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 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) 1-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote et al. (US 2008/0127675 A1) in view of Cavagne et al. (US 2017/0009940 A1) in view of an NPL “Mechanical design of pressure vessels” by K. S. Chiou.
In regard to claim 1, Cote teaches an enclosure (7) selected from the group consisting of a parallelepipedal enclosure and a cylindrical enclosure (see fig. 2), the enclosure comprising:
a distillation column (3) constituted by a cylindrical shell (see fig. 1) which contains mass and heat transfer elements (note that distillation columns disclosed by Cote implicitly contain internal structures that facilitate both heat and mass transfer to separate components based on differences in volatility) and which is closed at one end by a cap and at the other end by a domed bottom (see fig.2; wherein the distillation column 3 is caped at top and a rounded bottom as shown in the figure);
a cylindrical skirt (11) that has the same diameter as the cylindrical shell (see fig. 2), wherein the cylindrical skirt (11) is aligned coaxially with the cylindrical shell (see that skirt 11 is coaxially fixed with the cylindrical shell of the distillation column 3) and is fixed to a bottom portion of the cylindrical shell (the bottom dome portion of 3) so as to surround the domed bottom (see fig. 2), forming a space (the space inside 11) between the domed bottom (the bottom portion of 3), walls (11) of the skirt, and a base (19) (see fig. 2).
Cote teaches the enclosure (7) comprising an access door (25), but does not teach means for releasing a flushing gas inside the enclosure and disposed at a location outside the space.
However, Cavagne teaches insulated chamber and method for flushing such a chamber (CB1), wherein a double column (C) is arranged inside a first chamber (CB1), and the column being surrounded by perlite (See ¶ 0045). The nitrogen gas circulates through non-porous and non-perforated vertical supply pipes (1) and above the column (C) the nitrogen is poured into a perforated distribution manifold (D3), consisting of horizontal pipes bent into squares and arranged just above the column (C) (see ¶ 0047). Cavagne further teaches the nitrogen may come from an existing storage facility or network (See ¶ 0052; fig. 1, 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the enclosure of Cote by providing means for releasing a flushing gas inside the enclosure but outside the space, based on the teachings of Cavagne, for the purpose of maintaining a dry atmosphere in the insulation to ensure that the atmosphere is continually replenished and in order to avoid any ingress of damp air inside the enclosure (see Cavagne ¶ 0006-0007).
Cote does not explicitly teach the skirt comprises at least one opening that is configured to allow the flushing gas to circulate to the space from the enclosure.
However, Chiou teaches a pressure vessel comprising a skirt, wherein hydrocarbons or other combustible liquids or oases the skirts shall be provided with minimum of two 2 inch vent holes located as high as possible 180 degrees apart (see page 346, para. 3; page 349; fig. 12-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cylindrical skirt of Cote by providing at least one opening onto the skirt, based on the teachings of Chiou, for the purpose of providing an airflow beneath the column to prevent an accumulation of potential flammable toxic vapors and reduce the risk of explosions and toxic exposure, and avoid a potential corrosion and condensation issues.
Regarding the limitation wherein the “at least one opening is configured to allow the flushing gas to circulate in the space”, it is obvious that the modified “at least one opening” (as taught by Chiou above), is capable of allowing flushing gas to circulate in the space. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Cote teaches the skirt (11) forming the space (inside of 11) being filled with rock wool (23) thermal insulation (¶ 0062), but does not explicitly teach the thermal insulation is pulverulent thermal insulation (for e.g., perlite). However, official notice is taken that providing a pulverulent thermal insulation is an old and well-known manner of providing insulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rock wool thermal insulation of the skirt space with pulverulent thermal insulation, in order to provide a high thermal resistance that limit both conductive and convective heat loss, because pulverulent thermal insulation have fine particles, which trap air and reduce heat transfer that makes them effective in limiting both conductive and convective heat loss.
In regard to claim 2, Cote in view of Chiou teaches the skirt (5) comprises at least one opening (openings of Chiou, see the rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach a means for closing the at least one opening. However, official notice is taken that providing a closing means for an opening is an old and well-known and provides the advantage of flexibility in operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified one opening of Cote by providing a means for closing in order to control access to the skirt to keep out other foreign objects from entering that could create hazards.
In regard to claim 3, Cote teaches the enclosure according to Claim 1, wherein the space is filled with perlite (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
In regard to claim 4, Cote teaches the enclosure according to Claim 1, wherein the space does not contain any packings or plates (nowhere in Cote teaching discloses the space comprises any packing or plates).
In regard to claim 5, Cote in view of Chiou teaches wherein Chiou teaches the skirt comprises a second opening the first and second openings in the skirt face one another [Chiou teaches two opening 180 degrees apart] (see Chiou page 346, para. 3; page 349; fig. 12-12).
In regard to claim 6, Cote teaches the enclosure according to Claim 1, wherein Cote, as modified above in claim 1, teaches the pulverulent thermal insulation placed in the space form by the skirt (see the rejection of claim 1). As shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, the specified pulverulent thermal insulation is placed in the skirt. The claim does not exclude the presence of thermal insulation elsewhere.
In regard to claim 7, the modified Cote teaches the enclosure according to Claim 1, containing pulverulent thermal insulation in a space between the enclosure (7) and the distillation column (3) (see Cote ¶ 0057). Cote teaches space between the cold box (7) and the distillation column (3) is filled at least partially with particulate insulation material, such as perlite. Perlite is a type of pulverulent insulation.
In regard to claim 8, Cote in view of Chiou teaches wherein Chiou teaches the skirt comprises a second opening such that the combination of the first opening and the second opening is configured to allow the flushing gas to circulate through the space (see Chiou page 346, para. 3; page 349; fig. 12-12). In this case, since Chiou teaches the skirt is provided with a first and second openings face one another, by placing them 180 degrees apart, the openings are capable of allowing any flushing gas to circulate through the space.
In regard to claim 12, the modified Cote in view of Cavagne enclosure according to Claim 1, wherein Cavagne teaches the means for releasing the flushing gas is in fluid communication with a nitrogen source (an existing storage facility or network) and the flushing gas comprises nitrogen (See ¶ 0045, 0047, 0052; fig. 1, 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks page 7-8, Alleged Lack of Motivation to Combine Cote and Chiou) that there is no motivation to combine Cote et al. US 2008/0127675 A1 with Mechanical Design of Pressure Vessels by K. S. Chiou because Chiou addresses accumulation of combustible hydrocarbon vapors, whereas Cote processes nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.
In response, this argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on Chiou for the specific hydrocarbon processing environment described therein. Rather, Chiou is relied upon for the structural teaching that pressure vessel skirts may include vent openings that allow gas circulation within the skirt region and prevent accumulation of gases or moisture in enclosed skirt spaces.
A reference is not limited to the particular purpose for which it was originally designed and may be relied upon for all that it reasonably teaches to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2141. Furthermore, the applied combination already incorporates gas circulation within the enclosure through the teachings of Cavagne et al. US 2017/0009940 A1, which teaches introducing and circulating flushing gas in an insulated chamber to maintain a dry atmosphere and prevent moisture ingress. Providing an opening in the skirt, as taught by Chiou, would have predictably facilitated circulation of the flushing gas into the skirt space of Cote. Accordingly, the proposed modification is supported by a rational underpinning and would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues (Remarks page 8-9, Allegation that Chiou is Non-Analogous Art) that Chiou constitutes non-analogous art because it relates to hydrocarbon pressure vessels rather than cryogenic distillation systems.
In response, this argument is not persuasive. First, Applicant defines the field of endeavor too narrowly. Claim 1 is directed broadly to an enclosure including a distillation column and a cylindrical skirt forming a space, and the claim does not require cryogenic operation or limit the invention to a particular industrial environment. Accordingly, references relating to structural design of process vessels and pressure vessel skirts fall within the same general field of endeavor.
Second, even if considered from the perspective of the problem addressed by the inventor, Chiou remains reasonably pertinent. The claimed invention concerns the structural configuration of a skirt surrounding a vessel and the presence of openings allowing gas circulation within the skirt space. Chiou specifically teaches providing openings in vessel skirts to permit ventilation and circulation of gases within skirt regions. Such teachings would reasonably have been considered by a person having ordinary skill in the art when addressing circulation or ventilation within enclosed skirt spaces of process vessels. Therefore, Chiou constitutes analogous art.
Applicant argues (Remarks page 9-10, Allegation that the Combination Would Render the Apparatus Inoperable) that the proposed combination would be technically infeasible because pulverulent insulation such as perlite would escape through the openings taught by Chiou.
In response, this argument is not persuasive. First, the rejection relies on Chiou only for the teaching that skirt structures may include openings that allow gas circulation, not for any particular opening size or configuration. Claim 1 merely recites “a first opening” configured to allow flushing gas to circulate in the space and does not specify the size, geometry, or configuration of the opening. Accordingly, openings that allow gas flow while retaining insulation (for example, small apertures, screened openings, covered vents, or other conventional configurations) fall within the scope of the claim and would have been readily implemented by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Second, Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim because the claim does not require large open holes through which insulation would escape. Selection of an appropriate opening configuration that permits gas circulation while maintaining insulation retention would have been a routine engineering consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Third, the limitation that the opening is “configured to allow the flushing gas to circulate in the space” does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Once the enclosure of Cote is modified to include flushing gas circulation as taught by Cavagne, the opening provided in the skirt would inherently permit the flushing gas to circulate into the skirt space. The prior art structure is therefore capable of performing the claimed function, which is sufficient to satisfy the limitation. See MPEP 2111.02 and 2112.
Furthermore, dependent claim 2 recites means for closing the first opening, indicating that the opening may include structural features controlling communication through the opening. This further demonstrates that the claim does not require an unprotected opening through which insulation would necessarily escape. Accordingly, Applicant has not shown that the proposed combination would render the device inoperable for its intended purpose.
Applicant argues (Remarks page 11-12, Applicant’s Argument Regarding the Previously Applied Yue-gang La Reference) that that the present rejection is substantially similar to the prior rejection involving Yue-gang La and that Applicant is being required to re-litigate previously resolved issues.
In response, this argument is not persuasive. The present rejection relies on a different reference, Mechanical Design of Pressure Vessels by K. S. Chiou, which provides distinct teachings regarding structural openings in vessel skirts. During continued examination (re-open), the Office may withdraw prior rejections and apply newly identified references that are considered more relevant to the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the current rejection represents a new evaluation of the claims based on different prior art and reasoning, and it is proper for the Office to rely on such references during examination.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763