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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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 limitations are: “an oxygen production device … configured to separate oxygen from air and store oxygen for backup supply” in claim 1;
“a hydrogen production device … configured to produce hydrogen or oxyhydrogen for backup supply based on the principle of water electrolysis” in claim 1; and
“an adsorption device … configured to separate the oxygen from the air” in claim 2.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specifically:
“an oxygen production device … configured to separate oxygen from air and store oxygen for backup supply” is being interpreted as “an air compressor, a condenser connected with the air compressor, a pressure swing adsorber connected with the condenser, a gas storage tank connected with the pressure swing adsorber and configured to store oxygen, and a silencing device connected with a pipeline for outputting other gases in the air” or equivalents thereof based on p. 2 lines 20-30 of the instant specification;
“a hydrogen production device … configured to produce hydrogen or oxyhydrogen for backup supply based on the principle of water electrolysis” is being interpreted as “an electrolytic cell, a catalyst electrode, and a gas-liquid separator disposed at the hydrogen or oxyhydrogen outlet of the electrolytic cell” or equivalents thereof based on p. 3 lines 6-13 of the specification; and
“an adsorption device … configured to separate the oxygen from the air” is interpreted as “a pressure swing adsorber” or equivalents thereof based on p. 2 lines 20-30 of the instant specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
It is noted that the term “silencing device” as recited in e.g., claim 2, is a term of art referring to a muffler.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “a flow of the oxyhydrogen” in line 11. However, claim 1 only recites oxyhydrogen production in the alternative i.e., “the hydrogen production device is configured to produce hydrogen or oxyhydrogen” in line 8. It is therefore unclear whether claim 1 is intended to:
a) require the hydrogen production device generates oxyhydrogen gas;
b) require the control unit to control a flow of “the oxyhydrogen or hydrogen”;
c) optionally require the recited control module configuration only when the hydrogen production device is configured to produce oxyhydrogen; or
d) require the control module to adjust a flow of the converged oxygen and hydrogen or oxyhydrogen gases recited later in the claim.
Claim 1 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-7, and 9, claims 2-7, and 9 depend from claim 1, and therefore incorporate the indefinite language of claim 1.
Claims 2-7, and 9 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 8, the term “convenient to move” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “convenient to move” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, it is not clear what is meant by “casters convenient to move”, because it is unclear what specific properties would make the “casters” either convenient or inconvenient to move.
Claim 8 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending the claim to remove the limitation “convenient to move”.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitations “the main housing”, “the gas inlet holes on the bottom cover of the housing”, “the air compressor”, “the combined air valve”, “the condenser”, “the absorption tower group”, “the gas storage tank”, “the humidification bottle”, and “the silencing device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Specifically, claim 1 does not recite any of these components. It is therefore unclear how these limitations should be interpreted.
Furthermore, claim 10 depends from claim 1, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 1.
Claim 10 is therefore indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 207361788 U) in view of Lin ‘478 (CN 113373478 A), Lin ‘948 (US Pat. Pub. 2018/0057948 A1) and Yamamori (US Pat. Pub. 2018/0177969 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been interpreted as “…adjust a flow of the oxyhydrogen or hydrogen …”.
Zhang teaches an oxyhydrogen preparation device capable of adjusting hydrogen content (e.g., abstract), comprising:
an oxygen production device (see below) and a power supply module (“a power supply 12” para. 12),
the oxygen production device is configured to separate oxygen from air and store oxygen for backup supply (see below); and
the oxygen produced by the oxygen production device converges with hydrogen or oxyhydrogen produced by a hydrogen production device through a pipeline to a gas outlet of the oxyhydrogen preparation device and then directly discharged (“The gas manufacturing apparatus for producing hydrogen and oxygen also includes a mixer 4 for mixing the gases flowing out from the first outlet pipe 11, the second outlet pipe 12 and the third outlet pipe 21, and a breather 5 connected to the mixer 4.” para. 39 and Fig. 1).
The limitation “an oxygen production device … configured to separate oxygen from air and store oxygen for backup supply” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as requiring an air compressor, a condenser connected with the air compressor, a pressure swing adsorber connected with the condenser, a gas storage tank connected with the pressure swing adsorber and configured to store oxygen, and a silencing device connected with a pipeline for outputting other gases in the air (or equivalents thereof).
Zhang teaches an air compressor (“air compression module 72” para. 43 and Fig. 1), a condenser connected with the air compressor (“heat dissipation module 73” Id.), a pressure swing adsorber connected with the condenser (“molecular sieve oxygen generator, which includes two molecular sieve towers 91, an electromagnetic control valve 92 connecting the molecular sieve towers 91 … It adopts zeolite molecular sieve and pressure swing adsorption technology to separate oxygen and nitrogen in the air” para. 46 and Fig. 1), a gas storage tank connected with the pressure swing adsorber and configured to store oxygen (“a gas storage tank 82 connected to the two molecular sieve towers 91 for storing the separated oxygen” Id.), and a silencing device connected with a pipeline for outputting other gases in the air (“other gases separated from the air, mainly nitrogen, are discharged to the outside through exhaust pipe 8. The exhaust pipe is equipped with an exhaust muffler,” para. 47 and Fig. 1).
Thus, Zhang teaches “an oxygen production device … configured to separate oxygen from air and store oxygen for backup supply”.
The limitation “a hydrogen production device … configured to produce hydrogen or oxyhydrogen for backup supply based on the principle of water electrolysis” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as requiring an electrolytic cell, a catalyst electrode, and a gas-liquid separator disposed at the hydrogen or oxyhydrogen outlet of the electrolytic cell (or equivalents thereof).
Zhang teaches an electrolytic cell (“gas manufacturing device 1” para. 39 and Fig. 1) and a gas-liquid separator disposed at the hydrogen or oxyhydrogen outlet of the electrolytic cell (“The hydrogen and oxygen produced by the electrolytic cell are first mixed, and then filtered through the first filter 3 to remove impurities such as water carried by the gas” para. 48 and Fig. 1).
Zhang does not explicitly teach a catalyst electrode, but is rather silent on the specific electrode used in the electrolytic cell.
However, Lin ‘948 teaches a water electrolyzer configured to provide oxyhydrogen gas for medical use (e.g., para. 27), wherein the water electrolyzer comprises catalytic electrodes as the anode and cathode (para. 24).
As Zhang and Lin ‘948 teach oxyhydrogen gas generators for medical use, Zhang and Lin ‘948 are analogous art to the instant application.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zhang, such that the anode and cathode are catalytic electrodes, as taught by Lin ‘948. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of catalyzing the electrolysis of water to hydrogen and oxygen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Thus, Zhang in view of Lin ‘948 renders obvious “a hydrogen production device … configured to produce hydrogen or oxyhydrogen for backup supply based on the principle of water electrolysis”.
Zhang does not teach a control module configured to control and adjust a flow of the oxygen, detect a concentration of the oxygen, and adjust a flow of the oxyhydrogen or hydrogen and a hydrogen content to a preset range.
Zhang instead teaches an operator manually controls and adjusts a flow of the oxygen and a flow of the oxyhydrogen or hydrogen in response to a detected concentration of the oxygen (“Users can adjust and observe the concentration of the corresponding gas through the concentration detection device, and can also adjust the concentration of the corresponding gas in the mixed gas through the adjustment device on the gas manufacturing device and the oxygen separation device to meet their own usage requirements.” para. 23, “a second concentration detection device 62 for detecting oxygen concentration” para. 41 and Fig. 1, and “a hydrogen concentration detection and control device 107” para. 60 and Fig. 7), to maintain the hydrogen content at a preset range (“the hydrogen concentration is preferably controlled within 5%” para. 60).
However, Yamamori teaches a system for making oxyhydrogen gas for healthcare purposes (e.g., para. 11 and abstract), wherein the system comprises a control module configured to control and adjust a flow of the oxygen (“the mixing section 15 has a mass flow controller 151 and a mass flow controller 152, and outputs the mixed gas which is set to a designated oxygen concentration” para. 38), detect a hydrogen concentration (“mixing section 15 may detect the hydrogen concentrations of the first mixed gas and the second mixed gas” para. 40), and adjust a flow of the oxyhydrogen or hydrogen and a hydrogen content to a preset range (“The second mixed gas producing section 14 produces a second mixed gas in which oxygen (second gas) and hydrogen (treatment gas) are mixed with each other in a second ratio.” Para. 34 and Fig. 1).
As Yamamori teaches an oxyhydrogen generator for medical use, Yamamori is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zhang, by adding a control module to configured to control and adjust a flow of the oxygen, detect a concentration of the oxygen, and adjust a flow of the oxyhydrogen or hydrogen and a hydrogen content to a preset range. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of automating the control of the hydrogen and oxygen flows. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation for success making this modification because Yamamori teaches a control module is a suitable means for maintaining the concentration of hydrogen and oxygen gases in the produced gas by controlling the relative gas flows. Application of a known technique (using a controller to automate flow valves as taught by Yamamori) to a known device (the system of Zhang) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (automating the manual concentration control of Zhang) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(D)). Furthermore, automating a manual activity establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.04(III)).
Modified Zhang does not a housing configured to accommodate the oxygen production device, the hydrogen production device, the control module, and the power supply module.
However, Lin ‘478 teaches an oxyhydrogen preparation device (abstract) configured for medical use (para. 43) comprising an oxygen production device (“a PSA pressure swing adsorption small molecular sieve oxygen production method” para. 46 and “several molecular sieves 24” para. 55 and Fig. 4), a hydrogen production device (“a water electrolysis hydrogen production method” para. 46 and “electrolytic cell 12” para. 58 and Fig. 4), a control module (“control circuit board 8” para. 54 and Fig. 4), and a power supply module (“power supply device 38” para. 54 and Fig. 4), wherein these components are disposed in a common housing (“housing 1” para. 54 and Fig. 4, see also para. 6).
As Lin ‘478 teaches an oxyhydrogen preparation device for medical use, Lin ‘478 is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zhang, by adding a housing configured to accommodate the oxygen production device, the hydrogen production device, the control module, and the power supply module, as taught by Lin ‘478. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the oxyhydrogen generator as a single integrated system, as taught by Lin ‘478. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Zhang teaches the power supply module is configured to supply power to the hydrogen production device (“the regulating structure can control the amount of hydrogen produced by the electrolytic cell by adjusting the power supply voltage” para. 42), but does not explicitly teach the power supply module is configured to supply power to the oxygen production device.
However, Lin ‘478 further teaches the power supply is connected to both the oxygen production device and the hydrogen production device (“The power supply device 38 and the control circuit board 8 are respectively connected to the molecular sieve oxygen generation module and the electrolysis hydrogen generation module” para. 54 and Fig. 4).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zhang such that the power supply module supplies power to both the oxygen production device and the hydrogen production device, as taught by Lin ‘478. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the system to require only one power input. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further teaches the oxygen production device comprises an air compressor (“air compression module 72” para. 43 and Fig. 1), a condenser connected with the air compressor (“heat dissipation module 73” Id.), an adsorption device connected with the condenser and configured to separate the oxygen from the air1 (“molecular sieve oxygen generator, which includes two molecular sieve towers 91, an electromagnetic control valve 92 connecting the molecular sieve towers 91 … It adopts zeolite molecular sieve and pressure swing adsorption technology to separate oxygen and nitrogen in the air” para. 46 and Fig. 1), a gas storage tank connected with the adsorption device and configured to store oxygen (“a gas storage tank 82 connected to the two molecular sieve towers 91 for storing the separated oxygen” Id.), and a silencing device connected with a pipeline for outputting other gases in the air (“other gases separated from the air, mainly nitrogen, are discharged to the outside through exhaust pipe 8. The exhaust pipe is equipped with an exhaust muffler,” para. 47 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further teaches the adsorption device is an adsorption tower group comprising two adsorption towers (“two molecular sieve towers 91” para. 46 and Fig. 1), a combined air valve is disposed between the condenser and the adsorption tower group to control gas paths (“electromagnetic control valve 92 connecting the molecular sieve towers 91 and the air inlet pipe 22” Id.), and the adsorption tower group circularly and alternately operates based on the pressure swing adsorption principle (“two adsorption towers performing the same cyclic process to achieve continuous gas supply.” para. 46), so as to separate oxygen from the air (“Raw air enters an adsorption tower containing molecular sieves, where nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and other gases are adsorbed, and the outflowing gas is high-purity oxygen.” Id.).
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhang renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Zhang further teaches the hydrogen production device comprises an electrolytic cell (“an electrolysis cell” para. 42), a gas outlet of hydrogen is disposed on the electrolytic cell (“second outlet pipe 12 for the hydrogen produced to flow out” para. 39 and Fig. 1), a gas-liquid separator is disposed at the gas outlet of hydrogen or oxyhydrogen (“first filter 3 provided on the second outlet pipe 12.” para. 39, “first filter 3 to remove impurities such as water carried by the gas” para. 48, and Fig. 1), and the produced hydrogen or oxyhydrogen flows into a gas outlet pipeline communicated with an oxygen outlet pipeline (“a mixer 4 for mixing the gases flowing out from the first outlet pipe 11, the second outlet pipe 12 and the third outlet pipe 21, and a breather 5 connected to the mixer 4.” para. 39 and Fig. 1) after being subjected to filtration and drying (Fig. 1 shows the “mixer 4” is disposed downstream from “first filter 3”).
Modified Zhang further teaches, via Lin ‘948, the hydrogen production device comprises a catalyst electrode (para. 24).
Modified Zhang does not teach the filtration is a multi-stage filtration.
However, the system of Zhang differs only from the claimed limitation in that it includes a single, rather than a plurality, of filters.
Duplication of parts, absent evidence of an unexpected result, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhang renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Modified Zhang further teaches, via Lin ‘478, the housing comprises a main housing, and an upper cover and a bottom cover are respectively disposed at an upper end and a lower end of the main housing (see Figs. 3-6), the upper cover is provided with a water inlet for adding water into the hydrogen production device (“a hinged plate 7 is provided on the housing 1 corresponding to the water tank cover 10 for adding pure water into the pure water tank 9” para. 60 and Fig. 3), a sealing cover is disposed on the water inlet (“water tank cover 10” para. 60 and Fig. 3), and the system comprises a humidification bottle (“humidifier or atomizer 6” para. 54 and Fig. 3).
Modified Zhang does not teach the humidification bottle is located on the inside of the upper cover.
However, Lin ‘948 teaches that the humidification bottle may suitably be located on the inside of an upper cover of the housing (“atomizer 14” para. 27 and Fig. 1).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zhang such that the humidification bottle was located on the inside of the upper cover of the housing, because Lin ‘948 teaches this is a suitable location for the humidification bottle on an oxyhydrogen generator. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A))
Furthermore, the system of modified Zhang differs from the claimed limitation only in that the location of the humidification bottle is different. Rearrangement of parts, absent evidence of an unexpected result, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 has been interpreted as “further provided with casters.”.
Modified Zhang further teaches, via Lin ‘478, the housing comprises multiple rows of gas inlet holes (“gas sampling filter screen 33” para. 56 and Fig. 2).
Modified Zhang does not reach the multiple rows of gas inlet holes are provided on the bottom cover.
However, the system of modified Zhang differs from the claimed limitation only in that the location of the gas inlet holes is different. Rearrangement of parts, absent evidence of an unexpected result, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Modified Zhang does not teach the bottom cover is provided with casters.
However, Lin ‘948 further teaches the bottom cover may be provided with casters to allow the system to be movable (see Fig. 1). It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zhang, by adding casters to the bottom cover, as taught by Lin ‘948. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable result of making the system movable. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, making a system portable, absent evidence of unexpected results, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.04(V)(A)).
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhang renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Zhang further teaches a method of using the system comprising adding water to the hydrogen production device (“The water tank of the gas generation equipment 10 is replenished with raw materials for hydrogen and oxygen production by manually adding water.” para. 63), switching on the oxyhydrogen preparation device to start the oxygen production device and the hydrogen production device to operate (“it allows for free control of the activation or deactivation of gas generation equipment,” para. 58), the air entering an air compressor and then entering a combined air valve through a condenser (“an air inlet pipe 22 for introducing air and a processing component for processing the introduced air. The processing component includes a filter module 71, an air compression module 72, and a heat dissipation module 73” para. 43, “an electromagnetic control valve 92” para. 46, and Fig. 1), then entering the absorption tower group for pressure swing adsorption (“an electromagnetic control valve 92 connecting the molecular sieve towers 91 and the air inlet pipe 22, …” para. 46 and Fig. 1), after being separated from other gases in the air, oxygen enters a gas storage tank (“a gas storage tank 82 connected to the two molecular sieve towers 91 for storing the separated oxygen.” Id.), which converges, after flow adjustment (“A second flow meter 36 can observe and control the gas output of the third outlet pipe 21.” para. 50 and Fig. 1), with the hydrogen or oxyhydrogen produced by electrolysis of water in the hydrogen production device to the gas outlet pipeline (“The first flow meter 33 enters the mixer 4 and mixes with the gas flowing out from the third outlet pipe 21.” para. 48 and Fig. 1), and is then directly discharged (“a breather 5 connected to the mixer 4.” para. 39 and Fig. 1); and discharging other gases in the air after passing through a silencing device (“other gases separated from the air, mainly nitrogen, are discharged to the outside through exhaust pipe 8. The exhaust pipe is equipped with an exhaust muffler, which further ensures that the device remains quiet during operation and does not affect the user experience.” para. 47 and Fig. 1).
Modified Zhang does not teach the concentration of the oxygen is measured between entering the gas storage tank and converging with the oxyhydrogen or hydrogen gas.
However, Lin ‘478 further teaches that the concentration of oxygen gas can be measured while in the oxygen gas storage tank (“oxygen storage tank 27 is equipped with an oxygen concentration sensor 273” para. 55 and Fig. 9), and Yamamori further teaches that detecting the oxygen gases before the final mixing provides the benefit of allowing the system to detect abnormalities (para. 40).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Zhang, by adding a step of measuring the concentration of the oxygen between entering the gas storage tank and converging with the oxyhydrogen or hydrogen gas, as taught by Lin ‘478. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the system to identify abnormalities, as taught by Yamamori. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Zhang does not teach the air enters a main housing from gas inlet holes on the housing.
However, Lin ‘478 teaches the air may enter a main housing from gas inlet holes located on the housing (“a gas sampling filter screen 33 is provided on the housing 1 corresponding to the gas sampling filter 21.” para. 56).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Zhang, such that the air enters a main housing from gas inlet holes on the housing, as taught by Lin ‘478. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Lin ‘478 teaches this is a suitable method for introducing the air to the oxygen generation device. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Zhang does not teach the gas inlet holes are located on a bottom cover of the housing.
However, the method of modified Zhang differs from the claimed limitation only in that the location of the gas inlet holes is different. Rearrangement of parts, absent evidence of an unexpected result, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Lin ‘478, Lin ‘948, and Yamamori, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun (CN 106591872 A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhang renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Zhang further teaches the hydrogen content accounts for 0% to 100% (The hydrogen and oxygen produced by the electrolytic cell are first mixed,” para. 48)2.
Modified Zhang does not teach the preset range of the flow of oxyhydrogen is between 0.03 and 7 L/min, but is rather silent as to the flow rate.
However, Sun teaches a system for providing oxyhydrogen in a controllable ratio (abstract) wherein the flow rate of hydrogen before mixing with oxygen is 0.2-0.4 L/min, a range within the claimed range (“the hydrogen flow rate C is 200-400 ml/min” para. 38).
As Sun teaches a system for providing oxyhydrogen in a controllable ratio, Sun is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zhang, such that the flow rate is controlled to be between 0.2 and 0.4 L/min, a range within the claimed range, as taught by Sun. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Sun teaches this is a suitable flow rate for hydrogen that will be diluted with oxygen to generate an oxyhydrogen stream. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Lin ‘478, Lin ‘948, and Yamamori, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zhu (CN 211814657 U).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhang renders the limitations of claim 6 obvious, as described above.
Modified Zhang further teaches, via Lin ‘478, the housing is provided with a control panel display screen (“a display screen 2” para. 54 and Fig. 1).
Modified Zhang does not teach the control panel display screen is located on the upper cover.
However, Zhu teaches a system for the production of oxyhydrogen gas (abstract), wherein the control panel display screen is located on the upper cover (“a device display screen 39,” para. 28 and Fig. 1).
As Zhu teaches a system for the production of oxyhydrogen gas, Zhu is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zhang, such that the control panel display screen is located on the upper cover, as taught by Zhu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Zhu teaches the upper cover is a suitable location for the control panel display screen. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Furthermore, the system of modified Zhang differs from the claimed limitation only in that the location of the control panel display screen is different. Rearrangement of parts, absent evidence of an unexpected result, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Modified Zhang does not teach the upper cover is provided with a flow meter display window.
However, Zhu further teaches a humidification cup (“detachable humidification cup 10,” para. 51 and Fig. 1) provided with a display window (“the humidification cup 10 (hydrogen and oxygen observation window” para. 70), which provides the predictable benefit of allowing a user to observe the flow of the gases and visually verify the system is functioning normally (“users can also see the size of the hydrogen and oxygen bubbles generated through the humidification cup 10 (hydrogen and oxygen observation window) and can promptly confirm the normal operation of the equipment.” para. 70).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the upper cover of the system of Zhang, such that it comprises a flow meter display window associated with the humidification bottle i.e., on the upper cover. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow a user to monitor the gas flow through the humidification bottle, as taught by Zhu. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Zhang renders the limitations of claim 6 obvious, as described above.
Modified Zhang does not teach the bottom of the humidification bottle is provided with a lamp plate, and a part, corresponding to a side of the humidification bottle, of the upper cover is provided with a visual window.
However, Zhu teaches a system for the production of oxyhydrogen gas (abstract) comprising a humidification bottle (“detachable humidification cup 10,” para. 51 and Fig. 1), wherein the humidification bottle is provided with a lamp plate (“The humidification cup is composed of … a light strip.” para. 18) and a part of the housing, corresponding to a side of the humidification bottle, is provided with a visual window (“the humidification cup 10 (hydrogen and oxygen observation window” para. 70), to provide the predictable benefit of allowing a user to observe the flow of the gases and visually verify the system is functioning normally (“users can also see the size of the hydrogen and oxygen bubbles generated through the humidification cup 10 (hydrogen and oxygen observation window) and can promptly confirm the normal operation of the equipment.” para. 70).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zhang, such that the bottom of the humidification bottle is provided with a lamp plate, and a part, corresponding to a side of the humidification bottle, of the upper cover is provided with a visual window, as taught by Zhu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow a user to monitor the gas flow through the humidification bottle, as taught by Zhu. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Zhang does not explicitly teach the lamp plate is provided on the bottom of the humidification bottle.
However, the system of modified Zhang differs from the claimed limitation only in that the location of the lamp plate on the humidification bottle is unspecified. Rearrangement of parts, absent evidence of an unexpected result, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM 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 supervisor, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 Interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as “a pressure swing adsorber” or equivalents thereof.
2 As the hydrogen or oxyhydrogen stream of Zhang comprises hydrogen, it must necessarily contain between 0 and 100% hydrogen.
Prosecution Insights