DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-20 are pending for consideration following applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 12/12/2024.
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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “measuring with the sensor device is adapted to measure” (line 3) should be “measuring with the sensor device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “timers” (line 3; 2 instances) should be “times”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “plu-rality” (line 4) should be “plurality”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “contain-er” (line 4) should be “container”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “timers” (line 3; 2 instances) should be “times”. 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 1-8 and 10-20 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 1 recites “said period being predefined by a predetermined threshold is reached”. The phrase “a predetermined threshold is reached” is unclear because it is unclear whether the time period is predefined by the amount of time necessary for a predetermined threshold to be reached or if the time period is predefined by some other threshold.
Regarding claim 4, the phrases "preferably”, “more preferred”, and “most preferred" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 5, 14, and 20 each recite the limitation "the second re-vaporization period" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 5, 14, and 20 each recite the limitation "the n re-vaporization period" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 5, 14, and 20 each recite the limitation "the n+1 re-vaporization periods" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 20, the phrase "preferably” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, 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).
Claim 6 recites “the amount of residual, preferably liquified, gas in the first gas container at the beginning of any re-vaporization period is more, than the amount of residual, preferably liquified, gas in said first gas container at the end of said re-vaporization period”. It is unclear what is required by these limitations, as it is unclear how the amount of gas is more at the beginning of the re-vaporization period than at the end of the re-vaporization period.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said predetermined threshold” in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the phrases "preferably”, “more preferred”, and “most preferred" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 15 and 20 recite “the amount of residual liquified gas in the first gas container at the beginning of any re-vaporization period is more, than the amount of residual liquified gas in said first gas container at the end of said re-vaporization period”. It is unclear what is required by these limitations, as it is unclear how the amount of gas is more at the beginning of the re-vaporization period than at the end of the re-vaporization period.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 19, the phrases "preferably”, “more preferred”, and “most preferred" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first re-vaporization period" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dickerson, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,536,456).
Regarding Claim 1, when making and using the device of Dickerson, Dickerson necessarily discloses a method for optimization of residual gas usage (from tanks 202A and 202B) providing an improved emptying of a gas container in a gas delivery system, said gas delivery system comprising; a first 202A and a second 202B gas container for supplying gas (col. 4, lines 3-8), each container comprising liquified gas (col. 2, lines 58-62), and gas in gas phase (col. 2, lines 58-62) and an at least three-way valve 204 in fluid communication with the first and second gas containers (as shown in Figure 2B), the valve 204 being operable to change position between a first valve position (communicating tank 202A with outlet line 203), wherein gas in gas phase is supplied from the first container 202A, and a second valve position (communicating tank 202B with outlet line 203), wherein gas in gas phase is supplied from the second container 202B, wherein the method comprises the steps of; measuring with a sensor device (pressure sensor 232) a first sensed property (pressure) of the gas phase in the first gas container (sensor 232 measures the pressure of the gas in the first container when valve 204 is in the first position), receiving with a control unit (including CPU 206) the first sensed property from the sensor device 206 (col. 4, lines 34-39), changing the position of said valve 204 from the first valve position to the second valve position based on the value of said first sensed property when said first sensed property is below a predetermined value (col. 6, lines 38-47), when vapourization of liquid gas can no longer keep up with the gas usage in a receiving device (this is true because the tank is deemed empty); maintaining the valve 204 in the second valve position for a re-vaporization period of time (it is noted that any period of time is readable as a “re-vaporization period of time”, as the claim does not define the duration of this time), said period being predefined by a predetermined threshold is reached (the predetermined threshold being the pressure threshold at which the tank is no longer considered empty; this could include changing the pressure threshold to a lower pressure or replacing the tank with a full tank as described in col. 14, lines 4-8; it is noted that any period of time taken to perform this step is readable on the recited “re-vaporization period of time” as claimed) which then enables the first gas container 220A to again deliver stable pressure and flow above a minimum level that the receiving device consumes (this is necessarily achieved by a full tank), said predetermined threshold being determined by detection of flow rate and/or pressure and/or based on a second sensed property from the sensor device (determined by detection of pressure via the pressure sensor as described above), and changing the position of the valve 204 back to the first valve position after the re- vaporization period (switching back and forth occurs as shown in the flow chart shown in Figure 4, including switching back to tank 202A after the empty flag is reset).
Regarding Claim 2, Dickerson further discloses the first sensed property and/or the second sensed property is a gas flow measurement, a pressure, a temperature and/or a weight of the gas container (the sensed properties are pressures measured by sensor 232).
Regarding Claim 3, Dickerson is seen as further disclosing measuring with the sensor device 232 is adapted to measure a third sensed property of the first gas container (the sensor device is adapted to measure a third pressure at a third time; it is noted that the claim does not require the sensed properties to have different characteristics and additionally the claim only requires one sensor device), receiving with the control unit 206 the third sensed property from the sensor device 232, changing the position of said valve 204 from the first valve position to the second valve position based on said third sensed property (based on the measurement of pressure at a third time in the same manner as described with respect to the first sensed property above); maintaining the valve 202 in the second valve position for a second re-vaporization period of time (this is achieved when the third measurement indicates the first tank is empty in the same manner as described above), said second re-vaporization period being predefined and/or based on a fourth sensed property from the sensor device (the second re-vaporization period being predefined until the tank is deemed full), and changing the position of the valve 202 back to the first valve position after the second re-vaporization period (switching back and forth as described above as shown in Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 4, Dickerson further discloses the position of the valve 202 is changed at least two times, preferably at least 4 times, more preferred at least 6 times and most preferred a plurality of times until approximately all of the residual liquefied gas in the first gas container has evaporated (the valve is changed at least two times during normal use as described above; i.e. including following service personnel resetting the flags).
Regarding Claim 7, Dickerson further discloses the control unit 206 changes the position of the valve 202 and/or the control unit is a separate control device adapted for wireless communication with the valve (the control unit changes the position of the valve as described above).
Regarding Claim 10, Dickerson discloses a gas delivery system for optimization of residual gas usage (including via the use of processor 206), the system comprising; a first 202A and a second 202B gas container for supplying gas; an at least three-way valve 204 in fluid communication with the first and second gas containers, the valve (as shown in Figure 2B) being operable to change position between a first valve position (communicating tank 202A with outlet line 203), wherein gas is supplied from the first container 202A and a second valve position (communicating tank 202B with outlet line 203), wherein gas is supplied from the second container 202B, a sensor device (pressure sensor 232) adapted to measure a first sensed property (pressure) of the first gas container (sensor 232 measures the pressure of the gas in the first container when valve 204 is in the first position), a control unit (including CPU 206) configured to receive the first sensed property from the sensor device 232 (col. 4, lines 34-39), and being adapted to change the position of said valve 204 from the first valve position to the second valve position based on said first sensed property when said first sensed property is below a predetermined value (col. 6, lines 38-47); wherein the control unit 206 is adapted to maintain the valve 204 in the second valve position for a re-vaporization period of time (it is noted that any period of time is readable as a “re-vaporization period of time”, as the claim does not define the duration of this time), said re-vaporization period being predefined and/or based on a second sensed property from the sensor device (the re-vaporization period being predefined by the time taken to perform the step of refilling or changing the first tank to a full tank; alternatively, the re-vaporization period is seen to be based on a second sensed property, i.e. a property of the first tank being full, as sensed by the sensor device 232), wherein the control unit 206 is further adapted to change the position of the valve 204 back to the first valve position after the re-vaporization period (switching back and forth occurs as shown in the flow chart shown in Figure 4, including switching back to tank 202A after the empty flag is reset) which then enables the first gas container 202A to again deliver stable pressure and flow above a minimum level that the receiving device consumes (the valve is switched when the container is considered full, thereby necessarily being able to deliver stable pressure and flow above a minimum level that the receiving device consumes), said predetermined threshold (a threshold to determine the tank is empty) being determined by detection (detection by sensor 232).
Regarding Claim 11, Dickerson further discloses the first sensed property and/or the second sensed property is a gas flow measurement, a pressure, a temperature and/or a weight of the gas container (the sensed properties are pressures measured by sensor 232).
Regarding Claim 12, Dickerson is seen as further disclosing the sensor device 232 is adapted to measure a third sensed property of the first gas container (the sensor device is adapted to measure a third pressure at a third time; it is noted that the claim does not require the sensed properties to have different characteristics and additionally the claim only requires one sensor device), the control unit 206 is configured to receive the third sensed property from the sensor device 232, and being adapted to change the position of said valve 204 from the first valve position to the second valve position based on said third sensed property (based on the measurement of pressure at a third time in the same manner as described with respect to the first sensed property above); wherein that control unit 206 is adapted to maintain the valve 202 in the second valve position for a second re-vaporization period of time (this is achieved when the third measurement indicates the first tank is empty in the same manner as described above), said second re-vaporization period being predefined and/or based on a fourth sensed property from the sensor device (the second re-vaporization period being predefined until the tank is deemed full), wherein the control unit is further adapted to change the position of the valve 202 back to the first valve position after the second re-vaporization period (switching back and forth as described above as shown in Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 13, Dickerson further discloses the control unit 206 is configured to change the position of the valve 202 at least two times, preferably at least 4 times, more preferred at least 6 times and most preferred a plurality of times until approximately all of the residual liquefied gas in the first gas container has evaporated (the valve is changed at least two times during normal use as described above; i.e. including following service personnel resetting the flags).
Regarding Claim 16, Dickerson discloses a valve system for optimization of gas usage in a gas delivery system (including via the use of processor 206), said valve system comprising; an at least three-way valve 204 comprising: a first inlet for receiving gas from a first container 202A (as shown in Figure 2B), a second inlet for receiving gas from a second container 202B (as shown in Figure 2B), an outlet for directing the gas from the first and/or second inlet to a receiving device (pressurized gas system 104; Figure 1), wherein the valve 204 is adapted to change position between; a first valve position (communicating tank 202A with outlet line 203), such that gas may flow from the first container 202A through the valve 204 to the receiving device 104, and a second valve position (communicating tank 202B with outlet line 203), such that gas may flow from the second container 202B to the receiving device 104, said valve being positioned in the first position (at least initially), a sensor device (pressure sensor 232) adapted to measure a first sensed property (pressure), such as gas flow (it is noted that the phrase “such as” is not a positive recitation) said first property indicating if the flow of gas to the receiving device is below a predetermined level (col. 6, lines 38-47), a control unit (including CPU 206) adapted to change the position of said valve 204, so that in case the flow of gas is below the predetermined level, the control unit 206 changes the position of the valve from the first valve position to the second valve position (col. 6, lines 38-47), so that gas is directed from the second container 202B to the receiving device 104, wherein the control unit 206 is adapted to maintain the valve 204 in the second valve position to allow vaporization of new gas inside the first container (it is noted that the control unit maintains the valve in the second valve position such that it is possible for new gas inside the first container to vaporize; the claim only requires the control unit to be adapted to maintain the position of the valve as recited), so that when a predetermined vaporization period is reached (it is noted that any period is readable as a “vaporization period”, as the claim does not define the duration of this period), the control unit is adapted to change the position of the valve back to the first valve position (switching back and forth occurs as shown in the flow chart shown in Figure 4, including switching back to tank 202A after the empty flag is reset), so that the newly generated gas in the first container may flow to the receiving device (this occurs at least when filling or replacing the tank 202A with a new full tank 202A).
Regarding Claim 17, Dickerson further discloses the sensed properties are gas flow measurement, pressure, temperature and/or weight of the first gas container, and/or wherein the sensed properties are wirelessly transmitted to the control unit (the sensed properties are wirelessly transmitted via wireless network 116; col. 15, lines 57-64).
Regarding Claim 18, Dickerson is seen as further disclosing the sensor device 232 is adapted to measure a third sensed property of the first gas container (the sensor device is adapted to measure a third pressure at a third time; it is noted that the claim does not require the sensed properties to have different characteristics and additionally the claim only requires one sensor device), the control unit 206 is configured to receive the third sensed property from the sensor device 232, and is adapted to change the position of said valve 204 from the first valve position to the second valve position based on said third sensed property (based on the measurement of pressure at a third time in the same manner as described with respect to the first sensed property above), the control unit 206 is further adapted to maintain the valve 202 in the second valve position for a second re-vaporization period of time (this is achieved when the third measurement indicates the first tank is empty in the same manner as described above), said second re-vaporization period being predefined and/or based on a fourth sensed property from the sensor device (the second re-vaporization period being predefined until the tank is deemed full), and wherein the control unit is further adapted to change the position of the valve 202 back to the first valve position after the second re-vaporization period (switching back and forth as described above as shown in Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 19, Dickerson further discloses the control unit 206 is configured to change the position of the valve 202 at least two times, preferably at least 4 times, more preferred at least 6 times and most preferred a plurality of times until approximately all of the residual liquefied gas in the first gas container has evaporated (the valve is changed at least two times during normal use as described above; i.e. including following service personnel resetting the flags).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickerson, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,536,456).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Dickerson does not specifically disclose the first re-vaporization period is less than the second re-vaporization period, preferably the n re-vaporization period is less than the n+1 re-vaporization periods.
However, the selection of the re-vaporization periods is seen to have been an obvious matter of design choice and it is noted that the re-vaporization periods of Dickerson are dependent on the length of time needed to empty the second tank. Therefore, this period of time is dependent on the usage rate of gas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Dickerson such that the re-vaporization periods are any desired lengths, including lengths such that the first re-vaporization period is less than the second re-vaporization period for the purpose of accommodating the needs of the downstream system.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, as best understood Dickerson does not disclose the amount of residual, preferably liquified, gas in the first gas container at the beginning of any re-vaporization period is more, than the amount of residual, preferably liquified, gas in said first gas container at the end of said re-vaporization period.
However, the amount of usage of gas in the containers at any particular time is seen to have been an obvious matter of design choice to meet the needs of the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Dickerson such that the gas is used at any desired time periods, including such that the amount of residual gas in the first gas container at the beginning of any re-vaporization period is more than the amount of residual gas in said first gas container at the end of said re-vaporization period, for the purpose of accommodating the needs of the downstream system.
Regarding Claim 20, Dickerson does not specifically disclose the first re-vaporization period is less than the second re-vaporization period, preferably the n re-vaporization period is less than the n+1 re-vaporization periods and/or the amount of residual liquified gas in the first gas container at the beginning of any re-vaporization period is more than the amount of residual liquified gas in said first gas container at the end of said re-vaporization period.
However, the selection of the re-vaporization periods is seen to have been an obvious matter of design choice and it is noted that the re-vaporization periods of Dickerson are dependent on the length of time needed to empty the second tank. Therefore, this period of time is dependent on the usage rate of gas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Dickerson such that the re-vaporization periods are any desired lengths, including lengths such that the first re-vaporization period is less than the second re-vaporization period for the purpose of accommodating the needs of the downstream system.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickerson, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,536,456) in view of Heiderman et al. (US Patent Application 2023/0313951).
Regarding Claim 8, Dickerson does not disclose the method is controlled by a cloud/IoT based programme.
Heiderman teaches a method of controlling flow of gas (abstract) and further teaches the method is controlled by a cloud/IoT based programme (cloud based program including cloud platform 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Dickerson such that the method is controlled by a cloud based programme as taught by Heiderman for the purpose of allowing the information to be easily accessed by users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mullins (US Patent 11,762,399) teaches a gas transfer system including sensors coupled to a cloud system. Johnston (US Patent 8,272,393) teaches a switchover valve for pressure tanks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (571) 272-3607. 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights