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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 5-6.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the specification amendment, see page 7 of the Remarks, filed 16 October 2025, with respect to the objection of the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the claim amendments, see page 7 of the Remarks, filed 16 October 2025, with respect to the claim objection of claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claims 1-16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the claim amendments, see page 7 of the Remarks, filed 16 October 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the claim objection of claim 7 on page 7 of the Remarks:
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant that the claim objection of claim 7 is overcome. Claim 7 still contains the limitation “the shutter” in line 6 of the claim. There appears to be no amendment to the limitation. The claim objection of claim 7 will be maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-6 and 10-16 on pages 7-12 of the Remarks:
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant that amended claim 1, which includes the previous claims 5-6, is not taught in the combination of Huebner, Ghiotto, and Ungerank.
Huebner discloses a nitrox-mixture production machine that contains a molecular separator (102, Figure 1), a low pressure compressor (225, Figure 2) a mixing manifold (110, Figure 1), and said nitrox-mixtures production machine is configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the low-pressure compressor (225, Figure 2) feeds at inlet of the molecular separator (102, Figure 1) based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor (Paragraph [0032], the pressure is regulated based on the oxygen sensor).
Ghiotto teaches the nitrox-mixtures production machine (1, Figure 1) comrpises an electronic control device (35, Figure 1), which is connected to said at least one oxygen sensor (31 and 32, Figure 1) with the motivation to electronically control the system to reduce human error if an operator where to make the mixture manually (Paragraph [0020] and [0041-0042]). Ghiotto does not include a membrane separator, but Huebner and Ghiotto are drawn to the production of a nitrox-mixture making the apparatuses combinable as both are trying to improve the production of a nitrox-mixture (Paragraph [0009] of Huebner and [0029-0031] of Ghiotto). When implemented into Huebner would have the nitrox-mixture production machine of Huebner contain an electronic control device that is connected to an oxygen sensor. Huebner already contains an oxygen sensor (Paragraph [0032]). The mixing manifolds of both Hubner and Ghiotto can be combined as it allows for the mixing of air with the gases to produce the mixture. Ghiotto would not discourage one having ordinary skill in the art from amending the electronic control device into Huebner as it would allow for the control of the valves in Huebner.
Ungerank teaches an electronic control device is adapted to regulate the flowrate of the air that the compressor (Paragraphs [0077-0078], the controller controls the speed of the compressor (4) to control the flow of the gas) with the motivation to control the amount of gas that is moved through the compressor to ensure the required fill level is met in the containers (Paragraph [0063]). Ungerank can be used with Huebner as Ungerank is directed to controlling gas at a gas separation plant (Paragraph [0029]) that allows for two or more prodcuts of gas at a consistant quality (Paragraph [0009]). Huebner, Ghiotto and Ungerank are drawn to the production of a gas product. Through the combination of Huebner, Ghiotto, and Ungerank, the electronic control device of Ghiotto controls the compressor (Paragraph [0092]) where the low-pressure compressor in Huebner can be controlled as the oxygen sensor is used to assist in obtaining the correct concentration of oxygen by adjusting the input pressure into the separator (Paragraph [0025]). Ungerank and Ghiotto both were used to teach the electronic control device which can control the low pressure compressor of Huebner based on readings from a sensor. The combination reads on the limitation “an electronic control device connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the low-pressure compressor feeds at the at least one inlet based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor”.
There would be reasonable expectation of success for the combination of Huebner, Ghiotto and Ungerank. The electronic control systems of Ghiotto and Ungerank would be capable of controlling both the low-pressure compressor and the valves based on signals from the oxygen sensor. While a person controls the device of Huebner, Ghiotto and Ungerank both provide an electronic control system that controls the operation of the gas product devices. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable to have an electronic control system control the device of Huebner.
The Examiner does agree with the Applicant that Huebner, Ghiotto, and Ungerank do not teach the new limitations seen in claim 1. The new limitations seen in claim 1 appear to be the former limitations of claims 5-6 which are now cancelled. The limitation requiring an electronically controlled valve assembly located upstream of the suction of the low-pressure compressor and configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low-pressure compressor and the electronic control unit connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and configured to commanded the electronically controlled valve assembly according to the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor was taught by Mittricker and Delp.
Mittricker teaches the electronic control device (Paragraph [0034], the flow controllers (116a, 116b, 118, and 120) and the central controller (115) are the electronic control device) is adapted to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the expander (Paragraph [0034], the flow is controlled to the expander(111)) with the electronically-controlled valve assembly (Figure 1A, the electronically-controlled valve assembly are the valves connected to the electronic control device) located upstream from the expander which are connected to an oxygen sensor (126, Figure 1A) to control the flow rate (Paragraph [0038]) with the motivation to ensure the proper ratio is obtained to have enough oxygen (Paragraph [0029]). When implemented into the combination of Huebner, Ghiotto and Ungerank, the electronic control device would control the intake of air for the low-pressure compressor of Huebner. The electronic control device of Mittricker is further teaching what the electronic control devices of Ghiotto and Ungerank could accomplish as Mittricker can control the flow rate of the air suctioned by the low-pressure compressor.
Delp was used in the combination to teach a valve assembly, which is located upstream of the suction of the compressor and is adapted to regulate the flowrate of the air sucked in by the compressor (Column 5, Lines 9-21) with the motivation to ensure enough air is provided to compressor to prevent potential damage to the compressor due to instability (Column 5, Lines 9-12) as the flow is regulated to prevent inconsistent air being provided. Delp was only used to bring further clarity that a person having ordinary skill would understand that the flow rate of air sucked in by the compressor can be controlled through the use of a valve.
As recited above, the new limitations seen in claim 1 are taught by the prior art of record.
As seen on page 12, claims 2-16 are mentioned as being dependent on claim 1 and are rejected as seen in the response to claim 1 above. However, the Applicant has highlighted claims 2-4, 13, and claims 7-9 as not being obvious in view of the prior art references.
The mixing manifold configuration seen in claim 2 is taught by both Huebner and Ghiotto. Hubner teaches the mixing manifold (110, Figure 1) is configured to be connected directly to the suction of a high-pressure compressor (265, Figure 2) for feeding said final Nitrox mixture at an inlet of the high-pressure compressor (Paragraph [0026]). Ghiotto was added to further teach the limitation of the mixing manifold (22, Figure 1) is configured to be connected directly to the suction of a high-pressure compressor (2, Figure 1) for feeding said final Nitrox mixture at inlet of the high-pressure compressor (Paragraphs [0051] and [0065], the mixing manifold is connected to the high-pressure compressor at the inlet (8, the intake manifold) of the compressor) with the motivation to have the mixture be at the desired pressure shortly before filling diving containers (Paragraph [0095]). Both were added to provide that the mixing manifold is directly connected to the high-pressure compressor.
The maintenance of oxygen percentage at user-selectable target values of claim 3 was taught by the prior art of record. Huebner discloses the system regulates the rate the flowrate of the air (Paragraph [0031]) that the low-pressure compressor (225, Figure 2) feeds at inlet of the molecular separator (102, Figure 1). Ghiotto taught the electronic control device (35, Figure 1) with Ungerank teaching the speed of the compressor is controlled (Paragraph [0078]). Barrett teaches the electronic control device (260, Figure 2 is configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the low-pressure compressor (212, Figure 2), so as to maintain the oxygen percentage of said final Nitrox mix at a predefined and user-selectable target value (Column 3, Lines 57-61 and Column 4, Lines 1-3) with the motivation to obtain the gas product based on the user’s preferences while reducing the cost of the production of the gas. The electronic control devices of Ghiotto and Ungerank are implemented into Hubner where the electronic control device can further regulate the flow rate according to an oxygen percentage within a predefined and user-selectable target value as seen in Barrett.
The specific compressor types of claims 4 and 13 were taught by the prior art of record. Huebner was silent on the type of low-pressure compressor. Mori was used in claim 4 to teach the low-pressure compressor is a volumetric compressor (Paragraph [0029]) with the motivation to provide a continuous flow of air while reducing the amount of energy to use for compression (Paragraphs [0029-0030]). Mayer was used in claim 13 to teach the compressor (17, Figure 1) is a volumetric compressor with screw pumping assembly (Paragraph [0031]) with the motivation to use a screw compressor to reduce costs by being of simpler construction to reduce maintenance.
Claims 7-9 are objected to as the art cited would lead to hindsight to teach the limitations for the valve assembly. Claims 7-9 are rejected under Non-Statutory Double Patenting over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18605885. If the rejection and objections for claims 7-9 were to be overcome and implemented into claim 1, the case would be considered allowable.
Regarding the Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection of claims 1, 7, 9, and 15-16:
The Remarks do not appear to address the Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection of claims 1, 7, 9, and 15-16. The claims will remain rejected as no terminal disclaimer was filed in the application.
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 at least one inlet of the molecular separator in claims 1, 3, and 14 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 10, “provide at outlet a final Nitrox mixture” should be amended to -- provide at an outlet a final Nitrox mixture--.
Line 16, “the flowrate” should be amended to –a flow rate--.
Line 19, “the flow rate” should be amended to – a flow rate--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6, “the shutter” should be amended to “a shutter”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines7-8, “at an the at least one inlet” should be amended to –at the at least one inlet--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—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 or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 14 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 14 recite the limitation “at least one inlet”. The specification submitted 15 March 2024 states that the molecular separator has an inlet. In the drawings submitted 15 March 2024 also show one inlet for the molecular separator (2). The use of “at least one” in the limitation indicates that there could be multiple inlets for the molecular separator. The limitation is unclear as there appears to be no support in both the specification and drawings for multiple inlets for the molecular separator. The Office recommends amending the limitation to have one inlet. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as the molecular separator having one inlet.
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 1-4 and 7-16 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 1 recites the limitation "provide at outlet a final Nitrox mixture with predefined composition at the at least one outlet" in line 10-11. The “at least one outlet” corresponds to the molecular separator and the “outlet” appears to correspond to the mixing manifold. The limitation is unclear as to which outlet the final Nitrox mixture with predefined composition is provided. The Office recommends amending the claim to be at the outlet for the mixing manifold. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as the outlet of the mixing manifold.
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.
Claims 1-2, 10-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner (US 20050066814 A1) in view of Ghiotto (US 20180094628 A1) in further view of Ungerank (US 20150336046 A1), Mittricker (US 20110300493 A1), and Delp (US 5846291 A).
Regarding Claim 1:
Huebner discloses a Nitrox-mixtures production machine (Figure 2, the nitrox-mixtures production machine is the system for filling the storage tanks (290 and 295)), comprising:
a molecular separator (102, Figure 1, the membrane is the molecular separator), having at least one inlet to receive a flow of air (Paragraphs [0022-0023], the air is provided at an inlet (104) of the molecular separator) and at least one outlet (108, Figure 1) to provide an intermediate Nitrox mixture with high oxygen percentage (Paragraphs [0020] and [0032], the nitrox mixture has a high oxygen percentage at the outlet);
a low-pressure compressor (225, Figure 2) configured to feed an air flow at the at least one inlet (104, Figure 1);
a mixing manifold (110, Figure 1, the mixing chamber is the mixing manifold) which communicates with the molecular separator (102, Figure 1) so as to receive said intermediate Nitrox mixture, and is configured to mix the intermediate Nitrox mixture with ambient air, in order to provide at an outlet a final Nitrox mixture with predefined composition at the at least one outlet (Paragraphs [0019] and [0021], the mixing manifold receives the Nitrox mixture from the molecular separator and then mixes with fresh air to produce the desired composition); and
at least one oxygen sensor (122, Figure 2) configured to measure the oxygen percentage present in said final Nitrox mixture (Paragraph [0025]); and
said Nitrox-mixtures production machine is adapted to regulate the flowrate of the air that the low-pressure compressor (225, Figure 2) feeds at inlet of the molecular separator (102, Figure 1) based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor (Paragraph [0032], the pressure is regulated based on the oxygen sensor).
Huebner does not disclose:
an electronic control device connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and is configured to regulate a flow rate of the air that the low-pressure compressor feeds at the at least one inlet based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor;
wherein said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor and comprises:
an electronically controlled valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the low pressure compressor and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor; and
an electronic control unit connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and configured to command the electronically controlled valve assembly according to the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Ghiotto teaches an apparatus for feeding gas mixtures, comprising:
an electronic control device (35, Figure 1) connected to said at least one oxygen sensor (31 and 32, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huebner to include an electronic control device connected to said at least one oxygen sensor as taught by Ghiotto with the motivation to electronically control the system to reduce human error if an operator where to make the mixture manually.
Huebner and Ghiotto do not teach:
an electronic control device is configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the low-pressure compressor; and
wherein said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor and comprises:
an electronically controlled valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the low pressure compressor and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor; and
an electronic control unit connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and configured to command the electronically controlled valve assembly according to the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Ungerank teaches a control of gas composition, comprising:
an electronic control device is configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the compressor (Paragraphs [0077-0078], the controller controls the speed of the compressor (4) to control the flow of the gas).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huebner and Ghiotto to include an electronic control device is configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the compressor as taught by Ungerank with the motivation to control the amount of gas that is moved through the compressor to ensure the required fill level is met in the containers.
Huebner, Ungerack, and Ghiotto do not teach:
wherein said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor and comprises:
an electronically controlled valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the low pressure compressor and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor; and
an electronic control unit connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and configured to command the electronically controlled valve assembly according to the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Mittricker teaches a system for controlling the products of combustion, comprising:
wherein said electronic control device (Paragraph [0034], the flow controllers (116a, 116b, 118, and 120) and the central controller (115) are the electronic control device) is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the expander (Paragraph [0034], the flow is controlled to the expander(111)) and comprises:
an electronically controlled valve assembly (Figure 1A, the electronically-controlled valve assembly are the valves connected to the electronic control device), located upstream of a suction of the expander (111, Figure 1A) and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the expander (Paragraph [0034]); and
an electronic control unit (115, 118, and 120, Figure 1A) connected to said at least one oxygen sensor (126, Figure 1A) and is configured to command the electronically controlled valve assembly according to the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor (Paragraph [0038], the electronically-controlled valve assembly is controlled based on the oxygen sensor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huebner, Ungerank, and Ghiotto to include said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the expander, an electronically controlled valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the expander and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the expander, and an electronic control unit connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and is configured to command the electronically controlled valve assembly according to the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor as taught by Mittricker with the motivation to ensure the proper ratio is obtained to have enough oxygen.
Huebner, Ungerack, Mittricker, and Ghiotto do not teach:
wherein said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor and comprises:
an electronically controlled valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the low pressure compressor and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor; and
an electronic control unit connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and configured to command the electronically controlled valve assembly according to the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Delp teaches an oxygen enriched air generation system, comprising:
the system is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the compressor (Column 5, Lines 9-21, the flow control valve (94) regulates the flow rate of the air sucked by the compressor (80)) and comprises:
a valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the compressor and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the compressor (Column 5, Lines 9-21, the flow control valve (94) is upstream of the compressor and regulates the flow rate of the air sucked by the compressor (80)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huebner, Ungerank, Mittricker, and Ghiotto to include the system is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the compressor and a valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the compressor and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the compressor as taught by Delp with the motivation to ensure enough air is provided to compressor to prevent potential damage to the compressor due to instability.
Through the combination of Huebner, Ghiotto, Metterick, Delp, and Ungerank, the electronic control device of Ghiotto controls the compressor (Paragraph [0092]) where the low-pressure compressor in Huebner can be controlled as the oxygen sensor is used to assist in obtaining the correct concentration of oxygen by adjusting the input pressure into the separator (Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Claim 2:
Huebner discloses:
wherein said mixing manifold (110, Figure 1) is structured so as to be connected directly to the suction of a high-pressure compressor (265, Figure 2) for feeding said final Nitrox mixture at inlet of the same high-pressure compressor (Paragraph [0026], the air/nitrox compressor receives the final mixture).
Huebner, Mittricker, Delp, and Ungerank do not teach:
wherein said mixing manifold is configured to be connected directly to the suction of a high-pressure compressor for feeding said final Nitrox mixture at an inlet of the high-pressure compressor.
Ghiotto teaches:
wherein said mixing manifold (22, Figure 1) is configured to be connected directly to the suction of a high-pressure compressor (2, Figure 1) for feeding said final Nitrox mixture at an inlet of the high-pressure compressor (Paragraphs [0051] and [0065], the mixing manifold is connected to the high-pressure compressor at the inlet (8, the intake manifold) of the compressor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huebner and Ungerank to include said mixing manifold is configured to be connected directly to the suction of a high-pressure compressor for feeding said final Nitrox mixture at an inlet of the high-pressure compressor as taught by Ghiotto with the motivation to have the mixture be at the desired pressure shortly before filling diving containers.
Regarding Claim 10:
Huebner discloses:
wherein said machine comprises a heating device (124, Figure 2) interposed between the low-pressure compressor (225, Figure 2) and the molecular separator (102, Figure 2), and configured to heat up the air flow (Paragraphs [0022-0023], the air flow is heated) that the low-pressure compressor (225, Figure 2) feeds to said molecular separator (102, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11:
Huebner discloses:
wherein said electronic control device (126, Figure 1, the thermostat control is the electronic control device) is configured to control the heating device (124, Figure 1) so as to bring and maintain the temperature of the air flowing into the molecular separator (102, Figure 1) at a predefined target value (Paragraph [0022], the temperature is held constant within a temperature range (predefined target value)).
Huebner, Mittricker, Delp, and Ungerank do not teach:
said electronic control device.
Ghiotto teaches:
said electronic control device (35, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huebner, Mittricker, Delp, and Ungerank to include said electronic control device as taught by Ghiotto with the motivation to accurately control the system to obtain the desired oxygen and nitrogen percentages for cylinders.
Regarding Claim 12:
Huebner discloses:
wherein said molecular separator (102, Figure 1) is a semi-permeable membrane molecular separator (Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 16:
See claim 1 rejection above for the Nitrox-mixtures production machine.
Huebner discloses a nitrox-mixtures production machine (Figure 2, the nitrox-mixtures production machine is the system for filling the storage tanks (290 and 295)), comprising:
a high-pressure compressor (265, Figure 2) configured for sucking in air or another gaseous mixture at ambient pressure and for providing at an outlet a flow of high-pressure air or other gaseous mixture to be supplied (Paragraph [006], the nitrox is distributed to the storage tanks at a high-pressure) at an inlet of one or more scuba diving cylinders (290 and 295, Figure 2); and
a Nitrox-mixtures production machine (Figure 2) located upstream of said high-pressure compressor (265, Figure 2) and is configured to feed a Nitrox mixture with predefined composition at an inlet of said high-pressure compressor (Paragraphs [0025-0026], the predefined composition is fed to the high-pressure compressor).
Huebner, Mittricker, Delp, and Ungerank do not teach:
A scuba-diving cylinders refilling equipment comprising:
a high-pressure compressor configured for sucking in air or another gaseous mixture at ambient pressure and for providing at an outlet a flow of high-pressure air or other gaseous mixture to be supplied at an inlet of one or more scuba diving cylinders; and
a Nitrox-mixtures production machine located upstream of said high-pressure compressor and is configured to feed a Nitrox mixture with predefined composition at an inlet of said high-pressure compressor;
wherein said Nitrox-mixtures production machine is realized according to Claim 1.
Ghiotto teaches an apparatus for feeding gas mixtures, comprising:
A scuba-diving cylinders refilling equipment (Paragraph [0051], the scuba-diving cylinders refilling equipment is the flexible pies, shut-off valves, and the connection manifold) comprising:
a high-pressure compressor (2, Figure 1) configured for sucking in air or another gaseous mixture at ambient pressure and for providing at an outlet a flow of high-pressure air or other gaseous mixture to be supplied at an inlet of one or more scuba diving cylinders (4, Figure 1 and Paragraph [0046], the cylinders are used for scuba diving); and
a Nitrox-mixtures production machine (1, Figure 1) located upstream of said high-pressure compressor (2, Figure 1) and is configured to feed a Nitrox mixture with predefined composition at an inlet of said high-pressure compressor (Paragraph [0046], the predefined composition is feed to the inlet of the high-pressure compressor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huebner, Mittricker, Delp, and Ungerank to include scuba-diving cylinders, a high-pressure compressor configured for sucking in air or another gaseous mixture at ambient pressure and for providing at an outlet a flow of high-pressure air or other gaseous mixture to be supplied at an inlet of one or more scuba diving cylinders, and a Nitrox-mixtures production machine located upstream of said high-pressure compressor and is configured to feed a Nitrox mixture with predefined composition at an inlet of said high-pressure compressor as taught by Ghiotto with the motivation to improve customer satisfaction by filling the cylinder with the desired mixture of gas at a faster rate.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner in view of Ghiotto in further view of Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Barrett (US 6792846 B2).
Regarding Claim 3:
Huebner discloses:
the system regulates the rate the flowrate of the air (Paragraph [0031]) that the low-pressure compressor (225, Figure 2) feeds at inlet of the molecular separator (102, Figure 1).
Huebner, Mittricker, and Delp do not teach:
wherein said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the low-pressure compressor feeds the at least one inlet so as to maintain the oxygen percentage of said final Nitrox mix at a predefined and user-selectable target value.
Ghiotto teaches:
said electronic control device (35, Figure 1).
Huebner, Mittricker, Delp and Ghiotto do not teach:
wherein said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the low-pressure compressor feeds the at least one inlet so as to maintain the oxygen percentage of said final Nitrox mix at a predefined and user-selectable target value.
Ungerank teaches:
The speed of the compressor is controlled by the controller which controls the flow of the gas and the composition (Paragraph [0078]).
Huebner, Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Ghiotto do not teach:
wherein said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the low-pressure compressor feeds the at least one inlet so as to maintain the oxygen percentage of said final Nitrox mix at a predefined and user-selectable target value.
Barrett teaches a gas delivery system, comprising:
wherein said electronic control device (260, Figure 2, the electronic control device is the control system) is configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the low-pressure compressor (212, Figure 2), so as to maintain the oxygen percentage of said final Nitrox mix at a predefined and user-selectable target value (Column 3, Lines 57-61 and Column 4, Lines 1-3, the compressor speed is regulated to ensure the correct concentration (predefined and user-selectable target value) is made).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huebner, Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Ghiotto to include said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the low-pressure compressor, so as to maintain the oxygen percentage of said final Nitrox mix at a predefined and user-selectable target value as taught by Barrett with the motivation to obtain the gas product based on the user’s preferences while reducing the cost of the production of the gas.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner in view of Ghiotto in further view of Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Mori (WO 2022029888 A1).
Regarding Claim 4:
Huebner discloses:
the low-pressure compressor (225, Figure 2).
Huebner, Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Ghiotto do not teach:
wherein the low-pressure compressor is a volumetric compressor.
Mori teaches a gas production device, comprising:
wherein the low-pressure compressor is a volumetric compressor (Paragraph [0029], the compressor (6) is a low-pressure volumetric compressor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huebner, Ungerank, Mitticker, Delp, and Ghiotto to include the low-pressure compressor is a volumetric compressor as taught by Mori with the motivation to provide a continuous flow of air while reducing the amount of energy to use for compression.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner in view of Ghiotto in further view of Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Mayer (US 20210228254 A1).
Regarding Claim 13:
Huebner discloses:
the low-pressure compressor (225, Figure 2).
Huebner, Ungerank, and Ghiotto do not teach:
wherein the low-pressure compressor is a volumetric compressor with screw pumping assembly.
Mayer teaches an apparatus for supplying gaseous coolant, comprising:
wherein the compressor (17, Figure 1) is a volumetric compressor with screw pumping assembly (Paragraph [0031], the compressor is the pump that is a screw compressor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huebner, Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Ghiotto to include wherein the compressor is a volumetric compressor with screw pumping assembly as taught by Mayer with the motivation to use a screw compressor to reduce costs by being of simpler construction to reduce maintenance.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner in view of Ghiotto in further view of Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Bliss (US 20060230929 A1).
Regarding Claim 14:
Huebner discloses:
the low-pressure compressor (225, Figure 2).
Huebner, Mittricker, Delp, and Ungerank do not teach:
wherein the low-pressure compressor comprises a pumping assembly and an electric motor configured to drive into rotation said pumping assembly at a variable speed; and
the electronic control device comprising an electronic control unit which controls the rotation speed of said electric motor and is configured to vary said rotation speed based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Ghiotto teaches:
wherein the compressor (2, Figure 1) comprises a pumping assembly and an electric motor configured to drive into rotation (Paragraphs [0048-0049], the compressor has a pump assembly (5) and an electric motor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huebner, Mittricker, Delp, and Ungerank to include the compressor comprises a pumping assembly and an electric motor configured to drive into rotation as taught by Ghiotto with the motivation to vary the volume of the variable column chambers to provide the gas at a higher desired pressure.
Huebner, Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Ghiotto do not teach:
wherein the low-pressure compressor comprises a pumping assembly and an electric motor configured to drive into rotation said pumping assembly at a variable speed; and
the electronic control device comprising an electronic control unit which controls the rotation speed of said electric motor and is configured to vary said rotation speed based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Bliss teaches a portable oxygen concentrator, comprising:
wherein the compressor (14, Figure 3) comprises an electric motor configured to drive into rotation said pumping assembly at a variable speed (Paragraph [0157]); and
the electronic control device comprising an electronic control unit (22, Figure 2, the controller is the electronic control unit) which controls the rotation speed of said electric motor and is configured to vary said rotation speed based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor (Paragraph [0162], the oxygen sensor measures the purity of oxygen which will change the rotation speed to obtain a new pressure in the reservoir).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huebner, Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Ghiotto to include the compressor comprises an electric motor configured to drive into rotation said pumping assembly at a variable speed and the electronic control device comprising an electronic control unit which controls the rotation speed of said electric motor and is configured to vary said rotation speed based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor by Bliss with the motivation to be able to change the pressure in the reservoir to compensate for the purity levels of the oxygen.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner in view of Ghiotto in further view of Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Wetzel (DE 102010003507 A1).
Regarding Claim 15:
Huebner discloses:
the low-pressure compressor (225, Figure 2) feeds an airflow at inlet (104, Figure 1) of the molecular separator (102, Figure 1).
Huebner, Mittricker, Delp, and Ghiotto do not teach:
wherein said machine moreover comprises at least one pressure sensor, configured to measure the air pressure inside the molecular separator;
the electronic control device being also connected to said at least one pressure sensor, and being configured to regulate the flowrate of the air flow that the low-pressure compressor feeds at an the at least one inlet also based on the signals coming from said at least one pressure sensor.
Ungerank teaches:
The speed of the compressor is controlled by the controller which regulates the flowrate of the gas and the composition (Paragraph [0078]).
Huebner, Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Ghiotto do not teach:
wherein said machine moreover comprises at least one pressure sensor, which is configured to measure the air pressure inside the molecular separator;
the electronic control device being also connected to said at least one pressure sensor, and being configured to regulate the flowrate of the airflow that the low-pressure compressor feeds at an the at least one inlet also based on the signals coming from said at least one pressure sensor.
Wetzel teaches a gas-permeation system, comprising:
wherein said machine moreover comprises at least one pressure sensor (36 and 46, Figure 1), which is configured to measure the air pressure inside the molecular separator (16, Figure 1);
the electronic control device being also connected to said at least one pressure sensor (Paragraph [0038], an electronic control device is connected to said at least one pressure sensor), and being configured to operate the compressor that feeds at an the at least one inlet also based on the signals coming from said at least one pressure sensor (Paragraph [0035], the compressor is operated based on the pressure to provide to the separator).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huebner, Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Ghiotto to include said machine moreover comprises at least one pressure sensor, which is configured to measure the air pressure inside the molecular separator and the electronic control device being also connected to said at least one pressure sensor, and being configured to operate the compressor that feeds at an the at least one inlet also based on the signals coming from said at least one pressure sensor as taught by Wetzel with the motivation to maintain a high degree of purity of gas being dispensed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18605885 in view of Ghiotto (US 20180094628 A1) in further view of Ungerank (US 20150336046 A1), Mittricker (US 20110300493 A1), and Delp (US 5846291 A).
Copending Application No. 18605885 discloses a Nitrox-mixture production machine, comprising:
a molecular separator having at least one inlet configured to receive a flow of air and at least one outlet configured to provide an intermediate Nitrox mixture with a high oxygen percentage, a low-pressure compressor to feed the at least one inlet of the molecular separator, a mixing manifold in communication with the molecular separator to receive and mix said intermediate Nitrox mixture with ambient air, a final Nitrox mixture with a predefined composition at the outlet of the mixing manifold, at least one oxygen sensor, and regulating the flow rate of the low-pressure compressor based on the signals from the at least one oxygen sensor.
Copending Application No. 18605885 does not disclose:
an electronic control device connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and is configured to regulate a flow rate of the air that the low-pressure compressor feeds at the at least one inlet based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor;
wherein said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor and comprises:
an electronically controlled valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the low pressure compressor and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor; and
an electronic control unit connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and configured to command the electronically controlled valve assembly according to the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Ghiotto teaches an apparatus for feeding gas mixtures, comprising:
an electronic control device (35, Figure 1) connected to said at least one oxygen sensor (31 and 32, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify copending Application No. 18605885 to include an electronic control device connected to said at least one oxygen sensor as taught by Ghiotto with the motivation to electronically control the system to reduce human error if an operator where to make the mixture manually.
Copending Application No. 18605885 and Ghiotto do not teach:
an electronic control device is configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the low-pressure compressor; and
wherein said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor and comprises:
an electronically controlled valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the low pressure compressor and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor; and
an electronic control unit connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and configured to command the electronically controlled valve assembly according to the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Ungerank teaches a control of gas composition, comprising:
an electronic control device is configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the compressor (Paragraphs [0077-0078], the controller controls the speed of the compressor (4) to control the flow of the gas).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify copending Application No. 18605885 and Ghiotto to include an electronic control device is configured to regulate the flowrate of the air that the compressor as taught by Ungerank with the motivation to control the amount of gas that is moved through the compressor to ensure the required fill level is met in the containers.
Copending Application No. 18605885, Ungerank, and Ghiotto do not teach:
wherein said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor and comprises:
an electronically controlled valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the low pressure compressor and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor; and
an electronic control unit connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and configured to command the electronically controlled valve assembly according to the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Mittricker teaches a system for controlling the products of combustion, comprising:
wherein said electronic control device (Paragraph [0034], the flow controllers (116a, 116b, 118, and 120) and the central controller (115) are the electronic control device) is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the expander (Paragraph [0034], the flow is controlled to the expander(111)) and comprises:
an electronically controlled valve assembly (Figure 1A, the electronically-controlled valve assembly are the valves connected to the electronic control device), located upstream of a suction of the expander (111, Figure 1A) and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the expander (Paragraph [0034]); and
an electronic control unit (115, 118, and 120, Figure 1A) connected to said at least one oxygen sensor (126, Figure 1A) and is configured to command the electronically controlled valve assembly according to the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor (Paragraph [0038], the electronically-controlled valve assembly is controlled based on the oxygen sensor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify copending Application No. 18605885, Ungerank, and Ghiotto to include said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the expander, an electronically controlled valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the expander and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the expander, and an electronic control unit connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and is configured to command the electronically controlled valve assembly according to the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor as taught by Mittricker with the motivation to ensure the proper ratio is obtained to have enough oxygen.
Copending Application No. 18605885 , Ungerack, Mittricker, and Ghiotto do not teach:
wherein said electronic control device is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor and comprises:
an electronically controlled valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the low pressure compressor and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low pressure compressor; and
an electronic control unit connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and configured to command the electronically controlled valve assembly according to the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Delp teaches an oxygen enriched air generation system, comprising:
the system is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the compressor (Column 5, Lines 9-21, the flow control valve (94) regulates the flow rate of the air sucked by the compressor (80)) and comprises:
a valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the compressor and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the compressor (Column 5, Lines 9-21, the flow control valve (94) is upstream of the compressor and regulates the flow rate of the air sucked by the compressor (80)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify copending Application No. 18605885, Ungerank, Mittricker, and Ghiotto to include the system is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the compressor and a valve assembly located upstream of a suction of the compressor and is configured to regulate the flow rate of the air sucked in by the compressor as taught by Delp with the motivation to ensure enough air is provided to compressor to prevent potential damage to the compressor due to instability.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18605885 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require said valve assembly comprises a control valve located upstream of the suction of the low-pressure compressor; an electronically-controlled driving device configured to move the shutter of said control valve in order to vary the flow rate of the air sucked in by the low-pressure compressor, and the electronic control unit is configured to command said driving device.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18605885 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the electronically-controlled driving device, a pneumatic actuator to move/displace the shutter of the control valve, the pressurized air source, an electrically-operated pressure reducer which controls the pressure of the air that reaches the pneumatic actuator and is commanded by said electronic control unit.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18605885 in view of Ghiotto (US 20180094628 A1) in further view of Ungerank (US 20150336046 A1) and Wetzel (DE102010003507 A1).
Copending Application No. 18605885 discloses a Nitrox-mixture production machine, comprising:
said machine moreover comprises at least one pressure sensor configured to measure the air pressure inside the molecular separator and being configured to regulate the flowrate of the air flow that the low-pressure compressor feeds at the at least one inlet also based on the signals coming from said at least one pressure sensor.
Copending Application No. 18605885, Ghiotto, Mittricker, Delp, and Ungerank does not disclose:
The electronic control device being also connected to said at least on pressure sensor.
Wetzel teaches a gas-permeation system, comprising:
wherein said machine moreover comprises at least one pressure sensor (36 and 46, Figure 1) configured to measure the air pressure inside the molecular separator (16, Figure 1);
the electronic control device being also connected to said at least one pressure sensor (Paragraph [0038], an electronic control device is connected to said at least one pressure sensor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify copending Application No. 18605885, Ungerank, Mittricker, Delp, and Ghiotto to include said machine moreover comprises at least one pressure sensor configured to measure the air pressure inside the molecular separator and the electronic control device being also connected to said at least one pressure sensor as taught by Wetzel with the motivation to maintain a high degree of purity of gas being dispensed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 18605885 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the a high-pressure compressor configured for sucking in air or another gaseous mixture at ambient pressure and for providing at an outlet a flow of high-pressure air or other gaseous mixture to be supplied at an inlet of one or more scuba diving cylinders; and a Nitrox-mixtures production machine located upstream of said high-pressure compressor and is configured to feed a Nitrox mixture with predefined composition at inlet of said high-pressure compressor.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: The closest pieces of prior art are Huebner (US 20050066814 A1) in view of Ghiotto (US 20180094628 A1) in further view of Ungerank (US 20150336046 A1), Mittricker (US 20110300493 A1), Delp (US 5846291 A), and Ramseyer (US 20160348620 A1).
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim 7 is dependent on independent claim 1. Huebner, Ghiotto, Ungerank, Mittricker and Delp teach the limitations seen in claim for the Nitrox-mixture production machine.
Ramseyer teaches an assembly including a heat engine comprising:
wherein said valve assembly (24) comprises:
a control valve (8, Figure 1) located upstream of the suction of the low-pressure compressor (Paragraph [0051], the control valve is upstream of the compressor); and
the shutter of said control valve varies the flow rate of the air (Paragraph [0050]);
the electronic control unit is configured to command said driving device (Paragraph [0050]).
The limitation of the electronically-controlled driving device seen in lines 5-7 of the claim in view of all other limitations of claims 1 and 7 are not found in the prior art. Additionally, if any reference were to be further added it would lead to hindsight.
Claims 8-9 are also objected to as they are dependent on claim 7.
However, a full determination of allowability will be made once the objections, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-4 and 10-16 as well as the double patenting rejection are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wells (US 4860803 A) teaches a continuous nitrox mixer comprising a compressor, fresh air, and a mixing manifold.
Cowell (US 5992464 A) teaches a pre-compression nitrox in-line blender comprising a mixing manifold, a cylinder, and an oxygen sensor.
Murdoch (US 6395065 B1) teaches a gas system comprising an electronic control device, oxygen sensor, a compressor, and controlling the air flow to the compressor with a valve.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES whose telephone number is (571)272-5373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753