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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talley US 2,414,345A) in view of Kim et al. (KR-10-0695610B1) (hereafter Kim).
With respect to claim 1, Talley teaches an oxy-fuel system (title) for supplying a torch (D) with a fuel gas stored under pressure in a container (cylinder A), said system comprising the following components: (a) an upstream fuel gas supply line between the container and the torch (figure 1; and column 1, line 28-column 3, line 32); (b) a demand (sensitive demand regulator F) valve arranged in the upstream fuel gas supply line (column 2, lines 27-29); (c) the torch connected to an oxygen supply line (figure 1; and column 1, line 28-column 3, line 32), wherein the torch comprises a venturi nozzle adapted to generate in the upstream fuel gas supply line a negative pressure relative to atmospheric pressure in operating condition (column 1, lines 36-54; column 2, lines 36-55; and column 3, lines 13-32), and wherein the demand valve is vacuum-controlled and configured to have a pressure setpoint to open the demand valve, said pressure setpoint being negative relative to atmospheric pressure and equal or less negative than Pnegative (column 1, line 55-column 2, line 26; and column 2, lines 42-55; and column 3, lines 1-32).
With respect to claim 1, Talley does not explicitly teach that Pnegative is of at least
-0.3bar; and wherein the container has a regulator, the demand valve is directly connected to the regulator, and the demand valve is connected via a hose to the torch. However, since the flow of oxygen and acetylene controls the negative pressure, it is the examiner’s position that at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the apparatus of Talley to utilize a Pnegative that is of at least -0.3bar in order to achieve the desired oxyfuel flow for welding or cutting. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)).
While, Kim teaches wherein the container has a regulator (600), the demand valve (200) is directly connected to the regulator, and the demand valve is connected via a hose (40) to the torch (60) (figure 1; and the machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the regulator and valve combination in the apparatus of Talley in order to form a compact and easy to install gas controller that discharges the gas at the storage tank side at a constant pressure.
With respect to claim 2, Talley is silent with respect to the pressure setpoint of the demand valve; however, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a setpoint of at least -2.5 bar to generate enough resistance to properly control the movement of the diaphragm regulator.
With respect to claim 3, Talley teaches wherein the demand valve is a diaphragm valve (or membrane valve) comprising (a) a valve body with a first port connected to the container, and a second port connected to the upstream fuel gas supply line, (b) diaphragm clamped in the valve body, (c) a closure member coupled to the first side of the diaphragm and cooperating with a valve seat located between a valve inlet and a valve outlet, said closure member being adapted to open a passage between the valve inlet and the valve outlet when the pressure on the second side of the diaphragm is equal or higher (more negative relative to atmospheric pressure) than the pressure setpoint (figure 1; and column 3, lines 1-32).
With respect to claim 4, Talley is silent with respect to the diameter of the diaphragm; however, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a diaphragm with a diameter greater than 50mm in order to aid in coverage and form a better seal. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that,
where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative
dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions
would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not
patentably distinct from the prior art device.
With respect to claim 5, Talley teaches a valve seat and a valve opening (figure 1; and column 1, line 55-column 2, line 26), but is silent with respect to the diameter of the valve opening and the ratio of the diaphragm with respect to the valve opening. However, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a diameter ratio of greater than 8.5 in order to provide an adequate amount of overlap to generate the desired seal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner agrees that Talley does not teach that the container has a regulator, the demand valve is directly connected to the regulator, and the demand valve is connected via a hose to the torch. However, newly cited Kim teaches the newly added limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735