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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.74 because they do not use reference letters or numeral to refer to the different parts. Figure 8 having reference numbers is not sufficient as it does not clearly define nor does the specification show all of the limitations as claimed. Figure 8 shows a general configuration with labeled figure numbers, but no explanation as to what is happening in the figure. The remaining figures also lack figure numbers which make it unclear if the claim language is supported. Further, while the specification has been changed to remove “GPCM”, the drawings still contain the unidentified acronym.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a separation system configured to separate the liquid based on composition into a plurality of liquid products” and “a turbo generator configured to generate electric power upon recycling the liquid products to the heat exchanger and enabling a phase change back to a gas” which does not appear to have support in the specification. Figure 8 shows a heat exchanger, a separation system and multiple storage tanks, but there is no explanation in the specification that supports the limitation as claimed. A review of the specification and other drawings show that multiple heat exchangers are used, as the first heat exchanger is not in itself sufficient to provide transformation into a liquid, see Figure 5 where a first heat exchanger produces the water, and remaining heat exchangers product the other liquids, but not a singular heat exchanger which produces a singular liquid which is then separated as in the amended claims and all recycled back to the same heat exchanger. Further, the drawings appear to show a configuration where individual liquid products are recycled back to individual heat exchangers.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-18 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 1 recites “the heat exchanger is configured to condensed the gas to a liquid”, “a separation system configured to separate the liquid based on composition into a plurality of liquid products” and “a turbo generator configured to generate power upon recycling the liquid products to the heat exchanger and enabling a phase change back to a gas” which is considered indefinite. As shown above, these limitations together are not supported by the specification, as there is not individual support for the use of a single heat exchanger being used along with multiple storage vessels and all of the liquid products being recycled back to the singular heat exchanger. It is unclear how the singular heat exchanger produces a singular liquid from the gas, which is then separated into multiple liquid products which are then all recycled back to a single turbo generator via the heat exchanger. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the heat exchanger as claimed produces liquid, but it is not required to produce all the liquid, and that the stream from the heat singular heat exchanger is sent to the separation system and that the turbo generator is able to receive a singular gas from the heat exchanger from one of the liquid products, not that the turbo generator receives all of the gases. Further evidence can be seen how the claims are indefinite in the specification and later claims which require the gas to include other components such as carbon dioxide and nitrous and sulfurous oxides when it passes into the heat exchanger. If the stream was liquefied with those components present, they would also not be liquid.
Claim 11 recite “flowing the gas through a heat exchanger thereby initiating a phase change to a liquid; separating the liquid based on composition; storing the liquid in a plurality of vessel based on the composition thereby generating a plurality of purified liquids”. The way the claims read is that the heat exchanger condensed the gas to a liquid and then uses a separation system to separate the liquid into individual components and then store the liquid and then the storage vessel recycle the liquid; but it is unclear if the first heat exchanger is responsible for all of the condensing or how the separating the liquids based on composition is provided. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is a heat exchanger which is required to condense some of the gas to liquid, and then after the heat exchanger the gas/liquid is separated and formed into multiple liquids that are sent to individual storage tanks. Further evidence of this can be seen in the choice of liquids in claim 11 as well as the pollutants in claim 16 as a single liquid would not contain all of these components as a liquid.
Claims 3-9, 12-18 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: separation system in claims 1 and 19, understood to be distillation, liquid extraction, phase change separators or heat exchangers.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 10-11, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US Patent No. 7332146), hereinafter referred to as Huang and further in view of Alekseev (US PG Pub 20170211880), hereinafter referred to as Alekseev and Riley et al. (US PG Pub 20100018218), hereinafter referred to as Riley and Fuentes (US PG Pub 20040141902), hereinafter referred to as Fuentes.
With respect to claim 1, Huang (Figures 2/3) teaches a gas inlet for receiving a gas (gas is produced from an pyrolysis of methane to produce hydrogen containing hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and water, Column 4, lines 55-59);
a heat exchanger fluidically connected to the gas inlet, (either the first or second heat exchanger shown which cools the mixture against a separated portion itself);
a separation system configured to separate the fluid based on composition into a plurality of liquid products (cryogenic separation system of Figure 3 which produces water, CO/CH4 and liquid carbon dioxide, the water, carbon dioxide and methane/CO would both be liquids as seen in the figure the CH4/CO is coming from an unlabeled overhead condenser/separator which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize would produce a liquid product at the bottom, see annotated Figure 3 and Figure 6 which shows the same component is a condenser as it has a condenser energy requirement, Column 4, lines 39-40);
the system configured to recycle the fluid to the heat exchanger (either water or CH4/CO liquid that is passed back through is passed through heat recovering paths back to the first or second heat exchanger as shown in the figure).
Huang does not teach wherein the heat exchanger is configured to condense the gas to a liquid such that the separation system separates liquid.
Huang (Figure 6) teaches that between the auto thermal reactor and the H20 separator the water is condensed (see Figure 6 where water is brough from 900 C to 0 C). While not explicit, as it is a separator which is having flow from the separator to the heat exchanger, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is liquid water separated by the H20 separator, and thus the water is condensed against a series of heat exchangers.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Huang (figure 6) for one of the heat exchangers (either the first or second shown) provide some condensation of the feed gas to a liquid in Huang (Figure 3), specifically at least the water, since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby liquefying at least some of the feed gas against the heat exchanger would provide the benefit that is well known in the art and the predictable result that would be predictable in the art of allowing for ease of separation in the water separator while reducing or removing the need for external refrigeration in the condensing process. Water would also thus be part of the liquid products.
Huang does not teach plurality of storage vessels configured to store the liquid based on composition such that the recycling is from a storage vessel.
Alekseev teaches that in a distillation system multiple liquids can be formed and those liquids can be passed to liquid stores (Paragraph 69) which allows their use to be controlled such surplus is available that when needed they can be released and evaporated for the cold which is required (paragraph 36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Alekseev to have provided multiple storage vessels in Huang to at least temporarily store the produced water, liquid carbon dioxide and the CH4/CO mixture (which would also be a liquid based on where it is shown to be coming from in Figure 3) since it has been shown that providing a combination of known elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing temporary storage would those liquids or surplus of those liquids such that as needed the cold in those fluids can recovered through evaporation of those fluids in the heat exchangers which would allow as would be recognized as common knowledge in the art control of the amount of cold back to the heat exchangers as needed so that when less is needed the liquids can be stored until more is needed.
Huang does not teach a turbo generator configured to generate electric power upon recycling the liquid products to the heat exchanger and enabling a phase change back to a gas.
Riley teaches that steam can be fed to a steam turbine generator to produce electricity (paragraph 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Riley fed the evaporated water (steam) of Huang as modified to a steam turbine generator in order to generate electricity which could be used as would be recognized by one having common knowledge in the art to reduce the external electrical energy required for the system to be operated.
Huang does not teach that the gas and liquid products comprise Nitrogen, Xenon and Krypton.
Fuentes (Figures 1 and 2) teaches producing an effluent stream from a reactor which can be autothermal (2, paragraph 34) and that the gas from the reactor contains carbon dioxide, water, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, krypton, xenon, argon and nitrogen (paragraph 37). In the separation of the gas, in the separation step hydrogen is separated from the feed gas into a hydrogen/CO stream and a stream that is ultimately separated (in column 25) into a stream (which would be a liquid as it is out of the bottom of a column with a reboiler 26) which has methane, CO, Krypton, Argon, Nitrogen and Xenon (paragraph 54) such that the Krypton/Xenon can be recovered as a product (18) after heating of the stream (paragraphs 39 and 55).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the methane/carbon monoxide liquid of Huang as modified to have also contained Krypton, Xenon, Argon and Nitrogen based on the teaching of Fuentes since it has been shown that combining prior art elements is obvious whereby they are known byproducts in an autothermal reactor and recovering them in the CH4/CO stream would allow them to later be recovered as separated Krypton/Xenon products which are heavy rare gases and known to be desirable to recover (paragraphs 2-4 of Fuentes discusses Krypto/Xenon recovery). Thus both the gas and liquid products would comprise Xenon, Krypton, Nitrogen, and Argon with liquid of at least some of those present in the CH4/CO liquid stream.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
With respect to claim 6, Huang as modified teaches wherein the gas is an effluent from an industrial process (a pyrolysis reactor is an industrial process).
With respect to claim 7, Huang as modified teaches wherein the gas is effluent from hydrogen production (the pyrolysis reactor is for hydrogen production).
With respect to claim 8, Huang as modified teaches wherein the gas comprises CO2, CH4, and CO (as shown in the figure, the gas contains all three).
With respect to claim 10, Huang as modified teaches wherein the separation system is a plurality of heat exchangers operating at different temperatures (based on the interpretation under 112 6th, the plurality of heat exchangers is considered a functional equivalent to the phase change separators and distillation shown in the figure and thus is considered obvious as those are taught by the prior art).
With respect to claim 11, Huang (Figures 2/3) teaches providing an effluent gas (gas is produced from a pyrolysis of methane to produce hydrogen containing hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and water, Column 4, lines 55-59);
flowing the gas through a heat exchanger (either the first or second heat exchanger shown which cools the mixture against a separated portion itself);
separating the fluid based on composition (cryogenic separation system of Figure 3 which produces water, CO/CH4 and liquid carbon dioxide),
returning one or more of the fluids to the heat exchanger (either water or CH4/CO liquid that is passed back through is passed through heat recovering paths back to the first or second heat exchanger as shown in the figure).
Huang does not teach wherein the heat exchanger is initiate a phase change to a liquid such that the separating is separating a liquid.
Huang (Figure 6) teaches that between the auto thermal reactor and the H20 separator the water is condensed (see Figure 6 where water is brough from 900 C to 0 C). While not explicit, as it is a separator which is having flow from the separator to the heat exchanger, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is liquid water separated by the H20 separator, and thus the water is condensed against a series of heat exchangers.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Huang (figure 6) for one of the heat exchangers (either the first or second shown) provide some condensation of the feed gas to a liquid in Huang (Figure 3), specifically at least the water, since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby liquefying at least some of the feed gas against the heat exchanger would provide the benefit that is well known in the art and the predictable result that would be predictable in the art of allowing for ease of separation in the water separator while reducing or removing the need for external refrigeration in the condensing process.
Huang as modified does not teach storing the liquid in a plurality of vessels based on the composition thereby generating a plurality of purified liquids.
Alekseev teaches that in a distillation system multiple liquids can be formed and those liquids can be passed to liquid stores (Paragraph 69) which allows their use to be controlled such surplus is available that when needed they can be released and evaporated for the cold which is required (paragraph 36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Alekseev to have provided multiple storage vessels in Huang to at least temporarily store the produced water, liquid carbon dioxide and CH4/CO mixture (which would also be a liquid based on where it is shown to be coming from in Figure 3) since it has been shown that providing a combination of known elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing temporary storage would those liquids or surplus of those liquids such that as needed the cold in those fluids can recovered through evaporation of those fluids in the heat exchangers which would allow as would be recognized as common knowledge in the art control of the amount of cold back to the heat exchangers as needed so that when less is needed the liquids can be stored until more is needed. The water, CO2 and the CH4/CO mixtures are purified compared to the feed.
Huang as modified does not teach storing the liquid in a plurality of vessels based on the composition thereby generating a plurality of purified liquids prior to returning one or more purified liquids to the heat exchanger.
Huang as modified teaches recycling liquid to the heat exchanger and enabling a phase change into a purified gas (as the gas fed into the first heat exchanger of Huang is at 900 C, Column 5, lines 43, from the autothermal process, the water as modified fed back to the heat exchanger would evaporate therein against the cooling against condensing the gas as shown to be obvious in claim 1).
Huang as modified does not teach flowing the purified gas into a turbo generator, thereby generating electricity.
Riley teaches that steam can be fed to a steam turbine generator to produce electricity (Paragraph 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Riley fed the evaporated water (steam) of Huang as modified to a steam turbine generator in order to generate electricity which could be used as would be recognized by one having common knowledge in the art to reduce the external electrical energy required for the system to be operated.
Huang does not teach the gas and purified liquids comprise, N2, O2, Argon, Xenon, Krypton.
Fuentes (Figures 1 and 2) teaches producing an effluent stream from a reactor which can be autothermal (2, paragraph 34) and that the gas from the reactor contains carbon dioxide, water, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, krypton, xenon, argon and nitrogen (paragraph 37). In the separation of the gas, in the separation step hydrogen is separated from the feed gas into a hydrogen/CO stream and a stream that is ultimately separated (in column 25) into a stream (which would be a liquid as it is out of the bottom of a column with a reboiler 26) which has methane, CO, Krypton, Argon, Nitrogen and Xenon (paragraph 54) such that the Krypton/Xenon can be recovered as a product (18) after heating of the stream (paragraphs 39 and 55).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the methane/carbon monoxide liquid of Huang as modified to have also contained Krypton, Xenon, Argon and Nitrogen based on the teaching of Fuentes since it has been shown that combining prior art elements is obvious whereby they are known byproducts in an autothermal reactor and recovering them in the CH4/CO stream would allow them to later be recovered as separated Krypton/Xenon products which are heavy rare gases and known to be desirable to recover (paragraphs 2-4 of Fuentes discusses Krypto/Xenon recovery). Thus, both the gas and purified liquid products would comprise Xenon, Krypton, Nitrogen, and Argon with liquid of at least some of those present in the CH4/CO liquid stream.
With respect to claim 15, Huang as modified does not teach wherein the effluent gas comprises one or more pollutants and where the separating step generates one or more purified pollutants that are not returned to the heat exchanger (the liquid carbon dioxide not returned to a heat exchanger).
With respect to claim 16, Huang as modified teaches wherein the pollutant comprises CO2, CH4, and CO (as shown in the figure, the gas contains all three).
With respect to claim 17, Huang as modified teaches wherein the gas is effluent from hydrogen production (the pyrolysis reactor is for hydrogen production).
With respect to claim 18, Huang (Figures 2/3) as modified does not each wherein the step of separating is achieved by a plurality of heat exchangers operating at different temperatures.
Huang (Figure 6) teaches that after an initial heat exchanger multiple other heat exchangers are used including two (HX-2/HX-3 which lower the temperature of the mixture more and another (HX-4) after the H20 separator upstream of the distillation column (see figure 6). As seen in the figure each heat exchanger brings the streams down to the temperatures for each separation step.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on Huang (Figure 6) to have in Huang (Figure 2/3) after the initial heat exchangers to have provided additional heat exchangers as needed since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing additional heat exchangers would provide the predictable result that would be recognized as common knowledge in the art of using the additional heat exchangers to bring the stream to the specific temperatures necessary for the separation steps to maximize the separation. It should also be noted that there are likely more heat exchangers present in Figure 3 of Huang which are not shown as Figure 3is showing a fairly simple configurations for the system without detail of the distillation column or steps between the H20 separator and distillation column.
Claim(s) 3-4, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang/Alekseev/Riley/Fuentes and further in view of Sinatov et al. (US PG Pub 20170016577), hereinafter referred to as Sinatov.
With respect to claim 3, Huang as modified does not teach wherein the heat exchanger is a simultaneous cold and heat storage heat exchanger.
Sinatov teaches that a heat exchanger in a cryogenic cooling system can be a thermal storage unit which includes phase-change materials (paragraph 19, Figure 1 A, 300).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Sinatov to have provided one of the two heat exchangers of Huang as a phase change material heat exchanger since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using a phase change material heat exchanger would allow excess thermal energy to be stored when not needed by incoming and outgoing streams and distributed to those streams when needed. A phase change material heat exchanger would be simultaneously a cold and heat storage heat exchanger.
With respect to claim 4, Huang does not teach the heat exchanger is a phase change material heat exchanger.
Sinatov teaches that a heat exchanger in a cryogenic cooling system can be a thermal storage unit which includes phase-change materials (paragraph 19, Figure 1 A, 300).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Sinatov to have provided one of the two heat exchangers of Huang as a phase change material heat exchanger since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using a phase change material heat exchanger would allow excess thermal energy to be stored when not needed by incoming and outgoing streams and distributed to those streams when needed.
With respect to claim 12, Huang as modified does not teach wherein the heat exchanger is a simultaneous cold and heat storage heat exchanger.
Sinatov teaches that a heat exchanger in a cryogenic cooling system can be a thermal storage unit which includes phase-change materials (paragraph 19, Figure 1 A, 300).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Sinatov to have provided one of the two heat exchangers of Huang as a phase change material heat exchanger since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using a phase change material heat exchanger would allow excess thermal energy to be stored when not needed by incoming and outgoing streams and distributed to those streams when needed. A phase change material heat exchanger would be simultaneously a cold and heat storage heat exchanger.
With respect to claim 13, Huang does not teach the heat exchanger is a phase change material heat exchanger.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Sinatov to have provided one of the two heat exchangers of Huang as a phase change material heat exchanger since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using a phase change material heat exchanger would allow excess thermal energy to be stored when not needed by incoming and outgoing streams and distributed to those streams when needed.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang/Alekseev/Riley/Fuentes and further in view of Sinatov and Goenka et al (US PG Pub 20140208793), hereinafter referred to as Goenka.
With respect to claim 5, Huang as modified does not teach the heat exchanger is a phase change material heat exchanger.
Sinatov teaches that a heat exchanger in a cryogenic cooling system can be a thermal storage unit which includes phase-change materials (paragraph 19, Figure 1 A, 300).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Sinatov to have provided one of the two heat exchangers of Huang as a phase change material heat exchanger since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using a phase change material heat exchanger would allow excess thermal energy to be stored when not needed by incoming and outgoing streams and distributed to those streams when needed.
Huang as modified does not teach wherein the heat exchanger is a graphite-based phase change material heat exchanger.
Goenka teaches that a phase change material can be impregnated with graphite power to further enhance the transfer of thermal energy (paragraph 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Goenka for the phase change material heat exchanger of Huang as modified to have included graphite in the phase change material to further enhance the transfer of thermal energy.
With respect to claim 14, Huang as modified does not teach the heat exchanger is a phase change material heat exchanger.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Sinatov to have provided one of the two heat exchangers of Huang as a phase change material heat exchanger since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using a phase change material heat exchanger would allow excess thermal energy to be stored when not needed by incoming and outgoing streams and distributed to those streams when needed.
Huan as modified does not teach wherein the heat exchanger is a graphite-based phase change material heat exchanger.
Goenka teaches that a phase change material can be impregnated with graphite power to further enhance the transfer of thermal energy (paragraph 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Goenka for the phase change material heat exchanger of Huang as modified to have included graphite in the phase change material to further enhance the transfer of thermal energy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section V of the arguments, filed 7/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 35 USC 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Rafati is no longer used in the rejection; however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Riley and Fuentes. As modified, the separation system produces a plurality of liquid products including CO2, H20 and a mixture of CO, CH4, as well as multiple gases as claimed including Argon, Xenon and Krypton.
Applicant’s argument that Figure 8 clearly defining the reference numbers addresses all the issues in the office action is not persuasive. While Figure 8 has reference numbers, the specification provides no further explanation how Figure 8 is configured, and the remaining figures do not have reference numbers. Figure 8 shows a general configuration with labeled figure numbers, but no explanation as to what is happening in the figure. The remaining figures also lack figure numbers which make it unclear if the claim language is supported. Further, while the specification has been changed to remove “GPCM”, the drawings still contain the unidentified acronym.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claim result in the claims no longer being indefinite as the plain meaning of the claim would be understood such that “each of the storage vessels are configure to recycle liquids to the heat exchanger”. This is not persuasive.
The specification does not provide support for this limitation, and it is further still unclear if there is a singular heat exchanger or how a single heat exchanger would work in this configuration. Applicant’s gas as claimed (in both claims 1 and 11, and further with the pollutants present in claims 8 and 16) cannot be liquefied as a single stream as applicant argues and applicant has shown no way that a single heat exchanger would produce multiple liquids separated into separated vessels as the original gas stream includes components that cannot be present together and liquefied together as carbon dioxide would not be able to be a liquid at the same time as multiple of the plurality of liquids (or purified liquids) or solids. This leaves two possible options, that multiple heat exchangers are used (see Figure 5) or that only part of the stream is condensed in the initial heat exchanger and some of the components remain gaseous. This can be further seen in Figure 5 of which shows a plurality of heat exchangers to liquefy the stream into individual components based on the individual required temperatures. Figure 8 does not provide sufficient explanation or showing of how this happens as the separation system is effectively a black box, and the heat exchanger is not clearly shown to produce a liquid in Figure 8. Further, there is no support in the specification that each of the liquids is recycled back to the heat exchanger, only that each liquid is recycled to individual heat exchangers (Figure 6), or that a storage vessel, the turbo generator and the heat exchanger are connected (Figure 8 which appears to show all of these components without further explanation).
Applicant further argues that claim 11 is not indefinite as the “claim states that a heat exchanger condenses a gas into a liquid (not a portion of the gas) and given that the present application is directed towards cryogenic temperatures it would be clear to one having ordinary skill in the art that the entire gas is converted to liquid as described”. This is not persuasive.
While the claims do appear recite only a single heat exchanger is used for condensing, this is not clear both in view of the claims themselves and the specification as it is unclear how this configuration would be able to operate. Applicant’s gas as claimed (in both claims 1 and 11, and further with the pollutants present in claims 8 and 16) cannot be liquefied as a single stream as applicant argues and applicant has shown no way that a single heat exchanger would produce multiple liquids separated into separated vessels as the original gas stream includes components that cannot be present together and liquefied together as carbon dioxide would not be able to be a liquid at the same time as multiple of the plurality of liquids (or purified liquids) or solids. A review of the specification does not provide any further explanation or specific example of how a single heat exchanger is used to provide liquefaction in this way and a review of Figures 5 and 6 make it clear that the first heat exchanger is only to condense some of the liquid not all of the liquid. As such, the claims are interpreted, consistent with the invention as best understood in the specification, that a heat exchanger is used to condense some of the liquid in the gas, and then from that stream from the heat exchanger, ultimately multiple liquid products are recovered in storage vessels and at least one of those is recycled back to the heat exchanger where it is heated and sent to the turbo generator.
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 BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763