DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5-8 all appear to be missing commas; For example, in claim 5 “The air control apparatus of claim 3 further comprising:” should read “The air control apparatus of claim 3, further comprising:”
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 3-8 and 10 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 3 recites the limitation “The air control apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller starts the preliminary operation when a predetermined time has elapsed since the stop of the air control apparatus.” Claim 3 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 3 is an apparatus claim because it is to an “apparatus.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “The air control apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to start
Claim 4 recites the limitation “The air control apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller starts the preliminary operation a predetermined time prior to start of a normal operation of the air control apparatus.” Claim 4 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 4 is an apparatus claim because it is to an “apparatus.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “The air control apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to start a preliminary operation a predetermined time prior to start of a normal operation of the air control apparatus.”
Claims 5-8, which are dependent upon claim 3, are likewise 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 10 recites the limitation “The air control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller outputs information on the performance of the gas separation membrane.” Claim 10 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 10 is an apparatus claim because it is to an “apparatus.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “The air control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to output
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 207212721U to Yan (hereinafter referred to as Yan).
Regarding claim 1, Yan teaches an air control apparatus configured to adjust a composition of inside air of an internal space (Pg. 1 “The utility model relates to the technical field of inflatable equipment, in particular to an air bearing membrane structure inflatable system.”), the air control apparatus comprising: a gas separation membrane to which target air is supplied (Pg. 1 “The technical scheme of the utility model is as follows: an air bearing membrane structure inflating system includes a main fan disposed at an air inlet of an air inlet pipe”); and a controller including circuitry configured to execute a first action of reducing deterioration in performance of the gas separation membrane due to stop of the air control apparatus for a predetermined period (Pg. 1 “the system further comprises a controller, the controller is electrically connected with a motor detection device provided on the main motor, and the controller and the standby power are electrically connected.” ; Pg. 1 “However, in the event of a power failure or fan failure, the fan will be shut down, which will affect the normal use and safety of the membrane construction.” ; The controller is configured to power a backup fan powered with a standby power in the event of power or fan failure, maintaining the integrity of the membrane during such failures).
Regarding claim 2, Yan teaches the air control apparatus as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the first action includes a preliminary operation of supplying the target air to the gas separation membrane (Pg. 2 “when the standby motor is started, the standby fan can be enabled. The transmitted gas enters the interior of the air-bearing membrane structure to maintain the air pressure inside the structure.”).
Regarding claim 3, Yan teaches the air control apparatus as applied to claim 2 above, wherein the controller starts the preliminary operation when a predetermined time has elapsed since the stop of the air control apparatus (Pg. 1 “When the motor detection device installed on the main motor detects that the main motor cannot be operated due to a fault such as power failure, for example, the motor voltage or current disappears, the controller will automatically start the backup motor to supply power to the standby fan.” ; the time it takes for the controller to detect the motor voltage/current degradation reads on a “predetermined time”).
Regarding claim 4, Yan teaches the air control apparatus as applied to claim 2 above, wherein the controller starts the preliminary operation a predetermined time prior to start of a normal operation of the air control apparatus (Pg. 1 “the system further comprises a controller, the controller is electrically connected with a motor detection device provided on the main motor, and the controller and the standby power are electrically connected.” ; Pg. 1 “However, in the event of a power failure or fan failure, the fan will be shut down, which will affect the normal use and safety of the membrane construction.” ; As the “normal” operation will resume once the power failure has been fixed, the invention of Yan reads on the requirements of claim 4).
Regarding claim 7, Yan teaches the air control apparatus as applied to claim 3 above, further comprising: a compression unit configured to compress air to be supplied to the gas separation membrane in the preliminary operation (Pg. 2 “The beneficial effect of adopting the above further scheme is that since the fan generates compressed gas” ; As the fan generates compressed gas it reads on a “compression unit” and, as the fan is running during both normal operation and in the event of power failure, the invention of Yan reads on supplying compressed air during the preliminary operation).
Regarding claim 9, Yan teaches the air control apparatus as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the first action includes an action for urging a person to operate the air control apparatus (Pg. 2 “the system further includes an alarm device and a communication device, and the alarm device and the communication device are respectively electrically connected to the controller. … the communication device can send the alarm signal to the remote management personnel, prompting it to perform timely processing to avoid the deterioration of the situation.”).
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.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan, and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 4529285 B2 to Kawamura et al. (hereinafter referred to a Kawamura).
Regarding claim 5, Yan teaches the air control apparatus as applied to claim 3 above. Yan does not teach an exhaust flow path through which first air and second air separated from each other by the gas separation membrane are discharged to an external space in the preliminary operation.
However, Kawamura teaches a gas separation membrane with a purging function in the event that the operation of the membrane stops (¶0007 “A simple, small, economical and easy-to-operate gas separation membrane device having a function of purging residual moisture in the device when the operation of the gas separation membrane device is stopped.”), as when the operation of the membrane stops moisture condenses on the surface and the membrane performance decreases (¶0007 “In the present invention, when the mixed gas to be supplied contains moisture, the moisture remaining in the apparatus during the pause of the gas separation membrane apparatus adsorbs or condenses on the surface of the separation membrane to temporarily deteriorate the membrane performance.”). Kawamura further teaches that a non-permeate gas purges said moisture and is discharged through a non-permeate gas discharge port (Claims “Next, the gas supply to the gas separation membrane module (A) that has continued to supply the mixed gas is stopped, and the non-permeate gas stored in the storage device is transferred to the non-permeate side space in the gas separation membrane module (A). Until the non-permeate gas purges the moisture in the non-permeate side” ; ¶0017 “For this reason, a small amount of moisture remaining in the isolated space on the non-permeate side naturally passes through the membrane, but further, components that are difficult to permeate ethe membrane (which can gradually permeate) The permeated side high-concentration moisture is pushed out of the gas separation module through the valve 9 … After sufficient purge has been performed, the valve 9 and valve 10 can be closed if necessary.”).
Yan and Kawamura are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of membrane separation units. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the air control apparatus as taught by Yan could be modified to include a purging system as taught by Kawamura to further prevent any deterioration in membrane performance in the event of stoppage. With such a modification, the system would be purged after stoppage and before normal operation (and therefore in the required “preliminary operation”).
Regarding claim 6, Yan teaches the air control apparatus as applied to claim 3 above. Yan does not teach a heating element configured to heat air to be supplied to the gas separation membrane in the preliminary operation.
However, Kawamura teaches a gas separation membrane with a preheating device that heats the supply gas before entering the separation membrane (¶0022 “A preliminary dehumidifying device or the like, and a preheating device that preheats the supplied mixed gas may be provided.”). Kawamura further teaches that changes in temperature can cause an increase in moisture condensation which can decrease the membrane performance (¶0003 “the moisture remaining in the device is adsorbed or condensed on the membrane surface due to temperature change etc.” ; ¶0007 “the moisture remaining in the apparatus during the pause of the gas separation membrane apparatus adsorbs or condenses on the surface of the separation membrane to temporarily deteriorate the membrane performance.”).
Yan and Kawamura are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of membrane separation units. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the air control apparatus as taught by Yan could be modified to include a preheater as taught by Kawamura to further prevent moisture condensation and thus prevent deterioration of the membrane performance by maintaining the supply gas within a target temperature range.
Regarding claim 8, Yan teaches the air control apparatus as applied to claim 3 above. Yan does not teach a dehumidifier configured to reduce moisture in air to be supplied to the gas separation membrane in the preliminary operation.
However, Kawamura teaches a gas separation membrane with a dehumidifying device before the separation membrane (¶0022 “A preliminary dehumidifying device or the like, and a preheating device that preheats the supplied mixed gas may be provided.”). Kawamura further teaches that an increase in moisture condensation can decrease the membrane performance (¶0007 “the moisture remaining in the apparatus during the pause of the gas separation membrane apparatus adsorbs or condenses on the surface of the separation membrane to temporarily deteriorate the membrane performance.”).
Yan and Kawamura are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of membrane separation units. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the air control apparatus as taught by Yan could be modified to include a dehumidifying device as taught by Kawamura to further prevent moisture condensation and thus prevent deterioration of the membrane performance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2021/0364203 A1 to Ranjan et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ranjan).
Regarding claim 10, Yan teaches the air control apparatus as applied to claim 1 above. Yan further teaches wherein a controller communicates status of the air control apparatus through an alarm system (Pg. 2 “Further, the system further includes an alarm device and a communication device, and the alarm device and the communication device are respectively electrically connected to the controller. … the communication device can send the alarm signal to the remote management personnel, prompting it to perform timely processing to avoid the deterioration of the situation.”). Yan does not explicitly teach wherein the controller outputs information on the performance of the gas separation membrane.
However, Ranjan teaches a membrane separation device within a purge system of a refrigeration unit (Fig. 3) with a controller connected to a sensor that monitors parameters of the purge system (¶0030 “A sensor is operable to monitor one or more parameters of the purge system … A controller is connected to the sensor and is operable to actively control at least one operational parameter of the purge system in response to data provided by the sensor.”). Ranjan further teaches wherein the controller receives data from the system and adjusts parameters accordingly (¶0055 “In an embodiment, the controller 50 receives system data (e.g., pressure, temperature, mass flow rates) and utilizes electronic control components, such as a microprocessor for example, to control one or more components of the purge system 30, such as various pumps, valves, and switches for example, in response to the system data.”).
Yan and Ranjan are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of membrane separation within air conditioning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air control apparatus as taught by Yan to further include the monitoring system as taught by Ranjan to further monitor the performance of the membrane in real-time and prevent any deterioration of the membrane from occurring.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2020/0253227 A1 to Kamei et al. (hereinafter referred to as Kamei), and further in view of Yan.
Regarding claim 11, Kamei teaches a refrigeration apparatus (Fig. 1) that contains an air control apparatus for a membrane separation unit (¶0006 “The present invention has been made in view of such points, and its object is to provide an internal air adjustment device that is capable of properly controlling the composition of internal air in a storage.” ; ¶0028 “In an eleventh aspect of the present disclosure based on the ninth aspect, the first separation unit (41) and the second separation unit (61) are each provided with a gas separation membrane (85)”), wherein the refrigeration apparatus has a refrigerant circuit configured to adjust a temperature inside an internal space (¶0068 “As shown in FIG. 1, the transport container (1) that constitutes the storage includes a container main body (2) and a container refrigerator (10). The transport container (1) is a reefer container whose temperature therein is controllable. The internal air adjustment device (30) of the present embodiment is installed in the container refrigerator (10).”). Kamei does not teach the air control apparatus of claim 1 and, more specifically, does not teach a controller including circuitry configured to execute a first action of reducing deterioration in performance of the gas separation membrane due to stop of the air control apparatus for a predetermined period. However, Yan teaches the air control apparatus as applied to claim 1 above.
Kamei and Yan are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of membrane separation units for internal air control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the refrigeration apparatus as taught by Kamei to further include the air control apparatus as taught by Yan to prevent membrane performance deterioration in the event of power failure. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (in this case, the prevention of membrane deterioration and thus internal air quality in the event of power failure) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 12, Kamei and Yan teach the refrigeration apparatus as applied to claim 11 above. Kamei further teaches a transport container comprising said refrigeration apparatus (Fig. 1, transport container 1 contains refrigerator 10) and a container body in which the refrigeration apparatus is installed (¶0068 “As shown in FIG. 1, the transport container (1) that constitutes the storage includes a container main body (2) and a container refrigerator (10).”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 /Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights