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
Claim 1 is objected because the term “gas to be treated” and “introduced gas to be treated” seems to be the same thing and the term is not consistently used.
The term “amount of utility” “amounts of utility” “amount of utility sensed by the utility sensing means” and “amount of utility” are interchangeably used throughout the claim set, please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Claim 7 is objected because the second recited “heated gas” should be “the heated gas”. Similar issue with the second recited “concentrated gas”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 requires the gas flow volume control means “compares an average value of amounts of utility sensed by the utility sensing means for a certain period with the setting range of the amount of utility”. Such limitation lacks support in the instant Spec. (hereinafter “Spec.”). The Spec. states “Heated gas flow volume control means 150 and concentrated gas flow volume 20 control means 270 are not particularly limited either. When a fan is employed as each of heated gas supply means 140 and concentrated gas supply means 210, exemplary means is an apparatus that adjusts the number of rotations of a fan motor such as an inverter to adjust the flow volume.” Spec. [0027]. It is therefore understood that the claimed “gas flow volume control means” could be an inverter, it is not evident to a person of ordinary skill in the art that how an inverter performs the function of “comparing.”
Claim 6 is also indefinite because it has a similar limitation of “rotation speed control means compares…”. However, the Spec. does not have written support for that.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1–6 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 is indefinite because it is unclear if the “heated gas to be introduced into the concentration apparatus” is the same as “introduced heated gas” recited earlier. Claim 1 is also indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed “introduced concentrated gas” is the same as the “concentrated gas recited earlier”. Similar issue with “concentrated gas to be introduced to the combustion apparatus”.
Claims 2–6 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear what the term “the flow volume” refers to, is it the “flow volume of the concentrated gas” or the ‘flow volume of heated gas”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al., JP 2010–201316 A (“Chang”)1.
Regarding claim 1:
Chang discloses that a gas treatment system (Chang’s system as shown in Fig. 2) that purifies gas to be treated which contains an organic substance (Chang’s VOC waste gas stream I, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5), the gas treatment system comprising:
a concentration apparatus (Chang’s concentrated rotor 10, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5) that brings introduced gas (I of Chang) to be treated in contact with an adsorptive material (Chang discloses as a porous adsorbent and gives an example of zeolite, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5) to adsorb the organic substance and emits resultant gas as purified treated gas (Chang discloses as clean air flow II, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5) and desorbs the organic substance from the adsorptive material with introduced heated gas (Chang’s high temperature desorption air flow IV, Chang Fig. 2, p.5) and emits resultant gas as concentrated gas containing the organic substance (Chang’s desorption air flow enters second fan 14, Chang Fig. 3, p. 5);
a combustion apparatus including combustion means (Chang’s final processing unit 60, Chang Fig. 2, p. 6), the combustion apparatus having introduced concentrated gas burnt by the combustion means (follow arrow passing through Chang’s fan 14 and desorption air flow meter 34 and enters final processing unit 60, Chang Fig. 2, ps. 5–6) emitting resultant gas as combustion outlet gas (Chang discloses that clean gas after incineration is cooled down and discharged through subsequent pipe line, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5);
utility sensing means that senses an amount of utility used by the combustion means as motive power (Chang discloses a fuel inflow flow meter that controls the inflow fuel, which read on the claimed “utility sensing means” because it senses and controls amount of utility used, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5); and
gas flow volume control means (Chang’s actuator 38, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5) that adjusts a flow volume of heated gas (Chang’s high temperature desorption airflow IV) to be introduced to the concentration apparatus (10 of Chang) and/or a flow volume of concentrated gas to be introduced to the combustion apparatus such that the amount of utility sensed by the utility sensing means is within a setting range (Chang discloses its operation control is capable of controlling efficiency and energy consumption, Chang Fig. 2, p. 1).
Regarding claim 4:
Chang discloses that the gas treatment system according to claim 1, wherein
the adsorptive material makes up an adsorption rotor which is divided into an adsorption portion where adsorption is performed (where Chang’s waste VOCs waste gas stream I passes, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5) and a concentration portion where desorption is performed (where Chang’s high temperature desorption airflow IV passes, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5), and the adsorptive material repeats transition between the adsorption portion and the concentration portion by rotating (see Chang p. 5, Chang’s concentration rotor rotates, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5), and
the gas treatment system further comprises:
concentrated gas temperature sensing means (Chang’s thermoelectric thermometer, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5) that senses a temperature of concentrated gas emitted from the concentration apparatus; and
rotation speed control means (Chang’s converter 46 and drive motor 50, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5) that adjusts a rotation speed of the adsorption rotor such that the temperature sensed by the concentrated gas temperature sensing means is within a setting range (Chang discloses adjustment of the desorption concentration ratio changes the flow rate of high concentration VOCs after desorption into the incinerator, and a thermoelectric thermometer is installed in the incinerator 60 and inflow fuel is controlled by fuel inflow meter to allow VOC after concentration to be effectively incinerated while maintain a constant temperature, Chang p. 5).
Regarding claim 7:
Chang discloses that a gas treatment method (method of using Chang’s device as shown in Chang Fig. 2) comprising:
adsorption treatment to adsorb an organic substance contained in gas to be treated with an adsorptive material and emit treated gas (passing Chang’s VOCs waste gas stream I through Chang’s concentration rotor 10 for an adsorption treatment with porous adsorbent, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5);
desorption treatment to desorb the organic substance from the adsorptive material with heated gas and emit resultant gas as concentrated gas (passing Chang’s high temperature air flow IV through Chang’s concentration rotor 10 to desorb VOC concentrated gas, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5); and
combustion treatment to burn concentrated gas (step of sending VOC concentrated gas into incinerator 60, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5), wherein an amount of utility used in the combustion treatment is sensed (by Chang’s fuel inflow flow meter, Chang Fig. 2, p.5) and a flow volume of heated gas to be used for the desorption treatment and/or a flow volume of concentrated gas to be supplied for the combustion treatment are adjusted such that the sensed amount of utility is within a setting range (Chang discloses that the rotation speed of the concentration rotor 10 is controlled by combining the converter 46 with the drive motor 50. Adjustment of the desorption concentration ratio changes the flow rate of high concentration VOCs after desorption into the incinerator, so a separate thermoelectric thermometer is installed in the incinerator 60 and the inflow fuel is controlled by combining the fuel inflow flow meter. The VOC after the concentration is effectively incinerated while maintaining a constant high temperature, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5).
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 2–3 and 5–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chang.
Regarding claim 2:
Chang does not explicitly disclose that the gas treatment system according to claim 1, wherein the gas flow volume control means lowers stepwise the flow volume of heated gas and/or the flow volume of concentrated gas when the amount of utility sensed by the utility sensing means exceeds the setting range and instantaneously increases the flow volume of heated gas and/or the flow volume of concentrated gas when the amount of utility becomes lower than the setting range.
However, Chang discloses that the gas treatment system according to claim 1, wherein the gas flow volume control means lowers stepwise the flow volume of heated gas (Chang’s actuator 38 is capable of lowering flow volume of the heated gas stepwise by gradually close the actuator, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5) and/or the flow volume of concentrated gas when the amount of utility sensed by the utility sensing means exceeds the setting range and instantaneously increases the flow volume of heated gas and/or the flow volume of concentrated gas when the amount of utility becomes lower than the setting range (Chang discloses its rotation speed of the concentration rotor 10 is controlled by a motor 50 and converter 46, which adjusts desorption concentration ratio, which changes flow rate of high concentration VOC entering the incinerator, and a separate thermoelectric thermometer is installed in the incinerator and inflow fuel in controlled by fuel inflow flow meter, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5; Chang therefore discloses a connection between the fuel inflow rate and the flow volume of heated gas, Chang’s device is therefore capable of lowering stepwise the flow volume of heated gas or instantaneously increase the flow volume of heated gas when the mount of utility becomes lower than the setting range).
Regarding claim 3:
While Chang does not explicitly disclose that the gas treatment system according to claim 1, wherein the gas flow volume control means (38 of Chang) compares an average value of amounts of utility sensed by the utility sensing means for a certain period with the setting range of the amount of utility and adjusts the flow volume, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Chang to adjust the flow volume based on the setting range of the utility sensed by the utility sensing means because Chang’s system uses mathematically formula to link operation parameters to reach an ideal VOCs removal efficiency, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5; additionally, Chang discloses to adjust flow volume based on feedback from Chang’s thermoelectric thermometer, Chang Fig. 2, p. 5; note here that the published Spec. does not embody its “gas flow volume control means” to be computer based device, and the “compare” limitation has no support in the published Spec. and since the claimed “gas flow volume control means” is not embodied to have “compare” function, such limitation is interpreted as function based rather than structural based).
Regarding claim 5:
While Chang does not explicitly disclose that the gas treatment system according to claim 4, wherein the rotation speed control means lowers stepwise the rotation speed of the adsorption rotor when the temperature sensed by the concentrated gas temperature sensing means becomes lower than the setting range and increases stepwise the rotation speed of the adsorption rotor when the temperature of concentrated gas exceeds the setting range, Chang discloses adjustment of the desorption concentration ratio changes the flow rate of high concentration VOCs after desorption into the incinerator, and a thermoelectric thermometer is installed in the incinerator 60 and inflow fuel is controlled by fuel inflow meter to allow VOC after concentration to be effectively incinerated while maintain a constant temperature, Chang p. 5. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Chang’s rotation speed control means to respond based on the concentrated gas temperature change. Chang’s system is capable of adjusting rotation speed based on temperature change. Since Chang does not disclose it rotation speed control means to be computer based, the actual way of controlling is interpreted to be directed to a process of using rather than a physical structure.
Regarding claim 6:
While Chang does not explicitly disclose the gas treatment system according to claim 4, wherein the rotation speed control means compares an average value of temperatures of concentrated gas sensed by the concentrated gas temperature sensing means for a certain period with the setting range of the temperature of concentrated gas and adjusts the rotation speed, Chang discloses adjustment of the desorption concentration ratio changes the flow rate of high concentration VOCs after desorption into the incinerator, and a thermoelectric thermometer is installed in the incinerator 60 and inflow fuel is controlled by fuel inflow meter to allow VOC after concentration to be effectively incinerated while maintain a constant temperature, Chang p. 5. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Chang’s rotation speed control means to respond based on the concentrated gas temperature change. Chang’s system is capable of adjusting rotation speed based on temperature change. Since Chang does not disclose it rotation speed control means to be computer based, the limitation of “compares an average value of temperatures…” is interpreted to be directed to a process of using rather than a physical structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 Michener can be reached on (571) 270-7872424. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Chang’s original document is the 11-page FOR dated Jun. 11, 2024. A copy of Chang’s machine translation is provided with the office action. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the figure.
Prosecution Insights