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 1-15 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, on line 2, “a set of rotary regeneration device” is unclear. It is unclear whether this is requiring more than one rotary regeneration device, since “set” seems to imply more than one yet singular “device” seems to only require one.
Regarding claim 1, on line 6, it is unclear whether “said treatment core” is referring to the previously recited “closed treatment core”.
Regarding claim 1, on lines 10-11, and again on line 12, “at least one treatment unit” is unclear. If this is referring to the previously recited treatment units, in both instances it should read “at least one of said treatment units”.
Regarding claim 1, on line 13, “said treatment unit group” is unclear since the claim previously recites 2 different treatment unit groups.
Regarding claim 1, on line 15, “said rotary regeneration device” is unclear since the claim previously recites a “set of rotary regeneration device”. It is unclear whether or not “said rotary regeneration device” requires the set.
Regarding claim 1, on lines 15 and 16, “each treatment unit group” should recite the “heat recovery treatment unit group” and the “regeneration treatment unit group” if this is what “each treatment unit group” is referring to.
Regarding claim 2, “said gas inlets and outlets” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, “said housings” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, “are arranged according to the same structure” is unclear and indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, “transformation between configurations that one identical structural housing corresponds to different positions is achieved by means of up-down reverse arrangements” is unclear. Applicant should reword this phrase to add clarity.
Regarding claim 5, “the transformation between configurations that one identical structural housing corresponds to different positions is achieved by means of rotary arrangements in up-down, left-right and front-rear perpendicular directions” is unclear. Applicant should reword this phrase to add clarity.
It is noted that claim 5 is missing a period.
Regarding claim 6, “said gas inlets and outlets” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the language makes it unclear whether multiple valves are arranged at each of the two ends of each treatment unit, or if one valve is arranged to each of the two ends.
Regarding claim 11, “group by group” is unclear. It is unclear what groups are being referred to.
Regarding claim 13, “full downstream regeneration or cooling combined regeneration” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It should read “a full downstream regeneration or a cooling combined regeneration”.
Regarding claim 13, “A-side and B-side” is unclear. It is unclear whether this is talking about the branch connection devices (see claim 7) or something else.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear what it means for the treatment units to be “arranged in” a cuboid shape.
Regarding claim 14, line 3, “the space” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear which “treatment unit” said treatment unit is referencing.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is written as a method claim. It is therefore unclear what structure is being required by 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 1-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato JP 2012/20226 [translation] in view of Zhang CN110772927.
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses a gas treatment device, comprising a housing, a working gas inlet, a working gas outlet (figure 1: inlet and outlet), a plurality of treatment units, and a set of rotary regeneration device (figure 5; page 2: rotary chamber), each treatment unit being a small fixed bed treater (figure 5: adsorption elements 100), all treatment units being arranged in a rectangular array and connected by a supporting and connection structure to form a closed treatment core (see figures), so that working gas entering said housing from said working gas inlet passes through said treatment units on said treatment core and reaches said working gas outlet (see figures); said rotary regeneration device being composed of a regeneration gas supply device (Abstract), a regeneration gas heating device (page 12: desorption gas is 130 degrees C which implies a heater) and a rotary docking device; said rotary docking device completes connection and switching between said rotary regeneration device and each treatment unit group by means of detachment, rotation and docking actions under controlled power drive (2nd to last page: power transmission member; claim 1).
Kato does not disclose in a regeneration process, regeneration gas from said regeneration gas supply device heating and regenerating a treatment agent in a regeneration treatment unit group comprising at least one treatment unit, recovering heat absorbed by a treatment agent in a heat recovery treatment unit group comprising at least one treatment unit in the regeneration process at the same time, and cooling said treatment unit group; said regeneration gas heating device being embedded in said rotary docking device.
Zhang discloses in a regeneration process, regeneration gas from said regeneration gas supply device heating and regenerating a treatment agent in a regeneration treatment unit group comprising at least one treatment unit, recovering heat absorbed by a treatment agent in a heat recovery treatment unit group comprising at least one treatment unit in the regeneration process at the same time, and cooling said treatment unit group; said regeneration gas heating device being embedded in said rotary docking device (final paragraph of page 2; page 6; Embodiment 2; figures 4, 5a and 5b; Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kato such that in a regeneration process, regeneration gas from said regeneration gas supply device heating and regenerating a treatment agent in a regeneration treatment unit group comprising at least one treatment unit, recovering heat absorbed by a treatment agent in a heat recovery treatment unit group comprising at least one treatment unit in the regeneration process at the same time, and cooling said treatment unit group; said regeneration gas heating device being embedded in said rotary docking device, as disclosed by Zhang, in order to improve a desorption regeneration effect and utilize existing heat energy.
Regarding claim 2, Kato discloses that by arranging the positions of said gas inlets and outlets of said treatment units, said gas inlets and outlets of all treatment units are respectively and uniformly distributed within two circular trajectories, and each of said regeneration treatment unit group and said heat recovery treatment unit group only comprises one treatment unit (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Kato discloses that said housings of all treatment units, including said gas inlets and outlets, are arranged according to the same structure (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kato discloses that transformation between configurations that one identical structural housing corresponds to different positions is achieved by means of up-down reverse arrangements (see figure 5), but does not disclose that the number of said treatment units is six, said treatment units are arranged in an array of 2*3. Nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the number of units and arrangement is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal gas capture and regeneration. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Kato discloses the transformation between configurations that one identical structural housing corresponds to different positions is achieved by means of rotary arrangements in up-down, left-right and front-rear perpendicular directions (see figure 5). Kato does not disclose that the number of said treatment units is eight, said treatment units are arranged in an array of 2*4. Nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the number of units and arrangement is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal gas capture and regeneration. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Kato discloses that the rotary docking device comprises a regeneration gas A-side rotary docking joint, a treatment unit gas inlet and outlet transformation device, and a regeneration gas B-side rotary docking joint, the function of said treatment unit gas inlet and outlet transformation device is to communicate said gas inlets and outlets of said treatment units arranged in a rectangular-like array with two circular trajectories uniformly arranged and respectively corresponding to said regeneration gas A-side rotary docking joint and said regeneration gas B-side rotary docking joint (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, Kato discloses that treatment unit gas inlet and outlet transformation device comprises a regeneration gas A-side branch connection device and a regeneration gas B-side branch connection device (see figure 5).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kato in view of Zhang does not disclose that each of said regeneration treatment unit group and said heat recovery treatment unit group comprises only one treatment unit. Nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the number of units per group is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal heat recovery and regeneration. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: If the 112 paragraph rejections are overcome, it appears that claims 10-14 would be 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. It appears that the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious dependent claims 10 and 14. In particular, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious claim 10 wherein resistance reducing valves are arranged at two ends of each treatment unit, or claim 14 wherein each treatment unit is arranged in a cuboid shape, said treatment agent is granular, two layers of sieve plates divide the space inside said treatment unit into three parts from top to bottom, namely, an upper gas channel, a packing chamber and a lower gas channel, a packing agent is filled in said packing chamber, the working gas passes through said packing chamber from bottom to top during a treatment operation, and the regeneration gas passes through said packing chamber from top to bottom during a regeneration operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights