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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 May 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because features from the Specification are not shown. ¶ 41 of the Specification recites “First and second shut-off valves 51,52 are operated as a normally closed valve and a normally open valve, respectively, during normal operation of apparatus 102”. However Figure 2 shows valve 51 as NO (normally open) and valve 52 as NC (normally closed). Therefore the drawings fails to show valve 51 as normally closed and valve 54 as normally open.
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
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 34 “control group 40” should likely read “control unit 40”.
In the Specification element 50 is alternatively and interchangeably referred to as a pressure relief valve, a counterbalance valve, a safety vent device and an overpressure valve. Consider amending for consistency.
In ¶ 41 “gas ij” should likely read “gas”.
In ¶ 47 element 6’,6” is alternatively referred to as discharge branch and delivery branch. Consider amending for consistency.
In ¶ 49 “A similar flow-limiting function can have check valves 22,32 arranged on respective Moreover, a restricted-section pipe portion 29, such as a calibrated orifice, can advantageously be serially arranged to check valve 52 along common delivery pipe 6, preferably downstream of check valve 52, in order to limit the pressurised gas flow from pressurised reception body 9 towards compressor 20 and collector container 10 if check valve 52 does not close or does not close completely in case of a sudden stop of compressor 20 or 30.” Appears to be two separate sentences or a typo.
In ¶ 51 “each safety valve 24,34 having its inlet port pneumatically connected with delivery mouths 26,36 of compressors 20 and 30 respectively” should likely read “each safety valve 24,34 having its inlet port pneumatically connected with delivery mouths 36,34 of compressors 20 and 30 respectively”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a control unit for controlling in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 16 “said pressurized reception body” should likely read “said reception body”.
In Claim 1, line 19 “said leaked gas” should likely read “said leaked gas streams”.
In Claim 5, line 13 “the atmosphere” should likely read “an atmosphere”.
In Claim 8, line 26 “said pressurized reception body” should likely read “said reception body”.
In Claim 11, line 25 “said pressurized reception body” should likely read “said reception body”.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a substantially atmospheric pressure” in line 3. The term “substantially” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what degree a substantially atmospheric pressure is.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said collected leaked gas" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said safety maximum threshold pressure" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said safety vent device" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a substantially atmospheric pressure” in line 3. The term “substantially” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what degree a substantially atmospheric pressure is.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fältén et al (US 11067046) in view of Mueller et al (US 9334109).
Regarding Claim 1, Fältén discloses an apparatus (Figure 1) for conveying leaked gas streams (from 24.1, 24.2 and 24.3) leaking at a substantially atmospheric pressure from an industrial plant (of power plant 12) to a reception body (via 16) that is pressurised at a predetermined reception pressure (via 28), said apparatus comprising:
- a gas-capturing means (via 22.1, 22.2 and 22.3) for capturing said leaked gas streams (24.1, 24.2 and 24.3);
- a collector container (26) for collecting said leaked gas streams (24.1, 24.2 and 24.3), said collector container pneumatically connected to said gas-capturing means (Figure 1);
- a compressor (28) having a suction mouth (from 30) pneumatically connected to said collector container (Figure 1);
wherein said compressor (28) has a delivery mouth (to 16) pneumatically connected with:
- said pressurised reception body (16), through a delivery pipe (the pipe between 28 and 16) of said apparatus (Figure 1);
- a control unit (34) for controlling a suction pressure at said compressor (28; Col 5, lines 48-62), comprising:
- a pressure sensor/transducer (shown in Figure 1; Col 5, lines 48-62) arranged to measure said compressor suction pressure and to generate a suction pressure signal (Col 5, lines 48-62);
But fails to expressly disclose:
- a recirculation duct (4);
- said collector container (26), via said recirculation duct (4), so as to convey a recirculation portion of said leaked gas compressed by said compressor (20,30) back into said collector container (10),
- a control valve (41) mounted along said recirculation duct (4);
- a pressure controller (45) configured to receive said pressure signal (46) and to generate an open/close signal (43) for modifying an opening degree of said control valve (41) responsive to said pressure signal (46), in order to maintain said suction pressure (Ps) at a target pressure value between the atmospheric pressure (Patm) and a predetermined minimum pressure (Pm).
Mueller et al teach a gas recovery system (Figure 1) with a container (55), a compressor (62) and a recirculation duct (from 70 to 72) where said collector container (55), via said recirculation duct (to 72), so as to convey a recirculation portion of said leaked gas compressed by said compressor (62) back into said collector container (55),
- a control valve (72) mounted along said recirculation duct (Figure 1);
- a pressure controller (Col 12, lines 28-52) configured to receive said pressure signal and to generate an open/close signal for modifying an opening degree of said control valve (72; Col 12, lines 28-52) responsive to said pressure signal, in order to maintain said suction pressure at a target pressure value between the atmospheric pressure and a predetermined minimum pressure (Col 12, lines 28-52).
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 system of Fältén et al with the recirculation line as taught by Mueller et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a recirculation line in a compressor system) to yield predictable result (to allow for a tank to remain pressurized).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fältén et al (US 11067046) in view of Mueller et al (US 9334109) in further view of Ingram (US 4437813).
Regarding Claim 3, Fältén et al as modified by Mueller et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where said compressor is a fully sealed compressor.
Ingram teaches a compressor system where the compressor is a fully sealed compressor (Claim 2).
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 system of Fältén et al, as modified by Mueller et al to incorporate the fully sealed compressor of Ingram for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a compressor within a compressor system) to yield predictable result (to pressurize fluid within the system).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fältén et al (US 11067046) in view of Mueller et al (US 9334109) in further view of Peter et al (US 20050284154).
Regarding Claim 4, Fältén et al as modified by Mueller et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where said compressor is a diaphragm compressor.
Peter et al teach a compressor system where the compressor is a diaphragm compressor (¶ 28).
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 system of Fältén et al, as modified by Mueller et al to incorporate the fully sealed compressor of Peter et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a compressor within a compressor system) to yield predictable result (to pressurize fluid within the system).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fältén et al (US 11067046) in view of Mueller et al (US 9334109) in further view of Bailey et al (US 3602002).
Regarding Claim 5, Fältén et al as modified by Mueller et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where said collector container is provided with a safety vent device configured to release said collected leaked gas, which is present in said collector container, into the atmosphere if the pressure of said collected leaked gas exceeds a predetermined safety maximum threshold value higher than the atmospheric pressure, said safety maximum threshold pressure set between 1 mbar and 10 mbar.
Bailey et al teaches a container (10) where said collector container is provided with a safety vent device (via 28 and 28a) configured to release said collected leaked gas (col 4, lines 5-8; with Fältén et al disclosing the collected leaked gas), which is present in said collector container, into the atmosphere if the pressure of said collected leaked gas exceeds a predetermined safety maximum threshold value higher than the atmospheric pressure (col 4, lines 5-8).
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 system of Fältén et al as modified by Mueller et al with the safety vent device as taught by Bailey et al for the advantage of protecting the container from excessive pressure, as taught by Bailey et al (col 4, lines 5-8).
Additionally, 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 safety maximum threshold pressure set between 1 mbar and 10 mbar since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal pressure based on user defined Criteria.
Regarding Claim 6, Fältén et al as modified by Mueller et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where said safety vent device comprises a pressure relief valve arranged along a vent pipe with an outlet in a safe area.
Bailey et al teaches a container (10) where said collector container is provided with a safety vent device (via 28 and 28a) comprises a pressure relief valve (28) arranged along a vent pipe (28a) with an outlet in a safe area (col 4, lines 5-8).
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 system of Fältén et al as modified by Mueller et al with the safety vent device as taught by Bailey et al for the advantage of protecting the container from excessive pressure, as taught by Bailey et al (col 4, lines 5-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 7-10 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.
Claims 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
For Claim 11, the closest prior art appears to be Fältén et al (US 11067046) as modified by Mueller et al (US 9334109).
Fältén et al disclose a method for conveying leaked gas streams (from 24.1, 24.2 and 24.3), leaking at a substantially atmospheric pressure to a reception body (to 16) that is pressurised at a predetermined reception pressure (via 28), said method comprising steps of: - capturing said leaked gas streams (24.1, 24.2 and 24.3);- collecting said leaked gas streams (24.1, 24.2 and 24.3) into a collector container (26), thus forming a collected leaked gas (within 26);- in a compressor (28), compressing said collected leaked gas up to said reception pressure, thus forming a compressed leaked gas (to 16);- measuring a suction pressure (Ps) of said compressor (at the tank as disclosed in Col 5, lines 48-62); - conveying a main portion of said compressed leaked gas into said pressurised reception body (to 16);- recirculating a portion of said compressed leaked gas back into said collector container (as taught in Mueller et al via 72),
but fails to expressly disclose where the leaked gas streams are from an industrial plant and wherein said main portion and said recirculation portion of said compressed leaked gas are established according to said measured suction pressure (Ps), in such a way to maintain said suction pressure (Ps) at a target pressure value between the atmospheric pressure (Patm) and a predetermined minimum pressure (Pm).
The prior art of record neither discloses nor makes obvious the combination set forth in the independent Claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753