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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, which corresponds to claims 1-23 and 27-28, in the reply filed on 2/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear to what feature LPE refers in Figs. 5 and 6. Examiner notes that the specification describes “a proximate side LPE that is opposite its distal side LDE” in Paragraph 0083, but the pointers in Figs. 5 and 6 appear to point to a bottom surface that is approximately perpendicular to LDE, rather than opposite to it. Additionally, the dimension D1 appears to have a different endpoint between the two figures.
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.
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 1-13 and 19 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 1, the claim recites “the weld between the wall and the distal side of the lip” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-13 are dependent upon claim 1 and thus inherit its deficiencies.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, each claim recites “wherein an outer surface of the barrel extends [. . .] is a distance” in lines 1-2. The underlined portion appears to contain a grammatical error resulting in an indefinite scope of the claim. According to Examiner’s best understanding, the claims will be interpreted as referring to “D6”, as it is described in Paragraph 0014 of the specification and shown in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 10:
The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the scope of “substantially match” in line 1 is unclear.
The claim recites “the end of the vessel that was removed” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (DE 2327700). All references to the written description of Yamauchi are made to the attached machine translation into English (DE2327700-MT).
Regarding claim 1, Yamauchi discloses a nozzle (Figs. 1-2) for a pressure vessel that is sized for being welded to a wall of the vessel (Paragraph 0001), the nozzle comprising:
a barrel (see “I” in Fig. 1) attached to an annular lip (see “III” in Fig. 1), the barrel defining an inner passageway that is in fluid communication with a vessel interface opening defined by the lip at a first end of the nozzle, a second end of the nozzle opposite the first end of the nozzle having an interface opening in communication with the inner passageway (see annotated Figs. 1-2 below);
the lip having a distal side that is opposite a proximate side, the proximate side being positionable around an inner end of the barrel to define the vessel interface opening (see annotated Figs. 1-2 below); and
the proximate side of the lip being spaced apart from the distal side of the lip by a first distance (see “l2” in Fig. 2, which approximates this distance as described below).
Yamauchi describes the structure of the nozzle in terms of zones: “The pipe body has a design in which the zone of stress concentration is located at a point that is not superimposed on the zone of unstable strength due to welding, i.e., the zone of bending stress concentration due to the design aspect of the multilayer structure and the zone influenced by the heat of welding are located at different points, so that they do not adversely affect each other” (Paragraph 0003). Yamauchi further describes that length “l2” (which reads as “12” in the attached translation) is “chosen to be equal to the sum of the length of the thermally affected zone in the welded section v and the length of the zone affected by bending stress, thereby preventing the thermally affected zone from overlapping with the zone affected by internal stress” and “[w]hen the length of the zone affected by bending stress reaches 0.5 to 2.0 times the wall thickness of the connecting pipe section III, the internal stress generated in the thermally affected zone is significantly reduced” (Paragraph 0012; see also Paragraph 0004, stating that the thickness of section III is equivalent to the thickness of the wall). Examiner asserts that the dimension “l2” described by Yamauchi would be substantially made up of the “length of the zone affected by bending stress” and would thus approximate the first distance of the claim.
Accordingly, although Yamauchi does not explicitly disclose a first distance that is between 4 times a thickness of the wall (t) and 0.75t such that a joint of the weld between the wall and the distal side of the lip is a distance of between 4t and 0.75t from the proximate side of the lip, when viewed as a whole, the disclosure of Yamauchi teaches a first dimension having a range that overlaps the claimed range in a manner sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144.05(I)). Additionally, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the nozzle of Yamauchi to have a first distance in the claimed range. It is noted that the specification refers to surprising results from making a nozzle within the claimed range of dimensions (i.e., reduced stress at the weld, enabling a thinner vessel; Paragraphs 0017, 0100), but it appears that there is no criticality discussed with respect to the claimed dimension (e.g., a particular value resulting in a certain level of stress reduction), and it appears that the device of Yamauchi would work appropriately if made within the claimed range (especially considering that Yamauchi teaches the same benefit of reduced stress, as cited above).
PNG
media_image1.png
594
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1-2 of Yamauchi, annotated by Examiner
Regarding claims 2-5, Yamauchi discloses the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the nozzle has:
an inner curved transition that is positioned to extend between the proximate side of the lip and the inner passageway of the barrel (see “A” in Fig. 2);
an outer curved transition that is positioned to extend between the proximate side of the lip and the barrel (see “C” in Fig. 2);
an annular wall of the barrel that defines the inner passageway and has a thickness at an intermediate portion of the barrel that is located between the vessel interface opening and the interface opening of the second end of the nozzle (see annotated Figs. 1-2 above); and
an outer surface of the barrel that extends from the outer curved transition to the intermediate portion of the barrel (see annotated Figs. 1-2 above).
Yamauchi is silent regarding the dimensions of these features, and thus does not disclose that the inner curved transition extends a distance of between 0.5t and 2t, that the outer curved transition extends a distance of between 0.5t and 3t, that the thickness at the intermediate portion of the barrel is between 0.5t and 3t, or that the outer surface is a distance that is between 0.5t and 6t. Instead, the nozzle is illustrated in a variety of angles demonstrating smooth transitions between the lip and barrel, and relatively uniform wall thicknesses (see Figs. 1-4). The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the nozzle of Yamauchi to have dimensions in the claimed ranges. It is noted that the specification refers to surprising results from making a nozzle within the claimed ranges of dimensions (i.e., further reduced stress at the weld, and design flexibility; Paragraphs 0105-0106), but it appears that there is no criticality discussed with respect to the claimed dimensions (e.g., a particular value resulting in a certain level of stress reduction), and it appears that the device of Yamauchi would work appropriately if made within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 7-8, the limitations of these claims are identical to limitations recited in claims 3-5, the only difference being that claims 3 and 5 include intervening claims 2 and 4, respectively. Since all of the above claims are rendered obvious by Yamauchi, claims 7 and 8 are rejected for the same reasons outlined above regarding claims 3 and 5.
Regarding claim 10, Yamauchi discloses the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the lip is contoured to substantially match a contour of a portion of a head of the end of the vessel that was removed to form a hole in which the nozzle is positionable (Paragraph 0004; Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Yamauchi discloses the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the proximate side of the lip is spaced apart from an inner surface of the barrel defining the inner passageway at the first end of the nozzle by a distance that is at least greater than 1t (since the wall thickness is uniform and a curved transition is included between the barrel and the lip; Paragraph 0004; see Figs. 1-2).
Yamauchi is silent regarding the specifics of the dimension as claimed, and thus does not disclose that the distance is between 2t and 6t such that a joint of the weld between the wall and the distal side of the lip is a distance of between 2t and 6t from the inner surface of the barrel defining the inner passageway at the first end of the nozzle. Instead, the nozzle is illustrated with an unspecified distance that only has a minimum value outside of the claimed range, as described above. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the nozzle of Yamauchi to have the claimed distance in the claimed range. From the specification, it appears that there is no criticality discussed with respect to the claimed dimension (e.g., a particular value resulting in a certain level of stress reduction), and it appears that the device of Yamauchi would work appropriately if made within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 12-13, Yamauchi discloses the nozzle of claim 1, but is silent regarding the specific dimensions of the first distance and the wall of the vessel.
Instead, the nozzle is illustrated and described to have a first distance that is at least as large as the wall thickness (see above regarding claim 1). Further, the disclosure does not appear to limit the invention to pressure vessels having any particular wall thickness. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the nozzle of Yamauchi to have a first distance of at least 2.5 cm and to apply the nozzle to the wall of a vessel head having a thickness of at least 2.5 cm. From the specification, it appears that there is no criticality discussed with respect to the claimed dimensions (providing wide ranges for each; see Paragraph 0090), and it appears that the device of Yamauchi would work appropriately if made with the claimed dimensions.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi in view of Bauver, II et al. (US 2012/0325940; hereinafter “Bauver”).
Yamauchi discloses the nozzle of claims 5 and 8, but does not disclose that the barrel tapers from the intermediate portion to the interface opening of the second end of the nozzle.
Bauver teaches a similar nozzle for use in a pressure vessel (see the Abstract), wherein a barrel of the nozzle tapers from an intermediate portion to an interface opening of a second end of the nozzle (see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the nozzle of Yamauchi with a taper at the second end of the nozzle, since Bauver teaches that this configuration is appropriate for the same use. The differences in dependencies between claims 5 and 8 do not impact this structure, thus the combined invention of Yamauchi and Bauver renders obvious the inventions of both claims 6 and 9.
Claims 14-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celik et al. (US 8,313,561) in view of Yamauchi.
Regarding claims 14-15, Celik et al. disclose a vessel (1; Fig. 1) for an apparatus configured to utilize cyclic pressurization (Col. 6, lines 41-49), the vessel comprising:
a body (3/10/12) having a first end (12) and a second end (10), the first end having an opening defined therein (at 11; see Fig. 1), the first end having a wall, the body of the vessel defining a chamber within the vessel (a wall and chamber are inherent features of a vessel as it would be known in the art; see Fig. 1; Col. 9, lines 32-47);
a first nozzle (11) positioned within the opening defined in the first end of the body (Fig. 1);
wherein the second end of the body has an opening defined therein (at 9; see Fig. 1), the second end having a wall (an inherent feature, see above); and
a second nozzle (9) positioned within the opening defined in the second end of the body (Fig. 1).
Celik et al. is silent regarding details of the features of the first nozzle and the second nozzle. However, Yamauchi renders obvious the features of the first nozzle of claim 14 and the second nozzle of claim 15, as described above regarding claim 1. Yamauchi further discloses that the nozzle is intended to be attached to a pressure vessel (Paragraph 0001; see 7 in Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the vessel of Celik et al. with a first nozzle and a second nozzle having the claimed features, since Yamauchi teaches such a nozzle is appropriate for use in a pressure vessel.
Regarding claims 16-19, the limitations of these claims are identical to limitations recited in claims 2-5. Since all of the limitations are only related to features of the first nozzle, which is rendered obvious by Yamauchi, claims 16-19 are rejected for the same reasons outlined above regarding claims 2-5 as obvious modifications of the nozzle of Yamauchi applied to the vessel of Celik et al., as described above regarding claim 14.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations of this claim are identical to the limitations recited in claim 11. Since the limitations are only related to features of the first nozzle, which is rendered obvious by Yamauchi, claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons outlined above regarding claim 11 as an obvious modification of the nozzle of Yamauchi applied to the vessel of Celik et al., as described above regarding claim 14.
Regarding claim 22, Celik et al.-Yamauchi in combination disclose the vessel of claim 14. Celik et al. further disclose that the apparatus configured to utilize cyclic pressurization is a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) system (Col. 6, lines 41-49).
Regarding claim 23, Celik et al.-Yamauchi in combination disclose the vessel of claim 14. Celik et al. further disclose that the vessel has a diameter of at least 1.2 meters (vessel diameter preferably greater than 1.0 m, Col. 17, line 66 - Col. 18, line 2; specific example provided with a diameter of 5.1 m, Col. 16, lines 49-50).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 8,529,674) in view of Celik et al. and Yamauchi.
Lee et al. disclose a system for purification of a fluid, configured as a pressure swing adsorption system (see the Abstract), comprising:
a plurality of vessels (e.g., 10a-10d in Fig. 3; Col. 8, lines 9-38), each of the vessels having: a body having a first end and a second end, the first end having an opening defined therein, the first end having a wall, the body of the vessel defining a chamber within the vessel, at least one layer of adsorbent material being positioned within the chamber (see Fig. 3; Col. 7, lines 30-44; each of these features is explicitly described or is an inherent feature of a vessel as it would be known in the art).
Lee et al. further disclose that each vessel has at least one gas inlet and at least one gas outlet (see cited passage above) and may have a flow restriction device at each end (Col. 11, lines 24-38), but does not explicitly disclose a first nozzle positioned within the opening defined in the first end of the body. However, the vessel of Celik et al., modified in view of Yamauchi as described above regarding claims 14-15 renders obvious the features of the vessel of the instant claim, as described above regarding claims 1 and 14-15. Celik et al. further disclose that the vessel is intended for use in a pressure swing adsorption system (Col. 6, lines 41-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the system of Lee et al. with a plurality of vessels having the claimed features, since the vessel of Celik et al.-Yamauchi is disclosed as intended for use in such a system. Furthermore, the nozzle of the vessel of Celik et al.-Yamauchi would be an appropriate inlet/outlet and/or flow restriction device in accordance with Lee et al. and would represent a known means for introducing and withdrawing gas from the vessel, as noted by Lee et al. (Col. 7, lines 13-17). One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of incorporating the vessel of Celik et al.-Yamauchi in the system of Lee et al. with predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celik et al. in view of Yamauchi, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Bauver.
Celik et al.-Yamauchi in combination disclose the vessel of claim 19, but do not disclose that the barrel tapers from the intermediate portion to the interface opening of the second end of the nozzle.
Bauver teaches a similar nozzle for use in a pressure vessel (see the Abstract), wherein a barrel of the nozzle tapers from an intermediate portion to an interface opening of a second end of the nozzle (see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the nozzle of Celik et al.-Yamauchi with a taper at the second end of the nozzle, since Bauver teaches that this configuration is appropriate for the same use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. In particular, Sogo (JP 51147016, previously cited) discloses a nozzle, Haruna et al. (US 4,713,100) discloses a vessel, and Garrett (GB 2163669) discloses a PSA system relevant to the independent claims of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights