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 .
DRAWING OBJECTION
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, claim 4’s pressure regulators PR1,PR2 as being part of module 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.
U.S.C. 112(b) REJECTION
Claims 1-10 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.
As to claims 1,2,4-9, the term “module” is confusing in all of the claims because it’s not clear how a module is different from an apparatus. The application employs both terms (apparatus and module), but makes no distinction. How is one of ordinary skill to recognize what a “module” means? How is a module different in any manner from an apparatus? Different terms inherently have different meanings. What is Applicant’s intent in this regard?
As to claim 1, “each acetylene storage apparatus” (line 18) is not consistent with “one” (line 4). The claim initially seemed limited to “one”, but “each” suggests more than one. This is not consistent. How many storage apparatuses is this claim limited to? Note that claim 3 is limited to one or two one cylinders.
As to claim 3, this claim is confusing because it tags the same single “acetylene storage apparatus” (line 4, claim 1) as being one or two cylinders. As such, it appears that claim 3 is expressly limited to 4 cylinders because 2 of the “acetylene storage apparatus” (line 4, claim 1) translates into 4 cylinders (in claim 3), such being not consistent with the specification/drawings. How many cylinders is claim 3 limited to? Maybe, “wherein the” (line 27) should read - - wherein the at least one - - ?
As to claims 1,4, “the pressure equalization apparatus in the gas dilution module comprises a first pressure regular … and a second pressure regular” is not consistent with Figure 1 because the pressure regulators PR1,PR2 in Figure 1 are NOT part of the gas dilution module 4. Is the claim in error, or is the drawing in error, or does this application have multiple species?
As to claims 5,6, “0.5 kg” is a measure of mass; not a measure of pressure. As such, one of ordinary skill can not understand a value of pressure?
As to claim 9, this method claim is for “using the system” of claim 1; yet, the steps initially introduce structure in all 4 steps (examples: “providing at least one acetylene storage apparatus”, “providing a gas dilution module”, “providing a detection module”, “a control unit”, etc.), suggestive that either (1) the method is claiming the same structure twice (which is confusing), or (2) the method is limited only to lines 18-29, because the method steps are only for somehow “using the system” of claim 1, effectively ignoring the particularly claimed system of claim 1. How is the particularly claimed system of claim 1 part of the method?
As to claim 9, the preamble calls for “using” (line 16) the apparatus, but the steps appear to only provide (“providing” steps (1) to (4)) the structure of the apparatus that is to function in a particular manner. It’s not at all clear how providing something is actual use (“using the system”, line 16, claim 9). Such is merely providing. Note that “providing” is the action; and not supply, mixing, ionizing, etc. which are more akin to functions/intentions, and not actions. What is Applicant’s intent? If intent was to provide the system of claim 1, and include the action steps of supplying, mixing, measuring, receiving a signal, computing concentration, outputting a control signal, such is not clearly apparent.
112 U.S.C. 112(d) REJECTION
Claims 9,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9’s actual steps seem to remove some structure of claim 1 because the steps call for initially providing some (but not all of the) structure of claim 1, as if the unrepeated structure (in claim 1) is not part of the method in any manner. While the claim is confusing (per 112(a), claim 9 does not embrace all of the structure of claim 1 because the steps provide (“providing”, claim 9 only a portion of the structure of claim 1. The step of - - providing the system of claim 1 - - would have satisfied 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
PRIOR ART OF RECORD
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Paragraph 6 (Applicant’s Publication ‘839) teaches a system that employs two acetylene cylinders, where one is switched when cylinder pressure displays 6 bar, to prevent too much acetone solvent from entering a downstream process (cutting, welding, etc.).
Song et al 8398747 (listed 1449) teach a method to produce high purity acetylene. However, such lacks any measuring as found in Applicant’s claim 1.
Applicant’s prior art teaches (Paragraph 6, Applicant’s Publication) a system for supplying acetylene comprising: at least one acetylene storage apparatus that supplies a feedstock stream, and switching between 2 storage apparatuses as a function of the measured pressure of the delivering storage apparatus; and continues (Paragraphs 3-8) to describe many short comings. Undersigned took note that claim 1’s computed solvent concentration is compared with a preset value via the control unit (lines 10-15, claim 1) that relates to the switching of the acetylene storage apparatuses, which results in the benefit (cited in Paragraph 9, Applicant’s Publication) of precisely indicating the acetylene purity or solvent content in the acetylene delivering storage, thus eliminating the described shortcoming in the prior art as described in Applicant’s “BACKGROUND ART” (Paragraphs 3-8, Applicant’s Publication).
EXAMINER’S NOTE
Examiner’s note: Paragraph 9 (Applicant’s Publication) describes how Applicant’s apparatus and method of monitoring content of solvent (not acetylene) in a cylinder allows for precisely recognizing sufficient acetylene purity content in a cylinder, such eliminating the many shortcoming in the prior art as described in Paragraphs 3-9 (Applicant’s Publication). Such recognition relates to the critical limitations of claim 1 that that compute solvent concentration (not acetylene) for comparison with a solvent concentration preset value, and use of that comparison to provide a signal to a controller to switch from a contaminated acetylene cylinder to a second acetylene cylinder to prevent too much solvent (in the used cylinder) from entering the downstream process system. The claimed system supplies acetylene, but the focus is on measuring the volatizing contaminant solvent in the cylinder in real time to recognize when such contaminant is high enough that the acetylene is insufficiently pure.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855