DETAILED ACTION
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 filed on 1/19/2026 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 6-9, 11-16 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “pure nitrogen column” (page 2, line 6) is indefinite as it is unclear what level of nitrogen purity is required to qualify and it is unclear what the recitation of pure nitrogen requires structurally of the column that is any different than any column that separates nitrogen and oxygen.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “rich liquid” (page 2, line 18) is indefinite as there is no way to discern what feature or characteristic the liquid must have to be considered “rich”. The applicant alleges (REM 1/19/2026) that the term “rich” is defined in the specification. However, the alleged description in the specification does not describe the fluid claimed in claim 8, since the fluid claimed in claim 8 is returned to the low-pressure column (101) from the mixing column (103), and the cited specification portion (allegedly para. 12) describes a liquid from the bottom of the medium pressure column and therefore does not provide a sufficient description of the fluid (118) returned to the low-pressure column (101) and therefore the allegation is entirely without merit as being errant and not referencing the correct fluid stream. Further the specification never defines what componentry mere recitation “rich” requires and therefore the allegation is unpersuasive.
In regard to claim 9, the recitation, “pure nitrogen” (page 2, line 22) is indefinite for being a relative term and it is unclear what level of nitrogen purity is required to qualify and it is unclear if the nitrogen purity must be higher than some other air or nitrogen stream to qualify or if the nitrogen must be higher than some other product purity according to some market definition.
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.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 6-8, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenier (FR 2550325) in view of Larson (US 2019/0063828). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 6, Grenier teaches an air separation apparatus (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 2-3) comprising: an air separation unit comprising a low-pressure column (2), a mixing column (18A, 18), and a pure nitrogen column (22), wherein the low-pressure column (2) has a first nominal diameter (see fig.2), the pure nitrogen column (22) has a second nominal diameter (see fig. 2-3), which is smaller than the first nominal diameter (see fig. 2-3).
Grenier does not explicitly teach that the pure nitrogen column (22) is within and surrounded by the mixing column (18A, 18), the mixing column having an open cylindrical shape. However, modifying columns to be arranged annularly is well known as taught by Larsen (see Fig. 1, para. 4, 59) for saving space. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the mixing column (18A, 18) of Grenier to surround the pure nitrogen column (22) for the purpose of providing an overall structure with reduced height, thus saving space.
In regard to claim 7, Grenier teaches that the mixing column (18, 18A) and the pure nitrogen column (22) are in fluidic contact with a distal end (top end) of the low-pressure column (2).
In regard to claim 8, Grenier teaches that the mixing column (18A, 18) is configured to: receive liquid oxygen reflux (19); produce rich oxygen waste (21); receive waste nitrogen (at least portion of 30) rising from the low-pressure column (2); and return rich liquid (31) to the low-pressure column (2).
In regard to claim 11, Grenier, as modified by Larson, teaches an inner wall (see annular wall 16 Larson) of the mixing column (18, 18A) forms an outer wall (annular wall) of the pure nitrogen column (22).
In regard to claim 12, Grenier teaches that the distal end (top end) of the low-pressure column (2) is configured to supply a first waste nitrogen stream (23) to an inlet at a bottom portion (bottom part) of the pure nitrogen column (22) and a second waste nitrogen stream (30) to an inlet at a bottom portion (bottom part) of the mixing column (18, 18A).
In regard to claim 13, Grenier teaches that the mixing column (18, 18A) is further configured for countercurrent exchange between the received liquid oxygen reflux (from 19) introduced at a top portion (top of 18, 18A) of the mixing column (18, 18a) and the received waste nitrogen (at least portion of 30) rising from the low-pressure column (2) introduced at a bottom portion (bottom of 22) of the mixing column (18, 18a).
In regard to claim 14, Grenier teaches that the mixing column (18, 18A) is further configured to return the rich liquid stream (31) to an upper section (upper part) of the low-pressure column (2), thereby providing a liquid reflux (liquid) to the low-pressure column (2).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenier (FR 2550325) in view of Larson (US 2019/0063828) and further in view of Camberlain (US 5291737). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
Grenier teaches that the pure nitrogen column (22) is configured to: receive liquid nitrogen reflux (see 24); produce pure nitrogen (26); receive waste nitrogen (23) from the low-pressure column (2); and return rich nitrogen liquid (27) to the low-pressure column (2). Grenier does not explicitly teach that the liquid nitrogen reflux is subcooled. However, subcooling a reflux stream is routine and ordinary as taught by Camberlain. Camberlain teaches subcooling (via 19) a liquid nitrogen reflux (from 11) before providing such as a reflux stream. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Grenier with subcooling the liquid nitrogen reflux (24) to provide greater cooling to the pure nitrogen column (22) and increase efficiency of separation therein.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenier (FR 2550325) in view of Larson (US 2019/0063828) and further in view of Cormier (US 5049173). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 15, Grenier, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations including an argon column (page 6 “column for producing argon” fed with 13, hereafter argon column) and feeding the argon column (argon column) with a waste nitrogen stream (13) from the low-pressure column (2). But does not explicitly teach feeding at least a portion of a rich oxygen waste stream to the argon column. However, Cormier teaches (Fig. 13) a mixing column (972) and teaches feeding at least a portion of a rich oxygen waste stream (974; column 12, line 10-15) from the mixing column (972) to an argon column (802) for the purpose of improving the separation of oxygen from argon and heavies (column 11, line 15-30) in a simple and less cumbersome assembly (column 11, line 50-55) with lower equipment costs. In regard to claim 16, While, Grenier, as modified, does not explicitly teach combining the waste nitrogen stream (13) with the at least the portion of the rich oxygen waste stream (974 from Cormier), official notice is taken that combining two feed streams before feeding the combined fluid to a column is routine and ordinary. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the waste nitrogen stream (13) with the at least the portion of the rich oxygen waste stream (974 from Cormier) for the purpose of providing both fluids to the argon column at a reduced cost by forgoing multiple inlets where such are not necessary and providing a combination of fluid streams in a manner that is easy to access for maintenance and future modification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 6) are an allegation that “rich liquid” should be understood to be a liquid from the bottom of the medium pressure column that is rich relative to air. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as being entirely unsupported by the disclosure and only underscores the indefiniteness problems that the recitation has, as not even the applicant consistently defines the recitation.
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that the obviousness rejection is based on impermissible hindsight, merely because Grenier teaches that stacking columns is known.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as a teaching that stacking is known is not a teaching away from the annular arrangements and therefore the allegation is unpersuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that the teachings of Larsen are generic and do not specifically mention combining a mixing column and a pure nitrogen column. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since the primary reference already teaches a mixing column and a pure nitrogen column and the teachings of Larsen are applicable to these columns as well as other columns.
Applicant's arguments (page 10) are an allegation that the arrangement of the pure column inside the mixing column provides an advantage not suggested by the prior art, that of eliminating the need for an independent vessel for the mixing column.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since the prior art shows the structure of claim 11 and therefore the wall structure is not a distinguishing feature from the prior art.
Applicant's arguments (page 10) are an allegation that that the modification is a “pick and choose” approach and uses the applicant’s disclosure to motivate the combination.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as having no merit and being without any support as the rejection relies only on the teachings of the prior art and does not rely on the disclosure for any portion of the rejection.
Conclusion
This action is being made non-final due to the necessity of some rejections not necessitated by amendment. It is noted that the Examiner considered calling the applicant to amend the claims, but there were too many 112 issues that need to be resolved first. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights