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 .
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 September was considered. The Non-Patent Literature titled “Voice Anonymization in Urban Sound Recordings” was struck through as it appears to not be relevant to the recycling of contents of aerosol cans.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2, Line 4, “DME” should be amended to include the name with the acronym.
Page 2, Line 7, “PU” should be amended to include the name with the acronym.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 43 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, “DME” should be amended to – dimethyl ether (DME)--.
Lines 7-8, (the things you want to spray) should be removed.
Line 8, --PU (for foam)—should be amended to –PU foam--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 48 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, “according to claim 46” should be amended to – according to claim 47--. Claim 47 contains the gas chamber which is also recited in claim 48. The proposed amendment would have it more clear on the connection of the gas chamber with claims 46-47.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 49 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, “according to claim 46” should be amended to – according to claim 47--. Claim 47 contains the gas chamber and the second gas output which is also recited in claim 49. The proposed amendment would have it more clear on the connection of the gas chamber and the second gas output with claims 46-47.
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.
The limitation “cooling means” in claims 46-47 will be considered as a heat exchanger.
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 35-39, 42-45, 48, and 49 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.
Claims 37-39, 42-44, 48, and 49 recites the limitation "optionally" in line 2 of claim 37, lines 2 and 4 of claim 38, line 2 of claim 39, lines 3 and 4 of claim 42, line 4 of claim 43, line 3 of claim 44, lines 3 and 5 of claim 48, and line 5 of claim 49. The term “optionally” allows for the limitations in each of the claim to not be mandatory or required. It is unclear if the limitations where “optionally” is used is required within the system or just an option. The Office recommends amending the claim to remove “optionally”. For purposes of examination, the limitations with the term “optionally” will be considered as required.
Claim 35 recites the limitation " step e) removing compressed gas from aerosol cans and allowing the compressed gas to expand." in lines 2-3 of the claim. The limitation is unclear as claim 35 depends from claim 34 in which if step e) occurs in alphabetical order with the step seen in claim 34 or occurs before step a) as the gas is removed is removed from the can before the gaseous faction is removed. The Office recommends amending the claim with support from the specification to clarify the order of the method steps. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as it is written.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "for performing step c) and/or step g)." in line 2 of the claim. The limitation is unclear as claim 45 depends from claim 34 in which step g) is not recited until claim 44. It is unclear if claim 45 should depend from claim 44 or if claim 45 remains dependent to claim 34 when step g) occurs. The Office recommends amending the claim to depend from claim 44. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as dependent from claim 44.
Claim 48 recites the limitation "for instance via respective heat exchangers" in line 7 of the claim. The limitation is unclear on if it is an example of heat exchanging contact between the gas chamber and the gas fraction that is not part of the invention or if the limitation is part of the invention. The Office recommends amending the claim to remove the term “for instance”. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as part of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 34-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nugues (US 5341853 A) in view of Osse (US 20210229144 A1).
Regarding Claim 34:
Nugues discloses a method for recycling the contents of aerosol cans (1, Figure 1), the contents comprising a liquid (Column 2, Lines 23-29, the aerosol can include a liquid), the method comprising:
a) applying a reduced pressure to at least the liquid, thereby removing a gaseous fraction from the liquid, leaving a liquid fraction, the gaseous fraction containing at least gaseous matter previously dissolved in the liquid fraction (Column 2, Lines 24-35, the liquid and propellant gas mixture is released into a low pressure tank that causes flashing and the separation of the components); and
b) discharging the gaseous fraction separate from the liquid fraction (Column 2, Lines 35-39, the gas fraction is discharged from the tank by the compressor); and
c) cooling the gaseous fraction, thereby condensing low-boilers present in the gaseous fraction (Column 2, Lines 39-44, the gaseous fraction is cooled and reliquefied by the air condenser).
Nugues does not disclose:
c) cooling the gaseous fraction, thereby condensing low-boilers present in the gaseous fraction; and
d) discharging the condensate separately from the remainder of the gaseous fraction.
Osse teaches a method for processing spray cans, comprising:
c) cooling the gaseous fraction, thereby condensing low-boilers present in the gaseous fraction (Paragraphs [0012] and [0015], the expansion of the gas in the first space cools the low-boilers present in the gaseous fraction); and
d) discharging the condensate separately from the remainder of the gaseous fraction (Paragraphs [0012] and [0014], the condensate is separately discharged from the remainder of the gaseous fraction).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nugues to include cooling the gaseous fraction, thereby condensing low-boilers present in the gaseous fraction and discharging the condensate separately from the remainder of the gaseous fraction as taught by Osse with the motivation to have thermal management during the recycling of aerosol cans to reduce the cost.
Regarding Claim 35:
Nugues discloses:
further including: step e) removing compressed gas from aerosol cans and allowing the compressed gas to expand (Column 2, Lines 24-35, the compressed gas from the aerosol can is removed and the gas expands).
Regarding Claim 36:
Nugues discloses:
further including performing step c) using cold generated by the compressed gas expanding (Column 2, Lines 39-44).
Nugues does not disclose:
further including performing step c) using cold generated by the compressed gas expanding.
Osse teaches:
further including performing step c) using cold generated by the compressed gas expanding (Paragraphs [0012] and [0015], the compressed gas is cooled during expansion which causes the gaseous fraction to cool).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nugues to include performing step c) using cold generated by the compressed gas expanding as taught by Osse with the motivation to cool part of the expanded gas without the use of additional components.
Regarding Claim 37:
Nugues discloses:
step f) compressing the gaseous fraction and optionally the expanded gas (Column 2, Lines 31-49, the gaseous fraction and the expanded gas are compressed).
Nugues does not disclose:
step f) compressing the gaseous fraction and optionally the expanded gas.
Osse teaches:
step f) compressing the gaseous fraction and optionally the expanded gas (Paragraph [0012], the gaseous fraction and the expanded gas are compressed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nugues to compressing the gaseous fraction and optionally the expanded gas as taught by Osse with the motivation to condense the gas further to produce liquid propellant that can be recycled to reduce waste.
Regarding Claim 38:
Nugues discloses:
wherein the method further includes step f) compressing the gaseous fraction and optionally the expanded gas, he method further including using cold generated by the compressed gas expanding for cooling the gaseous fraction and optionally the expanded gas during and/or after it has been compressed in step f) (Column 2, Lines 31-42, the gaseous fraction and the expanded gas are cooled as the vapors resulting from the expansion are compressed).
Regarding Claim 40:
Nugues discloses:
the compressed gas is reliquefied and stored in suitable storage tanks (Column 2, Lines 39-44).
Nugues does not disclose:
further comprising discharging the condensate separate from the liquid fraction.
Osse teaches:
further comprising discharging the condensate separate from the liquid fraction (Paragraph [0014], the condensate is separately discharged from the remainder of the liquids in the second space).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nugues to include discharging the condensate separate from the liquid fraction as taught by Osse with the motivation to obtain only the liquid propellant for further use.
Claims 39, 42, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nugues in view of Osse in further view of O’Neil (US 5385177 A).
Regarding Claim 39:
Nugues discloses:
wherein the expanded gas and the gaseous fraction are both cooled in step c), optionally by merging them before cooling (Column 2, Lines 39-49, the gaseous fraction and the expanded gas that is cooled and reliquefied by the air condenser).
Nugues and Osse do not teach:
wherein the expanded gas and the gaseous fraction are both cooled in step c), optionally by merging them before cooling.
O’Neil teaches an aerosol recycling system, comprising:
wherein the expanded gas and the gaseous fraction are both cooled in step c), optionally by merging them before cooling (Column 2, Lines 66-68 and Column 3, Lines 7-10, the gaseous fraction and the expanded gas (the gas expanded when released from the can) are merged together and cooled).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nugues and Osse to include the expanded gas and the gaseous fraction are both cooled in step c), optionally by merging them before cooling as taught by O’Neil with the motivation to use the liquid as a fuel source for further use of the propellant.
Regarding Claim 42:
Nugues discloses:
wherein before or during step c) the reduced pressure is at least partially removed (Column 2, Lines 39-44, the reduced pressure is removed from the low pressure tank).
Nugues and Osse do not teach:
wherein optionally gas removed in order to apply the reduced pressure of step a) is used to at least partially remove the reduced pressure in a later step, the method optionally further including monitoring the at least partially removed pressure and discharging gas when the pressure exceeds a predetermined threshold.
O’Neil teaches an aerosol recycling system, comprising:
wherein optionally gas removed in order to apply the reduced pressure of step a) is used to at least partially remove the reduced pressure in a later step, the method optionally further including monitoring the at least partially removed pressure and discharging gas when the pressure exceeds a predetermined threshold (Column 2, Line 68 to Column 3, Lines 1-19, gas is removed when the pressure sensing valve is above atmospheric pressure (predetermined threshold) where the pressure signal opening valve monitors the pressure within the tank).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nugues and Osse to include optionally gas removed in order to apply the reduced pressure of step a) is used to at least partially remove the reduced pressure in a later step, the method optionally further including monitoring the at least partially removed pressure and discharging gas when the pressure exceeds a predetermined threshold as taught by O’Neil with the motivation to not discharge the propellant to the atmosphere to reduce environmental impact as well as not exceed the pressure threshold that which may cause damage to the tank and its components.
Regarding Claim 45:
Nugues discloses:
step c) cooling the gaseous fraction, thereby condensing low-boilers present in the gaseous fraction (Column 2, Lines 39-44).
Nugues and Osse do not teach:
further including operating a cooling system for performing step c) and/or step g).
O’Neil teaches an aerosol recycling system, comprising:
further including operating a cooling system (17, Figure 2, the heat exchanger is the cooling system) for performing step c) (Column 2, Lines 58-60, the heat exchanger cools the gaseous fraction).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nugues and Osse to include including operating a cooling system for performing step c) as taught by O’Neil with the motivation to cool the propellant to a predetermined temperature.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nugues in view of Osse in further view of Gricaev (DE 102009021835 A1).
Regarding Claim 43:
Nugues discloses:
the aerosol can contains a propellant gas and liquid content (Column 2, Lines 26-29).
Nugues and Osse do not teach:
wherein the gaseous fraction comprises any one or more of:
propane, (iso)butane, DME or any mixture thereof, and/or wherein the condensate comprises acetone and/or
an alcohol, wherein optionally the alcohol is one or more selected from the group of ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, butanol, and/or
wherein the discharged liquid fraction comprises one or more of: paint, hairspray, insecticides, medicine, oils, PU foam, shaving foam, cosmetics, tan screen.
Gricaev teaches the recycling of aerosol containers, comprising:
wherein the gaseous fraction comprises any one or more of:
propane, (iso)butane, DME or any mixture thereof, and/or wherein the condensate comprises acetone and/or
an alcohol, wherein optionally the alcohol is one or more selected from the group of ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, butanol (Paragraph [0020], the gas fraction comprises propane and the alcohol can be ethanol or butanol).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nugues and Osse to include the gas fraction comprises propane and the alcohol comprises ethanol or butanol as taught by Gricaev with the motivation to have an aerosol can filled with content that is convenient for the user for various applications.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nugues in view of Osse in further view of Wagner (US 6178882 B1).
Regarding Claim 44:
Nugues discloses:
piercing an aerosol can to release its contents (Column 2, Lines 5-8).
Nugues and Osse do not teach:
further including:
- an additional step g) of cooling the gaseous fraction, to be performed after step c), optionally in a separate vessel, in the presence of trapping elements, thereby trapping pollutants such as water and siloxanes on the trapping elements, and/or
- a step of crushing aerosol cans, thereby releasing their contents.
Wagner teaches a compactor for container containing flowable materials, comprising:
further including:
- a step of crushing aerosol cans, thereby releasing their contents (Column 2, Lines 4-8 and Colum 5, Lines 4-12, the cans are crushed and the contents are released).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nugues and Osse to include a step of crushing aerosol cans, thereby releasing their contents as taught by Wagner with the motivation to safely remove the contents of the aerosol can without any explosion hazards.
Claims 46 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nugues (US 5341853 A) in view of Osse (US 20210229144 A1).
Regarding Claim 46:
Nugues discloses a system for recycling the contents of aerosol cans (1, Figure 1), the system comprising:
- a vacuum chamber (8, Figure 2, the low pressure tank is the vacuum chamber) having at least one input (2, Figure 2, the needle is the at least one input), for allowing a liquid to be introduced into the vacuum chamber (Column 2, Lines 24-30, liquid is introduced into the vacuum chamber), and at least a first liquid output (17, Figure 2, the piping is the first liquid output) and a first gas output (11, Figure 2, the strainer is the first gas output), for discharging a liquid fraction separately from a gas fraction (Column 2, Lines 35-42 and 48-50, the outputs separate the liquid fraction from the gas fraction);
- cooling means (15, Figure 2, the air condenser is the cooling means) arranged for cooling the gas fraction coming from the gas output (11, Figure 2), thereby condensing low-boiler present in the gas fraction (Column 2, Lines 39-44).
Nugues does not disclose:
- a second liquid output for discharging the condensate.
Osse teaches a method for processing spray cans, comprising:
- a vacuum chamber (3, Figure 1, the first space is the vacuum chamber) having at least one input (4, Figure 1, the feed means is the at least on input), and at least a first liquid output (8, Figure 1) and a first gas output (13, Figure 1, the gas flow is the first gas output), for discharging a liquid fraction separately from a gas fraction (Paragraphs [0012] and [0014], the liquid and gas fraction are discharged separately); and
- a second liquid output (12, Figure 1) for discharging the condensate (Paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nugues to include a vacuum chamber having at least one input, at least a first liquid output and a first gas output, for discharging a liquid fraction separately from a gas fraction, and a second liquid output for discharging the condensate as taught by Osse with the motivation to have thermal management during the recycling of aerosol cans to reduce the cost.
Regarding Claim 52:
The above-discussed combination of Nugues and Osse account for this subject matter where Osse teaches the second liquid output (12, Figure 1) and the first liquid output (8, Figure 1) discharge separately from each other (Paragraph [0014], the first and second liquid outputs discharge separately from each other).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nugues in view of Osse in further view of Wagner (US 6178882 B1).
Regarding Claim 53:
Nugues discloses:
piercing an aerosol can to release its contents (Column 2, Lines 5-8).
Nugues and Osse do not teach:
- a vacuum system configured for applying a reduced pressure in the vacuum chamber, wherein optionally the vacuum system comprises an output connected to the gas chamber, and/or
- an additional cooling chamber comprising trapping elements, wherein the system is configured for feeding the gaseous fraction through the additional cooling chamber in order to trap pollutants such as water and siloxanes, and/or
- a cooling system configured for extracting heat for cooling the gas fraction for condensing and/or for trapping pollutants such as water and siloxanes, and/or
- a crusher configured for crushing spray cans, thereby releasing their contents.
Wagner teaches a compactor for container containing flowable materials, comprising:
- a crusher (14, Figure 1, the crushing chamber is the crusher) configured for crushing spray cans, thereby releasing their contents (Column 2, Lines 4-8 and Colum 5, Lines 4-12, the cans are crushed and the contents are released).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nugues and Osse to include a crusher configured for crushing spray cans, thereby releasing their contents as taught by Wagner with the motivation to safely remove the contents of the aerosol can without any explosion hazards.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41 and 47 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 48-51 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 pieces of prior art are Nugues (US 5341853 A) in view of Osse (US 20210229144 A1).
Regarding Claim 41:
Claim 41 depends from claim 34 where Nugues and Osse teach the method for recycling contents of aerosol cans. Claim 41 contains the limitations seen in lines 2-6 that require the vacuum chamber being separate from an expansion chamber and a gas chamber for steps a) and c). The limitation is not taught by the prior art of record in view of all other limitations and any reference would further modify the Osse reference.
Regarding Claim 48:
Claim 48 depends from claim 46 where Nugues and Osse teach the system for recycling contents of aerosol cans. Claim 48 contains limitations that require an expansion chamber and a heat exchange system. The limitation is not taught by the prior art of record in view of all other limitations and any reference would further modify the Osse reference.
Claim 51 is objected to as being dependent from claim 48.
The closest pieces of prior art are Nugues (US 5341853 A) in view of Osse (US 20210229144 A1) in further view of Wagner (US 6178882 B1).
Regarding Claim 47:
Claim 47 depends from claim 46 where Nugues and Osse teach the system for recycling contents of aerosol cans. Claim 49 contains limitation “the cooling means being arranged for cooling gas present in the gas chamber” in the last line of the claim. Nugues discloses a first gas output (11, Figure 2) and the cooling means (15, Figure 2). Wagner teaches a gas chamber (96, Figure 6) connected to the first gas output (90, Figure 6) and comprising a second gas output (97, Figure 6). The connection of the gas chamber with the second gas output would further modify both Nugues and Wagner. The limitation is not taught by the prior art of record in view of all other limitations.
The closest pieces of prior art are Nugues (US 5341853 A) in view of Osse (US 20210229144 A1) in further view of O’Neil (US 5385177 A).
Regarding Claim 49:
Claim 49 depends from claim 46 where Nugues and Osse teach the system for recycling contents of aerosol cans. Claim 49 contains limitations which include the second gas output. Nugues discloses a compressor (13, Figure 2) connected to the first liquid output (11, Figure 2). O’Neil teaches a compressor (15, Figure 2) condensing the remaining gas fraction and connected to a liquid gas collector (19, Figure 2) in order to discharge the condensed remaining gas. The connection of the gas chamber with the second gas output would further modify both Nugues and O’Neil. The limitation is not taught by the prior art of record in view of all other limitations.
Claim 50 is objected to as being dependent from claim 49.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cound (US 4459906 A) teaches an aerosol can evacuator comprising a crusher, an aerosol can, a tank, and a control unit.
Chipman (US 4349054 A) teaches an apparatus for safely destroying aerosol containers comprising an aerosol can, a tank, a baffle chamber, and a needle.
Campbell (US 5992475 A) teaches an aerosol-container evacuating system comprising an aerosol can, a tank, and a needle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES whose telephone number is (571)272-5373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights