphs [0009] and [0028]). This is considered equivalent to a flow velocity sensor arranged in or on the at least one pollutant gas inlet, as claimed by the applicant.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Kim by further having a flow velocity sensor arranged in or on the pollutant gas inlet, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Smith teaches an apparatus and method for treating a gas exhausted from a process chamber, wherein the apparatus comprises an abatement device, i.e. reactor vessel, which receives exhaust gas, i.e. pollutant gas inlet, from a process chamber, wherein the exhaust gas is pumped to the abatement device and a purge gas is added to the exhaust gas to optimize the abatement of the exhaust gas, whereby the amount of purge gas added is adjusted in response to the reception of data from a sensor located between the process chamber and the pump, and a controller may receive date indicative of the variation of the gas composition obtained by monitoring one or more variable flow control devices used to supply gas to the process chamber, wherein the opening and closing of one or more valves for supplying gases to the process chamber may be detected and/or the conductance of one or more mass flow controllers for controlling the rate at which gases are supplied to the process chamber may be detected, for example by monitoring signals supplied to these devices, thereby maintaining process efficiency within the apparatus (see paragraphs [0009] and [0028]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shiban, S. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0195001)-apparatus and methods for dynamic oxidation of combustible gases by auto ignition at elevated temperatures. The apparatus comprises a reactor vessel designed as a centrifugal separator having a cylindrical region (#61) and a tapering region (#180), wherein an oxygen containing gas is introduced into at least one gas inlet (#80) arranged on a cylindrical region and at least one gas outlet (#101) arranged on the tapering region (#180) (see figure 29 and paragraph [0086]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights