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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase of “the gas composition adjustment apparatus being configured to perform a pressurization operation in which the supply pump pressurizes the gas to be treated and supplies the gas pressurized to the adsorber, and the gas flowing out from the adsorber is sent out as a first gas, and a depressurization operation in which the discharge pump sucks a gas from the adsorber and discharges the sucked gas, and the gas discharged from the discharge pump is sent out as a second gas”, “during operation of the supply pump and the discharge pump, an average gas pressure acting on the supply-side sealing member being higher than an average gas pressure acting on the discharge-side sealing member, and a temperature of the supply-side sealing member being higher than a temperature of the discharge-side sealing member”, “thereby allowing an amount of thermal expansion of the supply-side sealing member during operation of the supply pump to become closer to an amount of thermal expansion of the discharge-side sealing member during operation of the discharge pump” and “thereby allowing an amount of deformation, due to gas pressure, of the supply-side sealing member during operation of the supply pump to become closer to an amount of deformation, due to gas pressure, of the discharge-side sealing member during operation of the discharge pump” is understood as being directed to and further reciting the purpose, operations, operation conditions, functional/result-oriented explanations of the preceding structural property limitations or intended use of the claimed invention which does not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claimed invention, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
Therefore, the at least claim 1 has been interpreted as follows:
“A gas composition adjustment apparatus comprising: an adsorber containing an adsorbent that adsorbs at least one of components of a gas to be treated; a supply pump configured to supply the gas to be treated to the adsorber; and a discharge pump configured to suck a gas from the adsorber, each of the supply pump and the discharge pump being a positive displacement pump including a cylinder; a piston housed in the cylinder; and a sealing member attached to the piston to seal a gap between the cylinder and the piston, the sealing member included in the supply pump being a supply-side sealing member, the sealing member included in the discharge pump being a discharge-side sealing member, the discharge-side sealing member of the discharge pump containing a fluororesin and a fibrous carbon material as main components, the supply-side sealing member containing a fluororesin and a particulate carbon material as main components, the supply-side sealing member having a linear expansion coefficient smaller than a linear expansion coefficient of the discharge-side sealing member, the supply-side sealing member having a Young's modulus higher than a Young's modulus of the discharge-side sealing member.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro (WO 2021021027; see English equivalent US 20220257895) in view of JP 2006-283643 (hereinafter JP ‘643) and JP H11270680 (hereinafter JP ‘680).
As regarding claim 1, Navarro discloses the claimed invention for a gas composition adjustment apparatus (fig. 4) comprising: an adsorber (740A, 740B) containing an adsorbent that adsorbs at least one of components of a gas to be treated; a supply pump (932A, 932B) configured to supply the gas to be treated to the adsorber; and a discharge pump (934A, 934B) configured to suck a gas from the adsorber, the gas composition adjustment apparatus (fig. 4) being configured to perform a pressurization operation in which the supply pump (932A, 932B) pressurizes the gas to be treated and supplies the gas pressurized to the adsorber, and the gas flowing out from the adsorber is sent out as a first gas (770 – O2 enriched air), and a depressurization operation in which the discharge pump (934A, 934B) sucks a gas from the adsorber and discharges the sucked gas, and the gas discharged from the discharge pump is sent out as a second gas (N2 enriched air), each of the supply pump and the discharge pump being a positive displacement pump including a cylinder; a piston housed in the cylinder ([0213]).
Navarro does not disclose a sealing member attached to the piston to seal a gap between the cylinder and the piston, the sealing member included in the supply pump being a supply-side sealing member, the sealing member included in the discharge pump being a discharge-side sealing member, during operation of the supply pump and the discharge pump, and the discharge-side sealing member containing a fluororesin and a fibrous carbon material as main components. JP ‘643 teaches a sealing member attached to the piston to seal a gap between the cylinder and the piston, the sealing member included in the supply pump being a supply-side sealing member, the sealing member included in the discharge pump being a discharge-side sealing member, during operation of the supply pump and the discharge pump, and the discharge-side sealing member containing a fluororesin and a fibrous carbon material as main components ([0037]-[0038]). Both Navarro and JP ‘643 are directed to a reciprocating compressor ([0004], [0037]-[0038]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a sealing member attached to the piston to seal a gap between the cylinder and the piston, the sealing member included in the supply pump being a supply-side sealing member, the sealing member included in the discharge pump being a discharge-side sealing member, during operation of the supply pump and the discharge pump, and the discharge-side sealing member containing a fluororesin and a fibrous carbon material as main components as taught by JP ‘643 in order to improve the sliding properties and heat resistance, provide low friction, excellent wear resistance, and good chemical and temperature stability, resulting in reliable sealing performance and longer service life in reciprocating compressors.
Also regarding claim 1, Navarro as modified does not disclose the supply-side sealing member containing a fluororesin and a particulate carbon material as main components. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the supply-side sealing member containing a fluororesin and a particulate carbon material as main components in order to enhance wear resistance, and good chemical and temperature stability, since it was known in the art as shown in JP ‘680 (abstract).
Navarro as modified does not disclose the supply-side sealing member having a linear expansion coefficient smaller than a linear expansion coefficient of the discharge-side sealing member, the supply-side sealing member having a Young's modulus higher than a Young's modulus of the discharge-side sealing member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the supply-side sealing member having a linear expansion coefficient smaller than a linear expansion coefficient of the discharge-side sealing member, the supply-side sealing member having a Young's modulus higher than a Young's modulus of the discharge-side sealing member in order to provide dimensional stability and compensation for different desired operating temperatures, since it has been obvious optimization of a known material property. The coefficient of the thermal expansion is an inherent and routinely considered property of polymer/filler sealing compositions. A person ordinary skill in the art selecting a sealing material for a piston-cylinder application would have recognized that the thermal expansion of the sealing member affects dimensional stability, sealing clearance, and sealing performance as temperature changes. Accordingly, where the supply-side and discharge-side sealing members are subjected to different operating temperatures, selecting respective compositions having different thermal expansion characteristics would have been withing the ordinary skill in the art. In particular, choosing the composition of the supply-side sealing member such that its coefficient of linear expansion is lower than that of the discharge-side sealing member represents no more than the optimization of a result-effective material property of the known fluororesin/carbon sealing compositions.
Similarly, Young’s modulus is a conventional measure of material stiffness, and the stiffness of a sealing member is a known consideration in designing piston-cylinder seals because the material’s resistance to deformation affects sealing performance, extrusion resistance, wear, and dimensional stability under pressure. JP ‘643 and JP ‘680 references already teach the use of different carbon reinforcement forms in fluororesin sealing compositions. It would have been within ordinary skill in the art to select the type, amount, and formulation of carbon reinforcement and fluororesin to obtain a desired combination of stiffness and thermal-expansion characteristics. Therefore, selecting a composition having a higher Young’s modulus for the supply-side sealing member, relative to the discharge-side sealing member, would have been a predictable optimization of a known material property, particularly where the supply-side sealing member is subjected to the higher operating pressure.
As regarding claim 5, Navarro as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Navarro as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the gas to be treated is atmospheric air ([0016], [0182]), the adsorbent in the adsorber adsorbs nitrogen which is a component of the gas to be treated, the first gas has a lower nitrogen concentration and a higher oxygen concentration as compared to the gas to be treated, the second gas has a higher nitrogen concentration and a lower oxygen concentration as compared to the gas to be treated ([0203]), and the gas composition adjustment apparatus is configured to perform an operation of supplying the second gas to a storage for storing a fresh product.
Claim 6 is likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth for claim 5 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the arguments focus on wear reduction, whereas the limitations at issue require particular relative thermal-expansion and stiffness properties, and do not require any particular degree of wear reduction.
Claim 1 expressly requires the opposite material arrangement: the discharge-side sealing member contains fluororesin and fibrous carbon material; and the supply-side sealing member contains flouroresin and particulate carbon material. Additionally, the claim requires that the supply-side sealing member having lower linear expansion coefficient and a higher Young’s modulus than the discharge-side sealing member. Accordingly, Applicant’s proposition that the claimed arrangement is contrary to a “common sense” expectation concerning wear reduction does not establish non-obviousness of the claim coefficient of linear thermal expansion (CTE) and Young’s-modulus relationships.
Applicant’s argues that Navarro, JP ‘643 and JP ‘680 would have expected “great wear reduction for higher pressure” does not undermine the rejection because it assumes that wear resistance is the controlling design objective. The claimed invention, however, expressly identifies other relevant operating conditions – namely pressure and temperature – and requires corresponding differences in stiffness and thermal expansion. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date designing piston-cylinder sealing members would reasonably consider multiple competing features, including wear resistance, thermal dimensional stability, stiffness, deformation under pressure, friction, and sealing performance. Optimizing one feature does not require maximizing every other feature. Accordingly, even if fibrous carbon were preferred wear reduction is the primary selection, that does not establish that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been taught away from using particulate carbon in the supply-side seal when other design considerations, such as stiffness and thermal expansion, are taken into account.
Applicant’s remark argues that neither JP ‘643 nor JP ‘680 teaches selecting the CTE and Young’s modulus “as specified in amended claim 1” is likewise not persuasive. The relevant inquiry is not whether a single reference literally states the precise claim language, but whether the claimed arrangement would have been obvious from the teachings of the Navarro, JP ‘643 and JP ‘680 and the ordinary knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan. The coefficient of linear thermal expansion and Young’s modulus are conventional, measurable properties of polymeric sealing compositions. A person of ordinary skilled in the art selecting a fluororesin sealing composition for a piston-cylinder application would have understood that filler type and composition affect the thermal expansion and mechanical stiffness of the resulting sealing member. In particular, where the supply and discharge pumps operate under different pressure and temperature conditions, it would have been an ordinary engineering consideration to select sealing compositions having suitable dimensional stability and resistance to deformation under their respective operating conditions.
The claim itself establishes that the supply-side sealing member operates under a higher average gas pressure and at a higher temperature than the discharge-side sealing member. These differences provide a reason for one ordinary skill in the art selecting different material properties for the respective sealing members. A higher operating temperature makes thermal expansion of the sealing member a relevant design consideration. A lower coefficient of linear thermal expansion reduces dimensional change for a given temperature change. Likewise, a higher operating pressure makes pressure-induced deformation of the sealing member a relevant design consideration. A higher Young’s modulus provides greater resistance to elastic deformation under an applied load. Therefore, selecting a lower CTE for the higher-temperature supply-side sealing member and a higher Young’s modulus for the higher-pressure supply-side sealing member would have been a predictable engineering response to the known operating conditions.
Accordingly, Applicant’s remarks do not identify a teaching in Navarro, JP ‘643 and/or JP ‘680 that would have discouraged the claimed combination or rendered the claimed material-property relationships unpredictable. Navarro, JP ‘643 and/or JP ‘680 establishes the use of fluororesin/carbon sealing compositions, including both fibrous and particulate carbon compositions, in piston-cylinder sealing applications, while the claimed apparatus establishes different pressure and temperature environments for the supply-side and discharge-side sealing members. In view of these known conditions, selecting a lower coefficient of linear thermal expansion for the higher-temperature supply-side sealing member and a higher Young’s modulus for the higher-pressure supply-side sealing member would have been no more than the predictable optimization of known material properties to obtain dimensional stability and resistance to pressure-induced deformation. Applicant has not provided evidence of critical and unexpected results commensurate with the full scope of the claimed relationships.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights