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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 18-34 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 18 recites the limitation "of the inlet area" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To obviate this rejection, it is suggested to amend line 4 of said claim that reads “an inlet in the housing wall for removal of the treated gas mixture flow from the desublimer,” to -- an inlet in the housing wall defining an inlet area for removal of the treated gas mixture flow from the desublimer,--. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation:
at least a first baffle disposed in the gas inlet distributor space for uniform distribution of the gas mixture flow through the flow channels that result from the flow channel walls in the desublimation zone has a geometric centroid…
It is unclear if the first baffle has the geometric centroid (and subsequent limitations) claimed, or if the flow channel walls have the geometric centroid (and subsequent limitations) claimed. Thus, said limitation is unclear. It is suggested to amend to:
at least a first baffle disposed in the gas inlet distributor space for uniform distribution of the gas mixture flow through the flow channels that result from the flow channel walls in the desublimation zone, said at least the first baffle has a geometric centroid…
Appropriate action is required.
Claims 19-34 are rejected merely due to their dependency from claim 18.
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 18-30, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolai (Document Identification No. FR 2467821 A1).
Nikolai discloses a discontinuously operated desublimer for removing at least one gas component to be desublimed from a gas mixture flow, comprising:
A housing wall as outer boundary (combination of 3, 4 & 5);
An inlet (1) in the housing wall for supply of the gas mixture flow to the desublimer (page 3, lines 20-25);
An outlet (2 and/or below filter 17) in the housing wall for removal of the treated gas mixture flow from the desublimer (page 3, lines 20-30);
A desublimation zone (area around flow channel walls 7) with temperature-controllable flow channel walls (7), where the temperature of the flow channel walls is controllable such that, during a loading process, the at least one gas component to be desublimed is desublimed at the flow channel walls, and that, during a subsequent melting process, the at least one gas component desublimed in the loading process melts at the flow channel walls (page 4, line 3 to page 5, line 12);
A gas inlet distributor space (3) between the inlet (1) and the desublimation zone (4), and a gas outlet space (above flow channel walls 7, or numeral 5) between the outlet (2, or below filter 17) and the desublimation zone (area at flow channel walls 7);
Wherein at least a first baffle (6) is disposed in the gas inlet distributor space (3) for uniform distribution of the gas mixture flow through the flow channels that result from the flow channel walls (7) in the desublimation zone (page 3, lines 25-29; page 4, lines 18-26).
Nikolai does not appear to specifically disclose the distance from the first baffle to the inlet area, and thus does not disclose that said baffle has a geometric centroid with a distance (AT) from the geometric centroid of the inlet area within a range from 0.2*D to 10.0*D, where D corresponds to the equivalent diameter of a circle of equal area to the inlet area and the distance (AT) is measured along the normal vector (ne) of the inlet area. Nonetheless, the claimed range is so broad that it would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill to provide the distance from the baffle to the inlet area of from 0.2*D to 10.0*D as claimed. More specifically, a mere change in proportion, even if it leads to better results, holds no patentable significance:
MPEP 2144.05.II.A: Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."
especially if it can be shown that the change in proportions can be done by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine optimization of a known result-effective variable (MPEP 2144.05.II.B: the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.). As such, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to place the geometric centroid of the baffle at a distance from the geometric centroid of the inlet area within a range from 0.2*D to 10.0*D, where D corresponds to the equivalent diameter of a circle of equal area to the inlet area and the distance (AT) is measured along the normal vector (nE) of the inlet area to produce a more uniform gas mixture flow for a given application based on the flowrate of the gas flow mixture, the size of the desublimer, etc.; as such is considered a result effective variable that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill during routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, claim 18 is not patentable over Nikolai.
Concerning claim 19, because claim 18 claims “at least a first baffle”, and thus only one baffle is needed to satisfy the claim; and claim 19 claims WHEN there are multiple baffles, then only a single baffle has been positively recited. As such, the limitations directed to the multiple baffles proceeding the first baffle are presented as optional limitations. As such, the limitations of “when there are multiple baffles, there is a distance in each case (AT1, AT2) between the geometric centroids of respectively adjacent baffles within a range from 0.01* to 0.5*L, where L corresponds to the length of the longitudinal axis of the gas inlet distributor space and this respective distance (AT1, AT2) is measured along the normal vector (ne) of the inlet area” do not provide positively recited patentable limitations over the prior art of Nikolai.
Thus, claim 19 is not patentable over Nikolai as well.
Concerning claims 20 and 21, Nikolai does not appear to disclose the distance between the desublimation zone (area around flow channel walls 7) and the first baffle (6); or that the first baffle has a width (BS) within a range from 1*D to the maximum width at which the at least one baffle extends as far as the two opposite housing walls of the desublimer. Nonetheless, similar to the limitations of claim 18, such are considered result effective variables. As such, the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the distance between the desublimation zone (area around flow channel walls 7) and the first baffle (6) to at least 0.5*D, and/or the width of the first baffle (6) being within a range from 1*D to the maximum width at which the at least one baffle extends as far as the two opposite housing walls of the desublimer of Nikolai in order to produce a more uniform gas mixture flow for a given application based on the flowrate of the gas flow mixture, the size of the desublimer, etc.; as such are considered a result effective variables that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill during routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, claims 20 & 21 are also not patentable over Nikolai.
With respect to claim 22, Nikolai also discloses that the desublimer (Figure 1) has a horizontal longitudinal axis oriented at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the flow channels of the desublimation zone (area around flow channel walls 7), and the gas inlet distributor space (3) is disposed above the desublimation zone (area around flow channel walls 7) as shown in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 23, Nikolai does not appear to disclose that the first baffle is at a distance (AH1) between the geometric centroid of the baffle and the geometric centroid of the inlet area within a range from 0-2.0*D. However, such is considered a result effective variable. Thus, as noted above, the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to place the first baffle of Nikolai at a distance (AH1) between the geometric centroid of the baffle and the geometric centroid of the inlet area within a range from 0-2.0*D in order to produce a more uniform gas mixture flow for a given application based on the flowrate of the gas flow mixture, the size of the desublimer, etc.; as such is considered a result effective variable that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill during routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, claim 23 is not patentable over Nikolai as well.
Concerning claims 24-26, as noted above with respect to claim 19, because claim 18 claims “at least a first baffle”, and thus only one baffle is needed to satisfy the claim; and claims 24-26 claims “in the case of multiple baffles” then only a single baffle has been positively recited. As such, the limitations directed to the multiple baffles proceeding the first baffle are presented as optional limitations. As such, the limitations of:
in the case of multiple baffles, each individual baffle downstream of the first baffle is at a distance (AH2, AH3) between its geometric centroid and the geometric centroid of the baffle directly adjacent thereto in the direction of the inlet within a range from 0 to 1.0*D, where the distance (AH2, AH3) is measured along the longitudinal axis of the flow channels of the desublimation zone (claim 24);
in the case of multiple baffles, the baffles with the greater distance from the inlet area are disposed at a higher level than those with shorter distance from the inlet area, where the distance from the inlet area is measured along the normal vector (nE) of the inlet area (claim 25); or
in the case of multiple baffles, the geometric centroid of the baffle with the greatest distance (AT,max) from the inlet area is at a distance (AH,max) between its geometric centroid and the geometric centroid of the inlet area within a range from 0 to 2.0*D.
do not provide positively recited patentable limitations over the prior art of Nikolai.
Thus, claims 24-26 are not patentable over Nikolai as well.
With respect to claim 27, Nikolai further discloses that the free gas passage area (5) present between the desublimation zone (area around flow channel walls 7) and the first baffle (6), relative to the inlet area (at inlet 1) is greater than 0.75 as shown in Figure 1.
Concerning claim 28, Nikolai continues to disclose that the face area of the first baffle projected at right angles onto the plane of the inlet area, relative to the inlet area (at inlet 1) is greater than 1 as shown in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 29, Nikolai does not appear to disclose that the first baffle (6) has a ratio between its longest side (SL) and its shortest side (SH) within a range from 1 to 100. However, such is considered a result effective variable. Thus, as noted above, the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio between said baffle’s (6) longest side (SL) and its shortest side (SH) within a range from 1 to 100 in order to produce a more uniform gas mixture flow for a given application based on the flowrate of the gas flow mixture, the size of the desublimer, etc.; as such is considered a result effective variable that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill during routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, claim 29 is further not patentable over Nikolai.
Concerning claim 30, the reference also discloses that the first baffle (6) is an impingement plate (page 3, line 25).
With respect to claim 32, Nikolai further discloses that at least the first baffle (6) has a normal vector (nA) geometrically averaged over its surfaces facing the inlet (1), and the internal angle (α₁) formed by the geometrically averaged normal vector (nA) and the normal vector (nE) of the inlet area in the direction from the desublimer is within a range from -60 to 60 degrees as shown in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 33, Nikolai continues to disclose that the flow channel walls (7) are defined by a plate body (page 3, line 26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 is allowed. Claim 31 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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 JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights