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
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) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,513,678 (Schultz) in view of US PGPub 2015/0204484 (Modirzareh).
In Re claim 10 Schultz discloses an air replenishment system comprising at least one air storage tank (Column 2, lines 29-35) having air at a storage pressure greater than or equal to 3000 psig (6000 psi, Column 2 line 33); a pump coupled with the at least one air storage tank (booster pump, Column 2, line 31), the pump to receive the air from the at least one storage tank and output the air at a target pressure (preset pressure, column 4, lines 22-36); a plurality of air fill stations to receive air from the pump (multiple tanks filled in Figure 15); and a valve to direct air from the at least one air storage tank (valve 24 in Figure 1) to the plurality of air fill stations responsive to the storage pressure being greater than or equal to the target pressure.
Schultz fails to disclose a check valve.
Modirzareh discloses a tank filling operation which makes use of a check valve (257 in Figure 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Shultz apparatus by adding a check valve to the outlet line, in order to prevent backflow of gasses into the air storage tank.
In Re claim 2 Schultz discloses a pneumatic pump which uses air from an air storage tank or an air supply to pump the air (booster pump is powered by a portion of air provided to it, Column 2, lines 49-57).
In Re claim 3 Schultz discloses a storage tank comprising a plurality of air cylinders Bank 1 in Figure 1) and a plurality of air fill stations comprising a plurality of air cylinders (multiple tanks filled in Figure 15).
In Re claim 4 Schultz discloses a valve positioned to bypass the pump to direct air from the at least one air storage tank to the plurality of air fill stations responsive to the storage pressure being greater than or equal to the target pressure (Figure 1 shows valves 24 attached banks 1 and 2 which can direct air to the tank without passing through the booster pump).
It would have been obvious when modifying the Schultz apparatus according to the teaching to Modirzareh to provide a check valve in this bypass path, in order to prevent backflow of gasses into the storage tank.
In Re claim 5 Schultz in view of Modirzareh discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose drive air at a pressure less than 100 psig. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use drive air in the claimed pressure range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In Re claim 6 Schultz in view of Modirzareh discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose a pump having a volume ratio less than or equal to 45:1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a pump having a volume ratio in the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In Re claim 7 Schultz discloses one or more first pipes connecting the air storage tank with the pump; and one or more second pipes connecting the air storage tank with the plurality of air fill stations. It would have been obvious when modifying the Schultz apparatus according to the teaching to AAA to provide a check valve in the path between the storage tank and the air fill stations, in order to prevent backflow of gasses into the storage tank.
In Re claim 9 Schultz discloses a target pressure greater than or equal to 4500 psig.
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,513,678 Schultz in view of US PGPub 2022/0042507 (Elberson).
In Re claim 10 Schultz discloses an air replenishment system, comprising: at least one air storage tank (Bank 1 in Figure 1) having air at a storage pressure greater than or equal to 3000 psig (6000 psi, Column 2 line 33); a pump coupled with the at least one air storage tank (booster pump, Column 2, line 31), the pump to receive the air from the at least one storage tank and output the air at a target pressure (preset pressure, column 4, lines 22-36); a plurality of air fill stations to receive the air from the pump (multiple tanks filled in Figure 15); and an air pressure driven pump (booster pump is powered by a portion of air provided to it, Column 2, lines 49-57).
Schultz fails to disclose a pressure regulator to control a drive pressure of drive air to maintain a pressure less than a nominal pressure rating of the pump.
Elberson discloses a pneumatic pump powered by air which passes through a pressure regulator (Paragraph 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Shultz apparatus by adding a pressure regulator, as taught by Elberson, in order control the operation of the booster pump more precisely.
In Re claim 11 Elberson discloses a static regulator (Paragraph 96). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a pressure regulator should be provide air at the drive pressure of the pump, since the pump is being driven by the pressurized air.
In Re claim 12 it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a drive pressure for a pump based on any known performance factor of the pump being used.
In Re claim 13 it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a drive pressure based on the performance required of the pump being driven.
In Re claim 14 Schultz in view of Elberson discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose a pump having a volume ratio less than or equal to 45:1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a pump having a volume ratio in the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In Re claim 15 Schultz in view of Elberson discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose drive air at a pressure less than 100 psig. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use drive air in the claimed pressure range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 8, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,513,678 Schultz in view of Modirzareh and in further view of Elberson.
In Re claim 8 Schultz in view of Modirzareh discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose a pressure regulator.
Elberson discloses a pneumatic pump powered by air which passes through a pressure regulator (Paragraph 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Shultz apparatus by adding a pressure regulator, as taught by Elberson, in order control the operation of the booster pump more precisely.
In Re claim 16 Schultz discloses one or more first pipes connecting the air storage tank with the pump; and one or more second pipes connecting the air storage tank with the plurality of air fill stations (Manifold 12 in Figure 1). It would have been obvious when modifying the Schultz apparatus according to the teaching to Modirzareh to provide a check valve in the path between the storage tank and the air fill stations, in order to prevent backflow of gasses into the storage tank. Furthermore, it would have been obvious when modifying the Schultz apparatus according to the teaching of Elberson to provide a pathway for pressurized air from the storage tank to the pressure regulator and therethrough to the pump, in order to power the pump.
In Re claim 18 Schultz discloses a system comprising: a plurality of first air cylinders (multiple tanks in Figure 15), a plurality of second air cylinders to store air at a storage pressure (Bank 1 in Figure 1); at least one pump to pump air from the plurality of second air cylinders to the plurality of first air cylinders (booster pump, Column 2, line 31); and a valve coupled with the plurality of first air cylinders and with the plurality of second air cylinders to allow air to flow from the second air cylinders to the first air cylinders in response to the storage pressure being greater than or equal to a target pressure for the air in the plurality of first air cylinders (valves 24 in Figure 1).
Schultz fails to disclose a check valve, and further fails to disclose a pressure regulator to provide drive air to the pump at a pressure less than 100 psig.
Modirzareh discloses a tank filling operation which makes use of a check valve (257 in Figure 15).
Elberson discloses an air filling operation which uses a pneumatic pump powered by air from an air supply (Paragraph 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Shultz apparatus by adding a check valve to the outlet line, in order to prevent backflow of gasses into the air storage tank. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Shultz apparatus by using a pneumatic pump, as taught by BBB, in order to permit the apparatus to function absent an additional power source for the pump.
Regarding the limitation that the drive air be at a pressure less than 100 psig. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use drive air in the claimed pressure range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In Re claim 19 it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a drive pressure based on the performance required of the pump being driven or based on a feature of the pump.
In Re claim 20 Schultz in view of Modirzareh and Elberson discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose a pump having a volume ratio less than or equal to 45:1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a pump having a volume ratio in the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 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 JASON KAROL NIESZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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 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.
/JASON K NIESZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights