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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1–2, 7 are objected because the term “a plurality of branches” and “the branches” are interchangeably used, please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Claims 2, 7 and 11 are objected because the term “filtering units” is inconsistent with the term “the plurality of filtering units” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 12 is objected to, because the limitation of ‘a device according to claim 5” should be “the [[a]] device according to claim 5”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9–10, 12–13 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.
Claim 9 is indefinite because the limitation of “the compression unit” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is indefinite because claim 10 depends on claim 9.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it recites a limitation of “a compartment” and claim 12 depends on claim 5, claim 5 also recites a limitation of “compartment”, which makes it confusing as for what the limitation “the compartment” refers to. Claim 12 is also indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “recirculation state” is the same as that recited in claim 5.
Claim 13 is indefinite for the same reason as claim 12, because it recites the limitation “the compartment.” Additionally, claim 13 is indefinite because it depends on claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al., KR 101482612 B1 (“Lee”)1.
Regarding claim 1:
Lee discloses that a device for treating fluorinated gases (Lee’s device as shown in Fig. 1, which is used to treat SF6, Lee Fig. 1, p. 1), comprising:
an inlet section (pipe structure connecting Lee’s waste gas supply unit 110 and valves upstream of Lee’s separation membrane modules 120, Lee Fig. 1, p. 3) configured to receive a gas to be treated;
an outlet section (pipe structure connecting Lee’s valves downstream of Lee’s separation membrane modules 120 and Lee’s recovered gas storage tank 130, Lee Fig. 1, p. 3) configured to convey the treated gas to an outlet (Lee’s recovered gas storage tank 130 is the claimed “outlet” Id.);
a circuit that puts the inlet section in communication with the outlet section and comprises a plurality of branches disposed in parallel (pipe structures that connects Lee’s plurality of separation membrane module 120 to the device as shown in Lee’s Fig. 1, Lee’s separation membrane modules are disposed in parallel, and the pipe structure corresponding to each separation membrane module 120 read on the claimed “branches disposed in parallel”, Lee Fig. 1, p. 3);
flow cut-off elements (valve structure upstream of Lee’s separation membrane modules 120, Lee Fig. 1) controlled with an actuation signal (provided by Lee’s flow rate measuring means 140, Lee Fig. 1, p. 3) for closing or opening the branches of the circuit so that the gas passing from the inlet section to the outlet section can cross different paths so as to vary an available volume of the gas inside the circuit according to a state of actuation of the flow cut-off elements (Lee discloses its processing flow Ff of each of separation membrane modules 120 can be maintained at different values: 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, and therefore, it is understood that the valves upstream of the Lee’s separation membrane modules can be adjusted to allow different flow rate to be maintained, additionally, Lee discloses that the number of separation membrane modules can be adjusted, which means the valves could be closed or opened, Lee Fig. 1, p. 7);
a plurality of filtering units (Lee’s separation membrane modules 120, Lee Fig. 1, p. 3) arranged at least partially in the branches of the circuit so as to filter the gas coming from the inlet section when the branches of the circuit are opened by corresponding flow cut-off elements (Lee’s separation membrane modules 120 is configured to separate/filter waste gas into SF6 and other gases when there is waste gas flows through the membrane modules 120, which means the branches of the circuit is open, Lee Fig. 1, p. 3);
an input (Lee’s flow rate measuring means 140, Lee Fig. 1, p. 3) for receiving information on a volume of the gas to be treated (Lee discloses as flow rate, Id.); and
a control unit (Lee’s control means 160, Lee Fig. 1, p. 3) interfaced with the input (140 of Lee) and to the flow cut-off elements and programmed to read the input and send actuation controls to the flow cut-off elements to open or close the branches of the circuit according to the volume of gas to be treated (Lee discloses its control means 160 read the waste gas flow rate Ff measured by flow rate measuring means 140 and a pressure different info to operate the vacuum pump and controls the operation of the membrane module 120, including determined the number of membrane modules 120, which would necessarily involves open/closing some of the valves to reach the target number of membrane modules 120, Lee Fig. 5, p. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 2–3, 6, 9–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee in view of Wang et al., CN 109432947 A (“Wang”)2.
Regarding claim 2:
Lee does not disclose that the device according to claim 1, further comprising a compression unit controllable by the control unit or by automatic pressure detection devices, the compression unit being arranged in the circuit downstream of the filtering units to compress the filtered gas towards the outlet section, a gas suction from the inlet section occurring naturally due to a pressure differential between the inlet section and the branches of the circuit.
In the analogous art of SF6 purification device, Wang discloses a similar configuration comprising inlet section 1, outlet section 8 and a plurality of filtering units 5, 6, Wang Fig. 1, p. 4. Wang also discloses a storage unit 7, Wang Fig. 1, p. 4. Additionally, Wang discloses a compressor 19 upstream of the storage tank 7, Wang Fig. 1, p. 4. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Wang’s compressor 19 upstream of Lee’s gas storage tank 130 such that Lee’s storage tank 130 could accommodate more gases. With such modification, modified Lee would have a compression unit being arranged in the circuit downstream of Lee’s filtering unit 120 to compress filtered gas towards the outlet section, and a gas suction from the inlet section occurring naturally due to a pressure differential between the inlet section and the branches of the circuit. Additionally, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the compressor to be controllable with Lee’s control means 160 because Lee discloses the concentration of SF6 in its gas storage tank 130 is controlled, Lee Fig. 1, p. 3.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Lee does not disclose that the device according to claim 2, further comprising a first valve for interfacing the device with a compartment containing the gas to be treated, the first valve acting on a section of the circuit with, respectively, an inlet valve and an outlet valve controllable by the control unit.
However, Wang discloses a first valve (Wang’s first electromagnetic valve 10, Wang Fig. 1, p. 4) for interfacing the device with a compartment (Wang’s GIS device 29, Wang Fig. 1, p. 4) containing the gas to be treated, the first valve acting on a section of the circuit with, respectively, an inlet valve (Wang’s second electromagnetic valve 13, Wang Fig. 1, p. 4) and an outlet valve (Wang’s sixth electromagnetic valve 23, Wang Fig. 1, p. 4) controllable by the control unit (Wang’s first electromagnetic valve 10 is controlled based on pressure sensor 9, Wang Fig. 1, p. 4). Wang discloses its design novel in design, simple in structure, convenient in operation, capable of purifying the SF6 in the SF6/N2 mixed gas in the GIS device to more than 90 %, recycling and reusing the SF6, saving the using amount of the SF6 and reducing the operation cost, Wang p. 4. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Wang’s electromagnetic valve 10 in modified Lee for the benefits disclosed above.
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Lee does not disclose that the device according to claim 3, wherein the control unit is configured to perform a gas discharge cycle so as to bring a pressure inside of the circuit to a value lower than 0.5 bar by actuating the compression unit in disconnected state and with the inlet valve (13 of Wang) closed.
However, Wang discloses a gas discharge cycle by actuating the compression unit (Wang’s compressor 19) in disconnected state (Wang discloses in step 5, where valves 13, 17 and 23 are closed, disconnecting Wang’s compression unit from Wang’s first valve 10 and with Wang’s inlet valve 13 closed, Wang’s step 5 is a discharge cycle, because SF6 adsorbed in the first adsorption column 5 of Wang is extracted/discharged into storage tank, Wang, Fig. 1, p. 3). Wang discloses its steps allows is novel in design, simple in structure, convenient in operation, capable of purifying the SF6 in the SF6/N2 mixed gas in the GIS device to more than 90 %, recycling and reusing the SF6, saving the using amount of the SF6 and reducing the operation cost, Wang p. 1. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Lee for such gas discharge cycle for the benefits disclosed above. Additionally, when all the gas in Lee’s separation membrane modules are discharged into gas storage tank 130, the pressure inside of the circuit would be close to zero, which is lower than 0.5 bar and since modified Lee’s control unit is in charge of the compressor and valve operation, the control unit controls the gas discharge cycle.
Regarding claim 9:
Lee does not disclose that the device according to claim 1, further comprising one or more automatic switches, which send on/off controls to the compression unit according to a pressure detected in one or more parts of the circuit, of the inlet section, and/or of the outlet section.
However, as discussed in claim 2, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Wang’s compressor 19 upstream of Lee’s gas storage tank 130 such that Lee’s storage tank 130 could accommodate more gases. With such modification, modified Lee would have a compression unit being arranged in the circuit downstream of Lee’s filtering unit 120 to compress filtered gas towards the outlet section, and a gas suction from the inlet section occurring naturally due to a pressure differential between the inlet section and the branches of the circuit. Additionally, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the compressor to be controllable with Lee’s control means 160 because Lee discloses the concentration of SF6 in its gas storage tank 130 is controlled, Lee Fig. 1, p. 3. The structure in modified Lee that is in charge of turning on/off the compression unit would be the claimed “automatic switches.”
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Lee does not disclose that the device according to claim 9, wherein the one or more automatic switches activate the compression unit when the pressure inside the circuit reaches 4 bar and deactivate the compression unit when the pressure inside of the circuit reaches 8 bar.
However, the claimed invention is directed to a device, which is an apparatus and claim 10 is directed a processing of using the automatic switches, such limitation are given patentable weight only insofar as it affects the structure of the claimed apparatus. Since modified Lee comprises automatic switches are capable of sending ON/OFF signals to the claimed compression unit regardless of the pressure, modified Lee reads on the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee in view of Naito et al., US 2019/0282950 A1 (“Naito”).
Regarding claim 7:
Lee discloses that the device according to claim 1, wherein the filtering units 120 arranged in the branches of the circuit individually (as shown in Lee Fig. 1), in series, or in banks of two or more units in arranged in series.
Lee does not disclose the filtering units 120 comprises molecular sieving filters.
In the analogous art of gas separation devices, Naito discloses molecular sieving as an adsorption material, Naito discloses molecular sieve as an adsorption material allows adsorption and desorption, Naito Fig. 1, [0026]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Lee to use molecular sieve as its filtering material for the benefits of adsorption and desorption, which allows the filtering material to be regenerated and saves cost.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee in view of Morelle et al., US 2013/0175161 A1 (“Morelle”).
Regarding claim 8:
Lee does not disclose that the device according to claim 1, wherein the device is configured as a transportable wheeled device.
In the analogous art of fluorinated gas production involves filters, Morelle discloses the storage tank which serves to store the fluorinated gas can optionally be mounted on wheels to be transported, Morelle [0038]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include wheels to Lee’s device for ease of transportation. Additionally, adding wheels to a fluorinated device is known in the art as shown by Morelle.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Lee does not disclose that he device according to claim 3, wherein the control unit is configured to operate in an intermittent state, the intermittent state allowing, by opening the inlet valve, an entry of the gas from the first valve into the inlet section when an exit of the treated gas from the outlet section is prevented, by closing the outlet valve, and vice versa to prevent the entry of the gas to be treated, by closing the inlet valve, when the exit of the treated gas towards the first valve is allowed, by opening the outlet valve, so as to exploit the first valve in a bidirectional way for both for the entry of the gas to be treated and the exit of the treated gas.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Lee to have its control controls its first valve to operate in the claimed bidirectional way because none of the prior art teaches such limitation and there is lack of motivation to modify Lee for such limitation.
Claims 5, 11–13 would be allowable because they depend on claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Lee’s original document is the 15-page FOR dated Feb. 25, 2024. A copy of Lee’s machine translation is provided with the office action. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the text.
2 Wang’s original document is the 9-page FOR dated Feb. 25, 2024. A copy of Wang’s machine translation is provided with the office action. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the text.