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.
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 shutter of the control valve of claims 1-2, 8, 11-13 and 15 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is currently at 187 words when the abstract length should be within the range of 50-150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 should be revised to include line indentations which separate structural elements, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.75(i).
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout the claims, “the same” should be amended to “said”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, a comma needs to be placed in front of “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 1-2, “programmed/configured” should be amended to --configured--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 1-2, “programmed/configured” should be amended to --configured--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 2-3, “0,5 bar” should be amended to –0.5 bar--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 9, “regulate/vary” should be amended to –regulate--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 25, “the moveable shutter” should be –a moveable shutter--.
Line 26, “corrected/varied” should be amended to –varied--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, “the step of determining” should be amended to –a step of determining--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "according to Claim 7" in lines 1-2. The pressure reducer is introduced in claim 8. It is unclear if claim 9 is intended to depend from claim 7 as part of the feedback control or claim 8 that first introduces the pressure reducer. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as dependent on claim 8.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner (US 20050066814 A1) in view of Barnhard (US 5989312 A) in further view of Wetzel (DE 102010003507 A1), Delp (US 5846291 A), and Comte (US 4877056 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), which is structured so as to receive at inlet an airflow (Paragraphs [0022-0023], the air is provided at an inlet (104) of the molecular separator) and to provide at outlet (108, Figure 1) 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), which is adapted to supply an airflow at inlet (104, Figure 1) of the molecular separator (102, 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 structured so as to mix the intermediate Nitrox mixture with fresh air coming from the outside, in order to provide at outlet a final Nitrox mixture with predefined composition (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 (112, Figure 2) that outputs a signal indicative of the percentage of oxygen present in said final Nitrox mixture (Paragraph [0025]);
said Nitrox-mixtures production machine regulates 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:
a control valve which is located upstream of the low-pressure compressor and is adapted to regulate the flowrate of the airflow at inlet of the same low-pressure compressor;
said Nitrox-mixtures production machine being characterized by additionally comprising:
at least one pressure sensor that outputs a signal indicative of the pressure of the air in the molecular separator;
an electronically-controlled driving device which is adapted to move/shift, on command, the movable shutter of said control valve so as to vary the flow rate of the airflow sucked by the low-pressure compressor; and
an electronic control unit, which is connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and to said at least one pressure sensor, and is configured so as to command said electronically-controlled driving device as a function of the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor and from said at least one pressure sensor.
Barnhard teaches a membrane control system and process, comprising:
a control valve with an electronically-controlled driving device (34, Figure 2, the compressor governor is a suction throttle valve is the control valve with an electronically-controlled driving device) connected to the compressor (32, Figure 2);
an electronic control unit (62, Figure 2), which is connected to said at least one oxygen sensor (94, Figure 2 and Column 6, Lines 45-50) and to said at least one pressure sensor (92, Figure 2), and is configured so as to command said electronically-controlled driving device as a function of the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor and from said at least one pressure sensor (Column 5, Lines 35-49, the feedback from the pressure and oxygen sensor controls the electronically-controlled driving device (34) of the control valve).
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 a control valve with an electronically-controlled driving device connected to the compressor and an electronic control unit, which is connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and to said at least one pressure sensor, and is configured so as to command said electronically-controlled driving device as a function of the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor and from said at least one pressure sensor as taught by Barnhard with the motivation to change the process parameters to obtain the desired temperature and product flow rates.
Huebner and Barnhard do not teach:
a control valve located upstream of the compressor;
said Nitrox-mixtures production machine being characterized by additionally comprising:
at least one pressure sensor that outputs a signal indicative of the pressure of the air in the molecular separator;
an electronically-controlled driving device which is adapted to move/shift, on command, the movable shutter of said control valve so as to vary the flow rate of the airflow sucked by the low-pressure compressor.
Wetzel teaches a gas-permeation system, comprising:
at least one pressure sensor (36 and 46, Figure 1) that outputs a signal indicative of the pressure of the air in the molecular separator (16, Figure 1); and
an electronic control unit, which is 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 adapted to operate the compressor that feeds at inlet of the molecular separator 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 and Barnhard to include at least one pressure sensor that outputs a signal indicative of the pressure of the air in the molecular separator, an electronic control unit, which is connected to said at least one pressure sensor, and being adapted to operate the compressor that feeds at inlet of the molecular separator 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.
Huebner, Wetzel, and Barnhard do not teach:
a control valve located upstream of the compressor;
said Nitrox-mixtures production machine being characterized by additionally comprising:
an electronically-controlled driving device which is adapted to move/shift, on command, the movable shutter of said control valve so as to vary the flow rate of the airflow sucked by the low-pressure compressor.
Delp teaches an oxygen enriched air generation system, comprising:
a control valve located upstream of the compressor and is adapted to regulate the flowrate 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, Barnhard, and Wetzel to include a control valve located upstream of the compressor and is adapted to regulate the flowrate of the air sucked in by the compressor as taught by Delp with the motivation to ensure enough air is provided to compressor to meet the demand for filling.
Huebner, Wetzel, Delp, and Barnhard do not teach:
said Nitrox-mixtures production machine being characterized by additionally comprising:
an electronically-controlled driving device which is adapted to move/shift, on command, the movable shutter of said control valve so as to vary the flow rate of the airflow sucked by the low-pressure compressor.
Comte teaches a digital valve, comprising:
an electronically-controlled driving device (68 and 64, Figure 1, the electrically controlled valve and the pneumatic actuator are the electronically-controlled driving device) which is adapted to move/shift, on command, the movable shutter (46, Figure 1) of said control valve (Figure 1, the control valve is the system seen in the Figure).
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, Barnhard, Delp, and Wetzel to include an electronically-controlled driving device which is adapted to move/shift, on command, the movable shutter of said control valve as taught by Comte with the motivation to precisely control the airflow while reducing the cost of the system.
Through the combination of Huebner, Wetzel, Delp, Barnhard, and Comte, the control valve of Delp and Barnhard would control the flow rate of the airflow sucked by the low-pressure compressor of Huebner where the control valve would contain the electronically-controlled driving device of Comte.
Regarding Claim 2:
Huebner discloses:
at least one oxygen sensor (112, Figure 2) that outputs a signal indicative of the percentage of oxygen present in said final Nitrox mixture (Paragraph [0025]).
Huebner, Wetzel, and Delp do not teach:
wherein said electronic control unit is programmed/ configured so as to vary the position of the movable shutter of the control valve implementing a feedback control based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Barnhard teaches:
wherein said electronic control unit (62, Figure 2) is programmed/ configured so as to adjust the control valve (34, Figure 2) implementing a feedback control based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor (Column 5, Lines 35-49, the feedback from the pressure and oxygen sensor controls the electronically-controlled driving device of the control valve).
Huebner, Delp, Wetzel, and Barnhard do not teach:
wherein said electronic control unit is programmed/ configured so as to vary the position of the movable shutter of the control valve.
Comte teaches:
wherein said electronic control unit (70, Figure 1) is programmed/ configured so as to vary the position (Column 5, Lines 32-41) of the movable shutter (46, Figure 1) of the control valve.
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, Barnhard, Delp, and Wetzel to include said electronic control unit is programmed/ configured so as to vary the position of the movable shutter of the control valve as taught by Comte with the motivation to reduce the potential of human error to ensure the correct flow rate is being dispensed.
Regarding Claim 3:
Huebner discloses:
at least one oxygen sensor (112, Figure 2) and the molecular separator (102, Figure 1).
Huebner, Wetzel, Comte, and Delp do not teach:
wherein said electronic control unit is programmed/ configured so as to actuate said feedback control based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor, when the trend of the air pressure inside the molecular separator meets a given stable-pressure condition indicative of a trend stable over time of the air pressure inside said molecular separator.
Barnhard teaches:
wherein said electronic control unit (62, Figure 2) is programmed/ configured so as to actuate said feedback control based on the signals (Column 5, Lines 35-49) coming from said at least one oxygen sensor (94, Figure 2), when the trend of the air pressure inside the molecular separator (46, Figure 2) meets a given stable-pressure condition indicative of a trend stable over time of the air pressure inside said molecular separator (Column 7, Lines 14-22, the steady state conditions is the stable-pressure condition that must be constant for an hour).
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, Comte, Delp, and Wetzel to include said electronic control unit is programmed/ configured so as to actuate said feedback control based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor, when the trend of the air pressure inside the molecular separator meets a given stable-pressure condition indicative of a trend stable over time of the air pressure inside said molecular separator as taught by Barnhard with the motivation to adjust the process to ensure the gas is within specification.
Additionally, claim 3 uses the term “when” which is considered a contingent limitation where for an apparatus the structure must be present to perform the function should the condition occurs (See MPEP 2111.04).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner in view of Barnhard in further view of Wetzel, Delp, Comte, and Ghiotto (US 20180094628 A1).
Regarding Claim 17:
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) which is structured for sucking in air or other gaseous mixture at ambient pressure and for providing at 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 inlet of one or more scuba diving cylinders (290 and 295, Figure 2); and
a Nitrox-mixtures production machine (Figure 2) which is located upstream of said high-pressure compressor (265, Figure 2) and is adapted to supply a Nitrox mixture with a predefined composition at inlet of the same high-pressure compressor (Paragraphs [0025-0026], the predefined composition is fed to the high-pressure compressor).
Huebner, Barnhard, Wetzel, Comte, and Delp do not teach:
Scuba-diving cylinders refilling equipment comprising:
a high-pressure compressor which is structured for sucking in air or other gaseous mixture at ambient pressure and for providing at outlet a flow of high-pressure air or other gaseous mixture to be supplied at inlet of one or more scuba diving cylinders; and
a Nitrox-mixtures production machine which is located upstream of said high-pressure compressor and is adapted to supply a Nitrox mixture with a predefined composition at inlet of the same high-pressure compressor;
said Scuba-diving cylinders refilling equipment being characterized in that said Nitrox-mixtures production machine is realized according to Claim 1.
Ghiotto teaches an apparatus for feeding gas mixtures, comprising:
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) which is structured for sucking in air or other gaseous mixture at ambient pressure and for providing at outlet a flow of high-pressure air or other gaseous mixture to be supplied at 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) which is located upstream of said high-pressure compressor (2, Figure 1) and is adapted to supply a Nitrox mixture with a predefined composition at inlet of the same 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, Barnhard, Wetzel, Comte, and Delp to include scuba-diving cylinders, a high-pressure compressor which is structured for sucking in air or other gaseous mixture at ambient pressure and for providing at outlet a flow of high-pressure air or other gaseous mixture to be supplied at inlet of one or more scuba diving cylinders, and a Nitrox-mixtures production machine which is located upstream of said high-pressure compressor and is adapted to supply a Nitrox mixture with a predefined composition at inlet of the same 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.
Claims 11 and 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner (US 20050066814 A1) in view of Mittricker (US 20110300493 A1) in further view of Delp (US 5846291 A), Barnhard (US 5989312 A), and Comte (US 4877056 A).
Regarding Claim 11:
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), which is structured so as to receive at inlet an airflow (Paragraphs [0022-0023], the air is provided at an inlet (104) of the molecular separator) and to provide at outlet (108, Figure 1) 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), which is adapted to supply an airflow at inlet (104, Figure 1) of the molecular separator (102, 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 structured so as to mix the intermediate Nitrox mixture with fresh air coming from the outside, in order to provide at outlet a final Nitrox mixture with predefined composition (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 (112, Figure 2) that outputs a signal indicative of the percentage of oxygen present in said final Nitrox mixture (Paragraph [0025]).
Huebner does not disclose:
a control valve which is located upstream of the low-pressure compressor and is adapted to regulate the flow rate of the airflow at inlet of the same low-pressure compressor;
the operating method being characterized by comprising:
a step of pressure monitoring, wherein the pressure of the air inside said molecular separator is monitored so as to determine when the trend of the air pressure in the molecular separator meets a given stable-pressure condition that is indicative of a trend stable over time of the air pressure inside said molecular separator; and
a subsequent step of feedback control, wherein the position of the movable shutter of the control valve is corrected/ varied as a function of the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Mittricker teaches a system for controlling the products of combustion, comprising:
a control valve (Figure 1A, the valves are a control valve) which is located upstream of the expander (111, Figure 1A) and is adapted to regulate the flowrate of the airflow at inlet of the same expander (Paragraph [0034]);
an electronic control unit (115, 118, and 120, Figure 1A), which is connected to said at least one oxygen sensor (126, Figure 1A), and provides the feedback control to said control valve as a function of 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 to include said a control valve which is located upstream of the expander and is adapted to regulate the flowrate of the airflow at inlet of the expander and an electronic control unit, which is connected to said at least one oxygen sensor, and provides the feedback control to said control valve as a function of 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 and Mittricker do not teach:
a control valve which is located upstream of the low-pressure compressor and is adapted to regulate the flow rate of the airflow at inlet of the same low-pressure compressor;
the operating method being characterized by comprising:
a step of pressure monitoring, wherein the pressure of the air inside said molecular separator is monitored so as to determine when the trend of the air pressure in the molecular separator meets a given stable-pressure condition that is indicative of a trend stable over time of the air pressure inside said molecular separator; and
a subsequent step of feedback control, wherein the position of the movable shutter of the control valve is corrected/ varied as a function of the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Delp teaches an oxygen enriched air generation system, comprising:
a control valve which is located upstream of the compressor and is adapted to regulate the flow rate of the airflow at inlet of the same 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 and Mittricker to include a control valve which is located upstream of the compressor and is adapted to regulate the flow rate of the airflow at inlet of the same compressor as taught by Delp with the motivation to ensure enough air is provided to compressor to meet the demand for filling.
Huebner, Delp, and Mittricker do not teach:
the operating method being characterized by comprising:
a step of pressure monitoring, wherein the pressure of the air inside said molecular separator is monitored so as to determine when the trend of the air pressure in the molecular separator meets a given stable-pressure condition that is indicative of a trend stable over time of the air pressure inside said molecular separator; and
a subsequent step of feedback control, wherein the position of the movable shutter of the control valve is corrected/ varied as a function of the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Barnhard teaches a membrane control system, comprising:
the operating method being characterized by comprising:
a step of pressure monitoring, wherein the pressure of the air inside said molecular separator (46, Figure 2) is monitored so as to determine when the trend of the air pressure in the molecular separator meets a given stable-pressure condition that is indicative of a trend stable over time of the air pressure inside said molecular separator (Column 6, Lines 37-46 and Column 7, Lines 15-23, the steady state is the stable-pressure condition inside of the molecular separator); and
a subsequent step of feedback control, wherein the control valve (4, Figure 2, the compressor governor is a suction throttle valve is the control) is corrected/ varied as a function of the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor (Column 5, Lines 35-49, the feedback from the oxygen sensor controls the control valve).
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, Delp, and Mittricker to include a step of pressure monitoring, wherein the pressure of the air inside said molecular separator is monitored so as to determine when the trend of the air pressure in the molecular separator meets a given stable-pressure condition that is indicative of a trend stable over time of the air pressure inside said molecular separator and a subsequent step of feedback control, wherein the control valve is corrected/ varied as a function of the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor as taught by Barnhard with the motivation to increase the capacity of the molecular separator while not increasing costs to boost production efficiency.
Huebner, Delp, Barnhard, and Mittricker do not teach:
the operating method being characterized by comprising:
a subsequent step of feedback control, wherein the position of the movable shutter of the control valve is corrected/ varied as a function of the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor.
Comte teaches a digital valve, comprising:
wherein the position of the movable shutter (46, Figure 1) of the control valve (Figure 1, the control valve is the system seen in the Figure) is corrected/ varied (Column 5, Lines 32-41).
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, Barnhard, Delp, and Mittricker to include the position of the movable shutter of the control valve is corrected/ varied as taught by Comte with the motivation to precisely control the airflow while reducing the cost of the system.
Through the combination of Huebner, Mittricker, Delp, Barnhard, and Comte, the control valve of Comte when implemented in Huebner would have the moveable shutter moved with feedback control as a function of the signals as seen in Mittricker and Barnhard.
Regarding Claim 15:
Huebner discloses:
at least one oxygen sensor (112, Figure 2) and the molecular separator (102, Figure 1).
Huebner, Mittricker, and Delp do not teach:
wherein the position of the movable shutter of the control valve is controlled by a pneumatic actuator, and the step of feedback control includes varying the pressure of the air supplied at inlet of said pneumatic actuator.
Barnhard teaches:
the step of feedback control (Column 5, Lines 35-49, the feedback from the oxygen sensor controls the electronically-controlled driving device of the control valve).
Huebner, Delp, Mittricker, and Barnhard do not teach:
wherein the position of the movable shutter of the control valve is controlled by a pneumatic actuator, and the step of feedback control includes varying the pressure of the air supplied at inlet of said pneumatic actuator.
Comte teaches:
wherein the position of the movable shutter (46, Figure 1) of the control valve is controlled by a pneumatic actuator (64, Figure 1), and the electronic control unit (70, Figure 1) is programmed/ configured so as to vary the pressure of the air supplied at inlet of said pneumatic actuator (Column 5, Lines 32-41).
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, Barnhard, Delp, and Mittricker to include the position of the movable shutter of the control valve is controlled by a pneumatic actuator, and the electronic control unit is programmed/ configured so as to vary the pressure of the air supplied at inlet of said pneumatic actuator as taught by Comte with the motivation to reduce the potential of human error to ensure the correct flow rate is being dispensed.
Regarding Claim 16:
Huebner discloses:
at least one oxygen sensor (112, Figure 2) and the molecular separator (102, Figure 1).
Huebner, Mittricker, Comte, and Delp do not teach:
wherein said stable-pressure condition is met when the variations over time of the value of the air pressure inside said molecular separator remain within a predetermined tolerance range.
Barnhard teaches:
said stable-pressure condition is met when the variations over time of the value of the air pressure inside said molecular separator (46, Figure 2) remain constant (Column 7, Lines 14-22, the steady state conditions is the stable-pressure condition that must be constant for an hour).
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, Comte, Delp, and Mittricker to include said electronic control unit is programmed/ configured so as to actuate said feedback control based on the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor, when the trend of the air pressure inside the molecular separator meets a given stable-pressure condition indicative of a trend stable over time of the air pressure inside said molecular separator as taught by Barnhard with the motivation to adjust the process to ensure the gas is within specification.
Additionally, claim 16 uses the term “when” which is considered a contingent limitation where for a process contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition of the stable-pressure condition precedent are not met (See MPEP 2111.04).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebner in view of Mittricker in further view of Delp, Barnhard, Comte, and Ghiotto (US 20180094628 A1).
Regarding Claim 18:
See claim 11 rejection above for the operation of 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) which is structured for sucking in air or other gaseous mixture at ambient pressure and for providing at 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 inlet of one or more scuba diving cylinders (290 and 295, Figure 2); and
a Nitrox-mixtures production machine (Figure 2) which is located upstream of said high-pressure compressor (265, Figure 2) and is adapted to supply a Nitrox mixture with a predefined composition at inlet of the same high-pressure compressor (Paragraphs [0025-0026], the predefined composition is fed to the high-pressure compressor).
Huebner, Barnhard, Wetzel, Comte, and Delp do not teach:
Scuba-diving cylinders refilling equipment comprising:
a high-pressure compressor which is structured for sucking in air or other gaseous mixture at ambient pressure and for providing at outlet a flow of high-pressure air or other gaseous mixture to be supplied at inlet of one or more scuba diving cylinders; and
a Nitrox-mixtures production machine which is located upstream of said high-pressure compressor and is adapted to supply a Nitrox mixture with a predefined composition at inlet of the same high-pressure compressor;
said Scuba-diving cylinders refilling equipment being characterized in that said Nitrox-mixtures production machine operates according to Claim 11.
Ghiotto teaches an apparatus for feeding gas mixtures, comprising:
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) which is structured for sucking in air or other gaseous mixture at ambient pressure and for providing at outlet a flow of high-pressure air or other gaseous mixture to be supplied at 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) which is located upstream of said high-pressure compressor (2, Figure 1) and is adapted to supply a Nitrox mixture with a predefined composition at inlet of the same 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, Barnhard, Wetzel, Comte, and Delp to include scuba-diving cylinders, a high-pressure compressor which is structured for sucking in air or other gaseous mixture at ambient pressure and for providing at outlet a flow of high-pressure air or other gaseous mixture to be supplied at inlet of one or more scuba diving cylinders, and a Nitrox-mixtures production machine which is located upstream of said high-pressure compressor and is adapted to supply a Nitrox mixture with a predefined composition at inlet of the same 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.
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 7 of copending Application No. 18605883 in view of Wetzel (DE 102010003507 A1).
Copending Application No. 18605883 discloses a Nitrox-mixtures production machine, comprising:
a molecular separator receiving an airflow at an inlet, an intermediate Nitrox mixture with a high oxygen percentage at the outlet, a low-pressure compressor, a mixing manifold that communicates with the molecular separator structured so as to mix the intermediate Nitrox mixture with fresh air coming from the outside in order to provide at outlet a final Nitrox mixture with predefined composition, at least one oxygen sensor that outputs a signal indictive of the percentage oxygen present in said final mixture, a control valve upstream of the suction of the low-pressure compressor, the control valve regulates the flow rate, the electronically-controlled driving device moving the shutter, and an electronic control unit.
Copending Application No. 18605883 does not disclose:
at least one pressure sensor that outputs a signal indicative of the pressure of the air in the molecular separator; and
an electronic control unit, which is connected to said at least one oxygen sensor and to said at least one pressure sensor, and is configured so as to command said electronically-controlled driving device as a function of the signals coming from said at least one oxygen sensor and from said at least one pressure sensor.
Wetzel teaches a gas-permeation system, comprising:
at least one pressure sensor (36 and 46, Figure 1) that outputs a signal indicative of the pressure of the air in the molecular separator (16, Figure 1); and
an electronic control unit, which is 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 adapted to operate the compressor that feeds at inlet of the molecular separator 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 Copending Application No. 18605883 to include at least one pressure sensor that outputs a signal indicative of the pressure of the air in the molecular separator, an electronic control unit, which is connected to said at least one pressure sensor, and being adapted to operate the compressor that feeds at inlet of the molecular separator 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.
Through the combination of Copending Application No. 18605883 and Wetzel, the electronic control device would receive signals coming from both the oxygen and pressure sensors where the electronic control device can control the shutter of the control valve.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18605883 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require a pneumatic actuator which is adapted to vary the position of the moveable shutter of the control valve and an electronically-controlled pressure reducer which regulates the pressure of the gas directed to the pneumatic actuator.
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 9 of copending Application No. 18605883 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the electrionic control unit to command the pressure reducer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 18605883 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims requires scuba-diving cylinders refilling equipment, a high-pressure compressor, one or more scuba diving cylinders, a Nitrox-mixtures production machine located upstream of the high-pressure compressor, and the Nitrox-mixtures production machine adapted to supply a Nitrox mixture with a predefined composition at the inlet of the 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 4-9 and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest pieces of prior art are Huebner (US 20050066814 A1) in view of Barnhard (US 5989312 A) in further view of Wetzel (DE 102010003507 A1), Delp (US 5846291 A), and Comte (US 4877056 A).
Regarding Claim 4:
Claim 4 contains the limitation “a predetermined range” in the last two lines of the claim. Barnhard does teach that the stable-pressure condition occurs when the measurements are constant for an hour. However, the prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the predetermined range in view of all other limitations of claims 1-4. Additionally, if any other reference were to be found, it would further modify the secondary references.
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent on claim 4.
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim 7 contains the limitation “a predetermined minimum threshold” in the last line of the claim. Barnhard does teach that the stable-pressure condition occurs when the measurements are constant for an hour. However, the prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the predetermined minimum threshold in view of all other limitations of claims 1-3 and 7. Additionally, if any other reference were to be found, it would further modify the secondary references.
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 contains the limitation “an electronically-controlled pressure reducer” in lines 6-7. The prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the electronically-controlled pressure reducer in view of all other limitations of claim 1. Additionally, if any other reference were to be found, it would further modify the control valve of the secondary references of Delp, Barnhard, and Comte.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being unclear on its dependency. Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent on claim 8.
The closest pieces of prior art are Huebner (US 20050066814 A1) in view of Mittricker (US 20110300493 A1) in further view of Delp (US 5846291 A), Barnhard (US 5989312 A), and Comte (US 4877056 A).
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 contains the limitation “a step of determining an optimal position” in lines 3-4. The prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the step of determining an optimal position in view of all other limitations of claim 11. Additionally, if any other reference were to be found, it would further modify the secondary references, in particular Barnhard.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent on claim 12.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 contains the limitation “a step of checking and, if necessary, updating” in lines 3-4. The prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the step of determining an optimal position in view of all other limitations of claim 11. Additionally, if any other reference were to be found, it would further modify the secondary references, in particular Barnhard.
However, the rejections and objections of the claims need to be overcome in order to allow for a full determination of allowability.
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.
Grubb (US 6827084 B2) teaches an automatic gas blender comprising a sensor, an inlet, a mixing manifold, and an electronic control device.
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
Prosecution Insights