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 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 4 and 6-8 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 4 recites the limitation “The gas purification device according to claim 1, wherein a vacuum pump is provided on an inlet side of the raw material gas, and a pressure of the adsorption tower is reduced in the regenerating step.” Claim 4 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 4 is an apparatus claim because it is to a “device.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “The gas purification device according to claim 1, wherein a vacuum pump is provided on an inlet side of the raw gas material, and a pressure of the adsorption tower is configured to be reduced in the regenerating step.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation “The gas purification device according to claim 2, wherein a vacuum pump is provided on an inlet side of the raw material gas, and a pressure of the adsorption tower is reduced in the regenerating step.” Claim 6 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 6 is an apparatus claim because it is to a “device.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “The gas purification device according to claim 2, wherein a vacuum pump is provided on an inlet side of the raw gas material, and a pressure of the adsorption tower is configured to be reduced in the regenerating step.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “The gas purification device according to claim 3, wherein a vacuum pump is provided on an inlet side of the raw material gas, and a pressure of the adsorption tower is reduced in the regenerating step.” Claim 7 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 7 is an apparatus claim because it is to a “device.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “The gas purification device according to claim 3, wherein a vacuum pump is provided on an inlet side of the raw gas material, and a pressure of the adsorption tower is configured to be reduced in the regenerating step.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “The gas purification device according to claim 5, wherein a vacuum pump is provided on an inlet side of the raw material gas, and a pressure of the adsorption tower is reduced in the regenerating step.” Claim 8 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 8 is an apparatus claim because it is to a “device.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “The gas purification device according to claim 5, wherein a vacuum pump is provided on an inlet side of the raw gas material, and a pressure of the adsorption tower is configured to be reduced in the regenerating step.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2003071231 A to Yoshia et al. (hereinafter referred to as Yoshia).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshio teaches a gas purification device (¶0001 “The present invention relates to an apparatus for separating and purifying a gas”) comprising: a compressor configured to compress a raw material gas (Fig. 1, compressor 31a); and an adsorption tower filled with an adsorbent into which the compressed raw material gas is introduced (Fig. 1, adsorption columns 11a, 11b, 21a, 21b), the adsorption tower being configured to purify the raw material gas by a pressure swing adsorption method (¶0003 “As a method of separating and recovering a target gas from a raw material gas, there is a pressure fluctuation adsorption separation (PSA) method.”) including sequentially performing an adsorbing step and a regenerating step to conduct gas separation (¶0009 “and a plurality of valves provided at predetermined positions for switching the adsorption columns 11a and 11b between the adsorption step and the regeneration step.”), wherein a residual gas recovery path connecting an outlet side of the adsorption tower and a suction side of the compressor is provided (Fig. 1, L8 represents a gas recovery path connecting an outlet side of adsorption columns 21a and 21b with a suction side of compressor 31a), and the residual gas recovery path includes a pressure regulator (Fig. 1, pressure equalization valves 26a and 26b), a mass flow controller is provided on a raw material supply path on an exhaust side of the compressor (Fig. 1, flow control device 32 is on an exhaust side of compressor 31a), a bypass path bypassing the mass flow controller is provided (Fig. 1, flow control device 32 can be bypassed through adsorption columns 11a and 11b), and the bypass path includes a valve (Fig. 1, inlet valves 13a and 13b).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshia teaches the gas purification device as applied to claim 1 above, comprising a plurality of the adsorption towers (Fig. 1, adsorption columns 11a, 11b, 21a, and 21b), wherein the raw material gas is a noble gas containing air, oxygen, or nitrogen as an impurity (¶0001 “The present invention relates to a separation and purification apparatus optimal for recovering and reusing a rare gas such as helium, neon, krypton, or xenon” ; ¶0002 “A mixed gas containing a rare gas to be separated and purified mainly comprises a rare gas and nitrogen, and in plasma oxidation, this contains several percent of oxygen.”).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshia teaches the gas purification device as applied to claim 1 above, wherein a buffer tank is provided between the compressor and the mass flow controller (Fig. 1, buffer tank 51 is positioned between compressor 31a and flow control device 32 through path L4).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshia teaches the gas purification device as applied to claim 2 above, wherein a buffer tank is provided between the compressor and the mass flow controller (Fig. 1, buffer tank 51 is positioned between compressor 31a and flow control device 32 through path L4).
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 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshia, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2016/0272908 A1 to Utaki et al. (hereinafter referred to as Utaki).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshia teaches the gas purification device as applied to claim 1 above, wherein a pressure of the adsorption tower is reduced in the regenerating step (¶0021 “At this time, in the first adsorption column 11a, a regeneration step for reducing the internal pressure and desorbing krypton adsorbed on the activated carbon is performed.”). Yoshia does not disclose the mechanism in which the pressure is reduced and does therefore not teach a vacuum pump provided on an inlet side of the raw material gas.
However, Utaki teaches a gas purification apparatus utilizing multiple pressure swing adsorption beds (Abstract “The rate of recovery of a purification target gas from a gas purification apparatus that uses a PSA device is improved” ; Fig. 1), wherein a vacuum pump is provided on an inlet side of the raw material gas (Fig. 1, vacuum pump P3 is on the inlet side of source gas tank T1). Utaki further teaches that the use of the vacuum pump increases the recovery rate of the product gas (¶0211 “With this configuration, the washing step with the product gas need not be performed in the case of discharging gas from the miscellaneous gas discharge line L3 by using the vacuum pump P3, as a result of which the amount of the product gas is increased, thus advantageously increasing the recovery rate.”).
Yoshia and Utaki are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multi-bed pressure swing adsorption apparatuses. 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 gas purification device as taught by Yoshia to include the vacuum pump on an inlet side of the raw material gas as taught by Utaki in order to facilitate the regeneration step and improve the recovery rate of the target gas.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshia teaches the gas purification device as applied to claim 2 above, wherein a pressure of the adsorption tower is reduced in the regenerating step (¶0021 “At this time, in the first adsorption column 11a, a regeneration step for reducing the internal pressure and desorbing krypton adsorbed on the activated carbon is performed.”). Yoshia does not disclose the mechanism in which the pressure is reduced and does therefore not teach a vacuum pump provided on an inlet side of the raw material gas.
However, Utaki teaches a gas purification apparatus utilizing multiple pressure swing adsorption beds (Abstract “The rate of recovery of a purification target gas from a gas purification apparatus that uses a PSA device is improved” ; Fig. 1), wherein a vacuum pump is provided on an inlet side of the raw material gas (Fig. 1, vacuum pump P3 is on the inlet side of source gas tank T1). Utaki further teaches that the use of the vacuum pump increases the recovery rate of the product gas (¶0211 “With this configuration, the washing step with the product gas need not be performed in the case of discharging gas from the miscellaneous gas discharge line L3 by using the vacuum pump P3, as a result of which the amount of the product gas is increased, thus advantageously increasing the recovery rate.”).
Yoshia and Utaki are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multi-bed pressure swing adsorption apparatuses. 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 gas purification device as taught by Yoshia to include the vacuum pump on an inlet side of the raw material gas as taught by Utaki in order to facilitate the regeneration step and improve the recovery rate of the target gas.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshia teaches the gas purification device as applied to claim 3 above, wherein a pressure of the adsorption tower is reduced in the regenerating step (¶0021 “At this time, in the first adsorption column 11a, a regeneration step for reducing the internal pressure and desorbing krypton adsorbed on the activated carbon is performed.”). Yoshia does not disclose the mechanism in which the pressure is reduced and does therefore not teach a vacuum pump provided on an inlet side of the raw material gas.
However, Utaki teaches a gas purification apparatus utilizing multiple pressure swing adsorption beds (Abstract “The rate of recovery of a purification target gas from a gas purification apparatus that uses a PSA device is improved” ; Fig. 1), wherein a vacuum pump is provided on an inlet side of the raw material gas (Fig. 1, vacuum pump P3 is on the inlet side of source gas tank T1). Utaki further teaches that the use of the vacuum pump increases the recovery rate of the product gas (¶0211 “With this configuration, the washing step with the product gas need not be performed in the case of discharging gas from the miscellaneous gas discharge line L3 by using the vacuum pump P3, as a result of which the amount of the product gas is increased, thus advantageously increasing the recovery rate.”).
Yoshia and Utaki are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multi-bed pressure swing adsorption apparatuses. 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 gas purification device as taught by Yoshia to include the vacuum pump on an inlet side of the raw material gas as taught by Utaki in order to facilitate the regeneration step and improve the recovery rate of the target gas.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshia teaches the gas purification device as applied to claim 5 above, wherein a pressure of the adsorption tower is reduced in the regenerating step (¶0021 “At this time, in the first adsorption column 11a, a regeneration step for reducing the internal pressure and desorbing krypton adsorbed on the activated carbon is performed.”). Yoshia does not disclose the mechanism in which the pressure is reduced and does therefore not teach a vacuum pump provided on an inlet side of the raw material gas.
However, Utaki teaches a gas purification apparatus utilizing multiple pressure swing adsorption beds (Abstract “The rate of recovery of a purification target gas from a gas purification apparatus that uses a PSA device is improved” ; Fig. 1), wherein a vacuum pump is provided on an inlet side of the raw material gas (Fig. 1, vacuum pump P3 is on the inlet side of source gas tank T1). Utaki further teaches that the use of the vacuum pump increases the recovery rate of the product gas (¶0211 “With this configuration, the washing step with the product gas need not be performed in the case of discharging gas from the miscellaneous gas discharge line L3 by using the vacuum pump P3, as a result of which the amount of the product gas is increased, thus advantageously increasing the recovery rate.”).
Yoshia and Utaki are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multi-bed pressure swing adsorption apparatuses. 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 gas purification device as taught by Yoshia to include the vacuum pump on an inlet side of the raw material gas as taught by Utaki in order to facilitate the regeneration step and improve the recovery rate of the target gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights