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 20 June 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “flow meter” from Claims 1 and 3 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
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The amendment filed 20 June 2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/EP2022/083406, filed November 28, 2022 and of the French patent application No. 2113983, filed December 20, 2021 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case November 28, 2022, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 20 June 2024 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p). Applicant is advised to remove the phrase “the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference” from the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 15-16 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 11 “the flow of minor gas” should likely read “a flow of minor gas”.
In Claim 1, line 18 “the flow of the gas mixture” should likely read “a flow of the gas mixture”.
In Claim 1, line 33 “the first flow regulator device (4) comprising a flow meter associated with each of the regulator members (41, 42, 43 44) each.” Should likely read “the first flow regulator device (4) comprising a flow meter associated with each of the regulator members (41, 42, 43 44).”
In Claim 5, line 6 “the difference” should likely read “a difference”.
In Claim 7, line 2 “the difference” should likely read “a difference”.
In Claim 7, line 3 “between its minimum value” should likely read “between said at least one flow range’s minimum value”.
In Claim 7, line 3, “and its maximum value” should likely read “and said at least one flow range’s maximum value”.
In Claim 7, line 4 “the difference” should likely read “a difference”.
In Claim 8, line 7 “a flow of minor gas” should likely read “the flow of minor gas”.
In Claim 10, line 11 “the delivery of the minor gas” should likely read “a delivery of the minor gas”.
In Claim 10, lines 13, 14 and 15 “the delivery valve” should likely read “the at least one delivery valve”.
In Claim 11, line 3 “the speed” should likely read “a rotation speed”.
In Claim 15, line 7 “a target content of minor gas” should likely read “the target content of minor gas”.
In Claim 15, line 7 “a target content of carrier gas” should likely read “the target content of carrier gas”.
In Claim 16, line 2 “in that it comprises” should likely read “in that the plant comprises”.
In Claim 18, line 9 “a gas mixture” should likely read “the gas mixture”.
In Claim 18, line 17 “the flow of minor gas” should likely read “a flow of minor gas”.
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, 10-11, 13-14 and 17-18 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a regulator member” in line 2. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this regulator member is a new regulator member or a regulator member of the regulator members.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the minimum flow value" in line 3 and “the maximum flow value” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, these will be interpreted as relating to the minimum and maximum value of Claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the highest maximum value" in lines 2, 5 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the minimum flow value" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the first flow regulator device (4) comprises several regulator members” in line 2. However, Claim 1 recites “the first flow regulator device (4) comprising several regulator members (41, 42, 43, 44)”. Therefore it is unclear if these are new regulator members or the same regulator members from Claim 1. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the regulator member” in line 8. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear which regulator member is being referenced.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the new flow setpoint" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the overlap zone" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In Claim 8, line 5, the limitation “the regulator members may take up at least one intermediate position” is unclear because of the term “may”. It is unclear if the limitation is a requirement, or if the possibility need only exist. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the respective maximum value" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a first flow regulator device” in line 5. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same first flow regulator device of Claim 1 or a different one. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a first flow setpoint” in line 6. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same first flow setpoint of Claim 1 or a different one. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a function of a target content” in line 7. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same function of a target content of Claim 1 or a different one. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a transfer circuit” in line 8. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same transfer circuit of Claim 1 or a different one. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the flow variator device” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “said at least one measured content” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said at least one measured content” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a first transfer circuit” in line 5. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same first transfer circuit of Claim 1 or a different first transfer circuit. For purposes of examination they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said at least one container " in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " the course of minor gas " in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 9, 12 and 15-16 are allowed.
Claims 18 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.
Claims 3-8, 10-11, 13-14 and 17 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 relevant prior art appears to be Wagenheim (FR2811909A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wagenheim discloses a plant for packaging a gas mixture in at least one container (Figure 1 to gas cylinders B1, B2 or B3), said plant comprising:
a source of a minor gas (s1),
a source of a carrier gas (s2),
a mixer device (CM of Figure 1) fluidically connected to the source of minor gas and to the source of carrier gas (Figure 1),
said mixer device being configured to produce, at an outlet, a gas mixture (to gas cylinders B1, B2 or B3) comprising the carrier gas (s2) and the minor gas (s1),
a first transfer circuit (A from s1 to CM) fluidically connecting the source of minor gas to the mixer device (Figure 1),
the first transfer circuit comprising a first flow regulator device (VR)
configured to regulate the flow of minor gas flowing toward the mixer device according to a first flow setpoint (via control system SPA)
determined as a function of a target content of minor gas in the gas mixture, (via the control system SPA)
a second transfer circuit (s2 to CM) fluidically connecting the source of a carrier gas to the mixer device (Figure 1),
a delivery circuit (from CM to B1, B2 or B3) configured to deliver the gas mixture from the mixer device to said at least one container (Figure 1),
the regulator members being arranged in parallel in the first transfer circuit, (VR in Figure 1)
the plant comprising a control unit (SPA of Figure 2) connected to the regulator members (Figure 2),
But fails to expressly disclose the delivery circuit comprising a second flow regulator device configured to regulate the flow of the gas mixture flowing toward the at least one container according to a second flow setpoint, the second flow regulator device comprising a pressure raising member, the first flow regulator device comprising several regulator members configured to regulate the flow of minor gas over respective flow ranges, and configured to select at least one of the regulator members on the basis of at least one comparison of the first flow setpoint with a minimum value and/or a maximum value of at least one of the flow ranges,
the control unit being configured to control the regulator members in such a way as to allow the minor gas to flow between the source of minor gas and the mixer device via said at least one selected regulator member and in such a way as to prevent the minor gas from flowing between the source of minor gas and the mixer device via the non-selected regulator member(s), the first flow regulator device comprising a flow meter associated with each of the regulator members each.
The prior art of record neither discloses nor makes obvious the combination set forth in the independent Claims.
Regarding Claim 18, Wagenheim discloses a method for packaging a gas mixture (Figure 1),
comprising the following steps:
a) passing a minor gas (s1) through a first transfer circuit (A from s1 to CM) comprising a first flow regulator device (VR) in such a way as to deliver the minor gas to a mixer device(CM) according to a first flow setpoint determined as a function of a target content of minor gas in the gas mixture (via SPA),
b) passing a carrier gas (s2) through a second transfer circuit (from s2 to CM as seen in Figure 1) in such a way as to deliver the carrier gas to the mixer device (Figure 1),
c) producing, through an outlet of the mixer device, a gas mixture comprising the minor gas and the carrier gas, (to B1, B2 or B3)
the first flow regulator device comprising several regulator members arranged in parallel in the first transfer circuit (VR in Figure 1),
but fails to expressly disclose d) passing the gas mixture through a delivery circuit comprising a second flow regulator device in such a way as to deliver the gas mixture to said at least one container according to a second flow setpoint,
the second flow regulator device comprising a pressure raising member,
the regulator members being configured to regulate the flow of minor gas over respective flow ranges, the method further comprising the following steps:
e) comparing the first flow setpoint with at least one minimum value and/or at least one maximum value of at least one of the flow ranges,
f) selecting at least one of the regulator members on the basis of the comparison carried out in step e) and controlling the regulator members in such a way as to selectively allow the minor gas to flow between the source of minor gas and the mixer device via said at least one selected regulator member and in such a way as to prevent the minor gas from flowing between the source of minor gas and the mixer device via the non-selected regulator member(s).
The prior art of record neither discloses nor makes obvious the combination set forth in the independent Claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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