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.
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, 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood et al (20140318638) in view of 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 control valves 240 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 with a downstream underpressure condition based slam shut valve in gas line as taught by Butler in order to close the gas flow in abnormal gas pressure conditions.
As to claim 68, Harwood discloses an input gas fitting (connection to 205) configured to provide a supplied input gas to the system.
Claim(s) 60-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood et al (20140318638) in view of Butler (20110259434) further in view of Hargreaves et al (GB 2217877 A).
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 valves (in view of Butler) are 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) 67, 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood et al (20140318638) in view of Butler (20110259434) further in view of Zhang et al (20220349345).
As to claim 67, Harwood as modified fails to disclose pressure reducer downstream of control valve. Zhang, Fig 3, teaches a gas line with a pressure reducer 124 downstream of control valve 122.
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 control valve as taught by Zhang in order to provide desired pressure level.
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 control valves 240 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 with a downstream underpressure condition based slam shut valve in gas line as taught by Butler in order to close the gas flow in abnormal gas pressure conditions.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose pressure reducer downstream of control valve. Zhang, Fig 3, teaches a gas line with a pressure reducer 124 downstream of control valve 122.
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 control valve as taught by Zhang in order to provide desired pressure level.
Claim(s) 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood et al (20140318638) in view of Butler (20110259434) further in view of Ackerley et al (5730166) and Zhang et al (20220349345).
Harwood as modified fails to disclose an emergency shut down valve downstream of inlet fitting and upstream of control valves. Ackerley, (Fig. 1), teaches a gas distribution with inlet (T-junction at 10) having a manual valve downstream of inlet fitting (T-junction at 10) and upstream of slam-shut control valve 16.
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 manual valve downstream of inlet (inlet fitting) and upstream of slam-shut control valve as taught by Ackerley in order to enable manual shutdown of entire supply in case of emergency. The manual valve can be termed as emergency shut down valve.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose pressure reducer downstream of control valve. Zhang, Fig 3, teaches a gas line with a pressure reducer 124 downstream of control valve 122.
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 control valve as taught by Zhang in order to provide desired pressure level. The pressure reducer being downstream of control valve would also be downstream of emergency shut down valve.
Claim(s) 70-72, 76, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood et al (20140318638) in view 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 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 control valves 240 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 with a downstream underpressure condition based slam shut valve in gas line as taught by Butler in order to close the gas flow in abnormal gas pressure conditions.
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) 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood et al (20140318638) in view of Butler (20110259434) further in view of Zhang et al (20220349345) and Ackerley et al (5730166) and Yeung et al (20210348476).
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 control valves 240 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 with a downstream underpressure condition based slam shut valve in gas line as taught by Butler in order to close the gas flow in abnormal gas pressure conditions. Harwood discloses an input gas fitting (connection to 205) configured to provide a supplied input gas to the system.
Harwood as modified fails to disclose pressure reducer downstream of control valve. Zhang, Fig 3, teaches a gas line with a pressure reducer 124 downstream of control valve 122.
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 control valve as taught by Zhang 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 control valves. Ackerley, (Fig. 1), teaches a gas distribution with inlet (T-junction at 10) having a manual valve downstream of inlet fitting (T-junction at 10) and upstream of slam-shut control valve 16.
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 manual valve downstream of inlet (inlet fitting) and upstream of slam-shut control valve as taught by Ackerley in order to enable manual shutdown of entire supply in case of emergency. The manual valve can be termed as emergency shut down valve.
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.
Claim(s) 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood et al (20140318638) in view of Butler (20110259434) further in view of Hargreaves et al (GB 2217877 A) and Yeung et al (20210348476).
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 control valves 240 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 with a downstream underpressure condition based slam shut valve in gas line as taught by Butler in order to close the gas flow in abnormal gas pressure conditions.
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 valves (in view of Butler) are 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 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.
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