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. 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 “ parallel dual liquid oxygen combining valve ” recites in claims 2, 3, 11, 16 and 17 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. Claim Interpretation The preamble of all the claims 1-20, recites “ a modular transportable oxy-fuel cutting device ”, however because the claims do not recite any particularl y structures sections (modules) of the claimed cutting device that can be assembled on-site as the plain meaning of “ modular transportable ” suggests ; the Examiner interprets and/or equates the claimed “ modular transportable oxy-fuel cutting device ” as /to “ a transportable or portable oxy-fuel cutting device ” . Claim Objections Claims 3 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 3, it is suggested to replace “ parallel dual liquid oxygen combining valve is configured to supply a flow rate of said liquid oxygen fluid whereby a minimum flow rate of 9-16 standard cubic feet per minute ” with -- parallel dual liquid oxygen combining valve is configured to supply a flow rate of said liquid oxygen fluid , whereby a minimum flow rate of 9-16 standard cubic feet per minute --. In claim 17, it is suggested to replace “ parallel dual liquid oxygen combining valve is configured to supply a flow rate of said liquid oxygen fluid whereby a minimum flow rate of 9-16 standard cubic feet per minute ” with -- parallel dual liquid oxygen combining valve is configured to supply a flow rate of said liquid oxygen fluid , whereby a minimum flow rate of 9-16 standard cubic feet per minute --. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 2, 3 and 11-20 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. Claims 2, 11 and 16, each recites the limitation “ wherein said parallel dual liquid oxygen combining valve is configured to connect said one or more liquid oxygen containers ”. It appears the limitation is incomplete because it is unclear what (for example a structure) the parallel dual liquid oxygen combining valve connects the one or more liquid oxygen containers to. Furthermore, if the dual parallel liquid combining valve is to be used to connect liquid oxygen containers to some unrecited structure, then the number of liquid oxygen containers would be more than one and not “one or more” , as recited in each one of claims 2, 11 and 1 6 ; in other words, the number of liquid oxygen containers cannot be “one container ” . Each one of these claims is rendered indefinite since the ir respective scope are unascertainable . Claim s 3 and 17, each recites the limitation " w herein said parallel dual liquid oxygen combining valve is configured to supply a flow rate of said liquid oxygen fluid whereby a minimum flow rate of 9-16 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) of said oxygen gas is converted ". It is unclear as to what the oxygen gas is converted to, particularly since the base claim 2 does not require any conversion of the oxygen gas; and in addition, it is unclear where the flow rate of 9-16 at standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) of liquid oxygen fluid is supplied to . The features of the claim s appear to be misplaced and thereby making the claim s confusing. The claim s are therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable. 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, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi (CN1092143 , also see the attached Machine English translation Version (“METV”: Abstract, Description and claims) . Regarding claim s 1 and 7 , Shi teaches a transportable or a portable oxy-fuel cutting device (see figure 1 and (“METV”: abstract) comprising: a liquid oxygen container (8, see figure 1 and “METV”: Description); a vaporizer (i.e., spiral pipe vaporizer (5), see figure and “METV”: Description) ; and a cutting torch (see “METV”: Description and claim 1) ; wherein said liquid oxygen container (8 , said vaporizer (5) , and said cutting torch are all in fluidic and operative communication with each other (see figure 1 and METV”: Description and claim 1) ; wherein said liquid oxygen container (8) is configured to contain a liquid oxygen fluid and supply said liquid oxygen fluid to said vaporizer (5) ; wherein said vaporizer (5) is configured to convert said liquid oxygen fluid to an oxygen gas (see “METV”: Abstract, Description and claims) ; and wherein said cutting torch is adapted to accept said oxygen gas and a fuel gas (i.e., acetylene or propane (see “METV”: Abstract, Description) . Regarding claim 2, Shi in figure 1 , shows a transportable oxy-fuel cutting device that further compris es at least a liquid oxygen valve (i.e., needle valve 4, also see “ METV”: Description) that is configured to connect said liquid oxygen container (8) to maintain a constant flow and pressure of said liquid oxygen fluid from said liquid oxygen container (8) to said vaporizer (5, also see “ METV”: Abstract, Description) . Note the claim is met by the Shi’s single liquid gas container and vaporizer with a valve therebetween, because the claim as written does not necessarily require a plurality of liquid oxygen containers and vaporizers to necessitate a combining valve. Regarding claim 5, Shi teaches a transportable oxy-fuel cutting device that compris es at least a valve (4, see figure 1) between the liquid oxygen container (8) and the vaporizer (5, see figure 1) and at least a valve between the vaporizer (5) to output oxygen gas to the cutting torch (see “METV”: Description and claim 1). Not e the claim is met by the Shi’s single liquid gas container and vaporizer with a valve therebetween and an output valve to the torch, because the claim as written does not necessarily require a plurality of liquid oxygen containers and vaporizer s to necessitate a combined valve. 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. Claim s 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (CN1092143, also see the attached Machine English translation Version (“METV”: Abstract, Description and claims) as applied to claim 1 above . Regarding claim s 3 and 6 , Shi in figure 1, shows a transportable oxy-fuel cutting device that further compris es at least a liquid oxygen valve (i.e., needle valve 4, also see “METV”: Description) that is configured to connect said liquid oxygen container (8) to maintain a constant flow and pressure of said liquid oxygen fluid from said liquid oxygen container (8) to said vaporizer (5, also see “METV”: Abstract, Description) but fails to particularly teach a flow rate of liquid oxygen fluid of 9-16 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) from the liquid oxygen container (8) to the vaporizer (5) or a flow rate of 9 -16 SCFM of said oxygen gas from the vaporizer outputted to the cutting torch. However, because the selection of a suitable flow rate of liquid oxygen from the container (8) to the vaporizer (5) or flow rate of liquid oxygen gas from the vaporizer to the cutting torch would be dictated by the desired throughput of the cutting torch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to selected an optimum flow rate for both the liquid oxygen and the oxygen gas that would reasonably lead to achiev ing a process target and efficiency. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (CN1092143, also see the attached Machine English translation Version (“METV”: Abstract, Description and claims) as applied to claim 1 above , and further in view of Scharfenberg et al. (US Patent No. 8,402,965) . Regarding claim s 8 , and 10, Shi teaches a transportable oxy-fuel cutting device that comprises at least a valve which could also be interpreted as flow modulator for controlling or regulating the flow of liquid oxygen between the liquid oxygen container (8) and at least a valve for controlling or regulating the flow of oxygen gas and the cutting torch (see Shi figures 1, and “METV”: Abstract, Description and claims) but fails to expressly teach : an oxygen gas pressure regulator; wherein said oxygen gas pressure regulator is configured to measure a pressure of said oxygen gas, measure a flow rate of said oxygen gas out of said one or more vaporizers, and determine whether a vaporizer oxygen gas output alarm is triggered . Scharfenberg et al. does not particularly teach a modular transportable oxy-fuel cutting device , however, it is an analogous art since it is reasonably pertinent to the instant claimed invention for being directed to a portable oxygen distribution system. Scharfenberg et al. teaches a modular transportable oxygen distribution system (10 see Scharfenberg et al., abstract and figures 1-6 and 8) that comprises a modular structure that encloses at least one liquid oxygen module (i.e., Liquid oxygen converter (12), see Scharfenberg , figures 1-5A and 8, column 4, line 1-column 5, line 38) encased in a frame and a plurality of vaporizer module (42 and 43, see Scharfenberg , figures 1-6 and 8, column 4, line 1-column 5, line 38) that are encased in the frame to make the system transportable ; wherein the liquid oxygen module and said the plurality of vaporizer modules are connect ed to each other (see Scharfenberg , figures 3-6 and 8) . Scharfenberg , also teaches a modular transportable oxygen distribution system that further comprises an oxygen gas pressure regulator (i.e. pressure gauge (34) see column 10, lines 5-12 and column 10, line 60-column 11, line 15) configured to measure a pressure of said oxygen gas, measure a flow rate of said oxygen gas out of said one or more vaporizers, and an alarm system that is triggered when a threshold oxygen pressure and a threshold flow rate are exceeded (see Scharfenberg , column 10, line 5-column 11, line 15) . Furthermore , the modular transportable oxygen distribution system of Scharfenberg as shown in figures 3, 4 and 8, by its structural construction would protect both the liquid oxygen module and the vaporizer module f rom any vibration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the transportable oxy-fuel cutting device to assemble and enclose all the structural features (to include the liquid oxygen module and the vaporizer module) in a motorized or transportable modular structure as exemplified by Scharfenberg , and that would provide the function and advantage of being quickly deployable to a location for an on-site use of the cutting torch. Regarding claim 9, Shi in view of Scharfenberg , teaches a modular transportable oxygen distribution system that comprises a modular structure that encloses one liquid oxygen module (i.e., Liquid oxygen converter (12), see Scharfenberg , figures 1-5A and 8, column 4, line 1-column 5, line 38) encased in a frame and at least two vaporizer module (42 and 43, see Scharfenberg , figures 1-6 and 8, column 4, line 1-column 5, line 38) s tacked on each other and encased in a frame to make the system transportable. Thus, Shi in view of Scharfenberg only differs from the instant claim by failing to teach a plurality of liquid oxygen module s as claimed; However, with reference to MPEP2144.04. VI.B. which pertains to the obviousness of duplication of parts, similar to the instantly-claimed liquid oxygen module s and that taught by Scharfenberg , the court held that a lthough the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this instant case, the selection to use a plurality of liquid oxygen modules for purpose of increas ing the throughput of the cutting torch at the time the invention was made would been within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Shi and Scharfenberg et al., either considered individually or as combined differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and/or adequately suggest at least one or more flow modulators configured to reduce a flow of the liquid oxygen fluid to the one or more vaporizers when the vaporizer oxygen gas output alarm is triggered , and other claimed features. Claims 11-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Shi and Scharfenberg , either considered individually or as combined differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and/or adequately suggest : as each one of independent claims 11 and 16: at least one or more flow modulators configured to reduce a flow of the liquid oxygen fluid to the one or more vaporizers when the vaporizer oxygen gas output alarm is triggered , and other claimed features. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Roubicek et al. (US 11,110,535), Moon (US 2009/0200714), Bruni et al. (US 4,045,189), Grohmann (US 4,995,918), Karasaki et al. (JPH08118058) and JPS62165088, are also cited in PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8165 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30AM-5:00PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Hendricks can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1401 . 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. /M.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733 /JESSEE R ROE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759