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 .
Status of the claims
No claims is/are amended, Currently claims 57-76 are pending in this application.
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.
Claim 74 is 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 74 recites the limitation " the one or more coalescing filters " in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in 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.
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.
Claim(s) 57-59, 67-69, 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood et al (20140318638) in view of Keiji et al (JP 2004124710 A) further Butler (20110259434).
Regarding claim(s) 57-59, Harwood, (Fig. 9), discloses gas distribution system comprising: a manifold 215, the manifold having ports (connection to 235), wherein each of the plural ports defines a respective downstream gas flow line 235; each gas line having a valve subsystem 240 comprising a regulating valve 240 positioned on a corresponding one of the downstream gas flow lines 235; and a hose 220 in fluid communication with and located downstream of the regulating valve 240 along the corresponding downstream gas flow line 235.
Harwood fails to disclose valve as a combination of valves including a control valve and low pressure shut-off valve adjacent and inline with control valve 240. Keiji, Fig 1, teaches a gas system with low pressure shut-off valve 14 adjacent and inline with control valves 12,15.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood with valve as a combination of valves including a control valve and low pressure shut-off valve adjacent and inline with control valve in gas line as taught by Keiji in order to close the gas flow in abnormal gas pressure conditions.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose low pressure shut-off valve (valve 14 of Keiji) formed as slam shut control valve in the gas flow line slamming the valve to limit the flow into shut-off state when a pressure of the gas in the corresponding downstream gas flow line drops below. Butler teaches a slam shut control valve 100 (abstract) in the gas flow line 124-126 slamming the valve to limit the flow to a shut-off state when a pressure of the gas in the corresponding downstream gas flow line drops below a threshold (underpressure condition, Para 43).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with a low pressure shut-off valve formed as slam shut control valve slamming the valve closed at abnormally low pressure in gas line as taught by Butler as an art recognized functionally substitute low pressure flow stopping mechanism yielding predictable results of closing flow at abnormal pressure.
As to claim 67, Harwood as modified fails to disclose pressure reducer downstream of input supply. Keiji teaches a gas line with a pressure reducer 12 downstream of input supply (upstream of 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with pressure reducer downstream of input supply as taught by Keiji in order to provide desired pressure level.
As to claim 68, Harwood discloses an input gas fitting (connection to 205) configured to provide a supplied input gas to the system.
As to claim 69, Harwood as modified fails to disclose pressure reducer downstream of input supply. Keiji teaches a gas line with a pressure reducer 12 downstream of input supply (upstream of 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with pressure reducer downstream of input supply as taught by Keiji in order to provide desired pressure level.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose an emergency shut down valve downstream of inlet fitting and upstream of other valves. Keiji teaches a gas line a gas distribution with a high pressure shut off valve 11 upstream of other valves.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood with a high pressure shut off valve 11 upstream of other valves as taught by Keiji in order to enable shut off the gas flow in abnormal high pressure gas supply emergency situation.
As to claim 73, Harwood, (Fig. 9), discloses gas distribution system comprising a manifold 215 having a plurality of having ports (connection to 235), wherein each of the plural ports defines a respective downstream gas flow line 235; a plurality of control valves 240, wherein each of the plurality of control valves is positioned on a different corresponding one of the downstream gas flow lines 235,; and a plurality of hoses 220, wherein each hose is in fluid communication with and is located downstream of a corresponding control valve 240.
Harwood fails to disclose valve as a combination of valves including a control valve and low pressure shut-off valve adjacent and inline with control valve 240. Keiji, Fig 1, teaches a gas system with low pressure shut-off valve 14 adjacent and inline with control valves 12,15.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood with valve as a combination of valves including a control valve and low pressure shut-off valve adjacent and inline with control valve in gas line as taught by Keiji in order to close the gas flow in abnormal gas pressure conditions.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose low pressure shut-off valve (valve 14 of Keiji) formed as slam shut control valve in the gas flow line slamming the valve to limit the flow into shut-off state when a pressure of the gas in the corresponding downstream gas flow line drops below. Butler teaches a slam shut control valve 100 (abstract) in the gas flow line 124-126 slamming the valve to limit the flow to a shut-off state when a pressure of the gas in the corresponding downstream gas flow line drops below a threshold (underpressure condition, Para 43).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with a low pressure shut-off valve formed as slam shut control valve slamming the valve closed at abnormally low pressure in gas line as taught by Butler as an art recognized functionally substitute low pressure flow stopping mechanism yielding predictable results of closing flow at abnormal pressure.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose pressure reducer downstream of input supply. Keiji teaches a gas line with a pressure reducer 12 downstream of input supply (upstream of 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with pressure reducer downstream of input supply as taught by Keiji in order to provide desired pressure level.
Claim(s) 60-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood et al (20140318638) in view of Keiji et al (JP 2004124710 A) and Butler (20110259434) further in view of Hargreaves et al (GB 2217877 A).
Harwood as modified teaches, plurality of control valves 240 (each as a combination of valves including a control valve and low pressure shut-off valve adjacent and inline with control valve in each line) positioned on a different respective downstream gas flow line and wherein the gas distribution system comprises a plurality of hoses 220, wherein each of the plurality of hoses is in fluid communication with and is located downstream of a respective one of the plurality of control valves such that the valve combination (in view of Keiji and Butler) include slam shut valves closing in response to a downstream pressure below a threshold but discloses a fluidic pressure feedback based actuator and fails to disclose the a controller receiving signals from a downstream pressure sensor for actuating control valves. Hargreaves (Page 6, line 3-13) teaches a slam-shut valve actuated alternatively by an electronic controller based on downstream pressure sensor measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with the controller receiving signals from a downstream pressure sensor for actuating control valves as taught by Hargreaves as an art-recognized functionally equivalent substitute pressure feedback based valve actuation yielding predictable results of closing the valve during abnormal pressure.
Claim(s) 70-72, 74, 76, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood et al (20140318638) in view of Keiji et al (JP 2004124710 A) further of Butler (20110259434) further in view of Yeung et al (20210348476).
As to claims 70,71, Harwood as modified fails to disclose filter in gas flowpath. Yeung, Fig 3, teaches a gas line with a filter comprising a coalescing (liquid removal) filter 60b and a particulate filter 60a.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with filter comprising a coalescing liquid removal filter and a particulate filter as taught by Yeung in order to prevent both liquid and particulate ingress.
As to claim 72, Harwood as modified fails to disclose filter located upstream of manifold at inlet fitting. It would have been an obvious matter of engineering choice to modify Harwood as modified, to have filter located upstream of manifold at inlet fitting, absent a teaching as to criticality that the filter be located upstream of manifold at inlet fitting, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
As to claim 74, Harwood, (Fig. 9), discloses gas distribution system comprising: a manifold 215, the manifold having ports (connection to 235), wherein each of the plural ports defines a respective downstream gas flow line 235; each gas line having a valve subsystem 240 comprising a regulating valve 240 positioned on a corresponding one of the downstream gas flow lines 235; and a hose 220 in fluid communication with and located downstream of the regulating valve 240 along the corresponding downstream gas flow line 235.
Harwood fails to disclose valve as a combination of valves including a control valve and low pressure shut-off valve adjacent and inline with control valve 240. Keiji, Fig 1, teaches a gas system with low pressure shut-off valve 14 adjacent and inline with control valves 12,15.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood with valve as a combination of valves including a control valve and low pressure shut-off valve adjacent and inline with control valve in gas line as taught by Keiji in order to close the gas flow in abnormal gas pressure conditions.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose low pressure shut-off valve (valve 14 of Keiji) formed as slam shut control valve in the gas flow line slamming the valve to limit the flow into shut-off state when a pressure of the gas in the corresponding downstream gas flow line drops below. Butler teaches a slam shut control valve 100 (abstract) in the gas flow line 124-126 slamming the valve to limit the flow to a shut-off state when a pressure of the gas in the corresponding downstream gas flow line drops below a threshold (underpressure condition, Para 43).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with a low pressure shut-off valve formed as slam shut control valve slamming the valve closed at abnormally low pressure in gas line as taught by Butler as an art recognized functionally substitute low pressure flow stopping mechanism yielding predictable results of closing flow at abnormal pressure.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose pressure reducer downstream of input supply. Keiji teaches a gas line with a pressure reducer 12 downstream of input supply (upstream of 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with pressure reducer downstream of input supply as taught by Keiji in order to provide desired pressure level.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose an emergency shut down valve downstream of inlet fitting and upstream of other valves. Keiji teaches a gas line a gas distribution with a high pressure shut off valve 11 upstream of other valves.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood with a high pressure shut off valve 11 upstream of other valves as taught by Keiji in order to enable shut off the gas flow in abnormal high pressure gas supply emergency situation.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose filter in gas flowpath. Yeung, Fig 3, teaches a gas line with a filter comprising a coalescing (liquid removal) filter 60b and a particulate filter 60a.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with filter comprising a coalescing liquid removal filter and a particulate filter as taught by Yeung in order to prevent both liquid and particulate ingress.
As to claim 76, Harwood, (Fig. 9), discloses gas distribution system comprising: a manifold 215, the manifold having ports (connection to 235), wherein each of the plural ports defines a respective downstream gas flow line 235; each gas line having a valve subsystem 240 comprising a regulating valve 240 positioned on a corresponding one of the downstream gas flow lines 235; and a hose 220 in fluid communication with and located downstream of the regulating valve 240 along the corresponding downstream gas flow line 235.
Harwood fails to disclose valve as a combination of valves including a control valve and low pressure shut-off valve adjacent and inline with control valve 240. Keiji, Fig 1, teaches a gas system with low pressure shut-off valve 14 adjacent and inline with control valves 12,15.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood with valve as a combination of valves including a control valve and low pressure shut-off valve adjacent and inline with control valve in gas line as taught by Keiji in order to close the gas flow in abnormal gas pressure conditions.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose low pressure shut-off valve (valve 14 of Keiji) formed as slam shut control valve in the gas flow line slamming the valve to limit the flow into shut-off state when a pressure of the gas in the corresponding downstream gas flow line drops below. Butler teaches a slam shut control valve 100 (abstract) in the gas flow line 124-126 slamming the valve to limit the flow to a shut-off state when a pressure of the gas in the corresponding downstream gas flow line drops below a threshold (underpressure condition, Para 43).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with a low pressure shut-off valve formed as slam shut control valve slamming the valve closed at abnormally low pressure in gas line as taught by Butler as an art recognized functionally substitute low pressure flow stopping mechanism yielding predictable results of closing flow at abnormal pressure.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose filter in gas flowpath. Yeung, Fig 3, teaches a gas line with a filter comprising a coalescing (liquid removal) filter 60b and a particulate filter 60a.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with filter comprising a coalescing liquid removal filter and a particulate filter as taught by Yeung in order to prevent both liquid and particulate ingress.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose filter located upstream of manifold at inlet fitting. It would have been an obvious matter of engineering choice to modify Harwood as modified, to have filter located upstream of manifold at inlet fitting, absent a teaching as to criticality that the filter be located upstream of manifold at inlet fitting, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Claim(s) 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood et al (20140318638) in view of Keiji et al (JP 2004124710 A) further of Butler (20110259434) further in view of Hargreaves et al (GB 2217877 A) and Yeung et al (20210348476).
As to claim 75, Harwood, (Fig. 9), discloses gas distribution system comprising a manifold 215 having a plurality of having ports (connection to 235), wherein each of the plural ports defines a respective downstream gas flow line 235; a plurality of control valves 240, wherein each of the plurality of control valves is positioned on a different corresponding one of the downstream gas flow lines 235,; and a plurality of hoses 220, wherein each hose is in fluid communication with and is located downstream of a corresponding control valve 240.
Harwood fails to disclose valve as a combination of valves including a control valve and low pressure shut-off valve adjacent and inline with control valve 240. Keiji, Fig 1, teaches a gas system with low pressure shut-off valve 14 adjacent and inline with control valves 12,15.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood with valve as a combination of valves including a control valve and low pressure shut-off valve adjacent and inline with control valve in gas line as taught by Keiji in order to close the gas flow in abnormal gas pressure conditions.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose low pressure shut-off valve (valve 14 of Keiji) formed as slam shut control valve in the gas flow line slamming the valve to limit the flow into shut-off state when a pressure of the gas in the corresponding downstream gas flow line drops below. Butler teaches a slam shut control valve 100 (abstract) in the gas flow line 124-126 slamming the valve to limit the flow to a shut-off state when a pressure of the gas in the corresponding downstream gas flow line drops below a threshold (underpressure condition, Para 43).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with a low pressure shut-off valve formed as slam shut control valve slamming the valve closed at abnormally low pressure in gas line as taught by Butler as an art recognized functionally substitute low pressure flow stopping mechanism yielding predictable results of closing flow at abnormal pressure.
Harwood as modified teaches, plurality of control valves 240 positioned on a different respective downstream gas flow line and wherein the gas distribution system comprises a plurality of hoses 220, wherein each of the plurality of hoses is in fluid communication with and is located downstream of a respective one of the plurality of control valves such that the control valve combinations (in view of Keiji and Butler) include slam shut valves closing in response to a downstream pressure below a threshold but fasil to disclose a fluidic pressure feedback based actuator and fails to disclose the a controller receiving signals from a downstream pressure sensor for actuating control valves.
Hargreaves (Page 6, line 3-13) teaches a slam-shut valve actuated alternatively by an electronic controller based on downstream pressure sensor measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with the a controller receiving signals from a downstream pressure sensor for actuating control valves as taught by Hargreaves as an art-recognized functionally equivalent substitute pressure feedback based valve actuation yielding predictable results of closing the valve during abnormal pressure.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose filter in gas flowpath. Yeung, Fig 3, teaches a gas line with a filter comprising a coalescing (liquid removal) filter 60b and a particulate filter 60a.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Harwood as modified with filter comprising a coalescing liquid removal filter and a particulate filter as taught by Yeung in order to prevent both liquid and particulate ingress.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose filter located upstream of manifold at inlet fitting. It would have been an obvious matter of engineering choice to modify Harwood as modified, to have filter located upstream of manifold at inlet fitting, absent a teaching as to criticality that the filter be located upstream of manifold at inlet fitting, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. However, new prior art Keiji is cited to show incorporation of combination of control valve and low-pressure shutoff valve.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Hargreaves that “controller is not used to cause the slam-shut valves to close in response to a decrease in pressure … no teaching, … to sense a decrease in pressure and cause the slam shut valve to slam shut when the pressure of gas in the corresponding downstream gas flow line drops below the threshold” are not persuasive since Butler is cited to show valve closing based on low pressure. Hargreaves is only cited to show incorporation of electronic feedback of pressure condition to actuate the valve. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments regarding Zhang are persuasive and rejection over Zhang is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Yeung that “Yeung offers no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the system disclosed therein to place the filter(s) upstream of the manifold” are not persuasive since this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any novel or unexpected results to a particular arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights