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 Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, “preconditioning off-gas” should read “preconditioning the off-gas”.
Claim 1, line 24, “the stage S1 to Sn are” should read “the stages S1 to Sn are”.
Claim 2, lines 1-2, "the preconditioned off-gas consists:" should read "the preconditioned off-gas consists of:".
Claim 2, line 3, "for between" should read "between".
Claim 2, line 5, "for 78.0000 %vol" should read "78.0000 %vol".
Claims 2 and 3 have a space between the numbers and "%vol", and claim 4 has no space between the numbers and "%vol", which should be corrected for consistency.
Claim 8, line 2, "one or more stage" should read "one or more stages".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1, line 11, and Claim 10, line 2, recite “means for adjusting the temperature and/or pressure”, and is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Regarding prong one, the limitation “means for adjusting the temperature and/or pressure” uses the term “means”, meeting prong one. Regarding prong two, the claim recites “means for adjusting the temperature and/or pressure”, wherein adjusting temperature and/or pressure is the functional language, meeting prong two. Regarding prong three, the claim is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for adjusting temperature and/or pressure, meeting prong three. This limitation is being interpreted to cover the corresponding acts described on pg. 4 and 9 of the Specification as performing the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for adjusting the temperature in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 31-33, recite “the off-gas inlet via which said off-gas stream is introduced into the preconditioning device is selected in function of said determined components”. It is unclear what is meant by “selected in function of said determined components”. It is interpreted the off-gas stream is introduced in the off-gas inlet which corresponds to the stage for which said determined components are removed and/or chemically converted. For example, if the off-gas stream contains hydrocarbons, and stage S2 is where hydrocarbons are removed, the off-gas stream is introduced into the off-gas inlet corresponding to stage S2 where hydrocarbons are removed.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “at least 95.0000 %vol", and the claim also recites "preferably at least 99.0000 %vol but less than 100.0000 %vol, in particular s 99.9700 %vol or s 99.9500 %vol" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation "at least 99.9900%vol and up to 100%vol", and the claim also recites "preferably at least 99.9990%vol, more preferably at least 99.9999%vol" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2 and 5-15 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
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 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.
Claims 1, 8-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale (US 2005/02017479).
Regarding Claim 1, Hale discloses a process for recovery of helium from a purge gas stream 201 (the purge gas stream of Hale contains helium, and meets the limitation of one helium-containing off gas stream; [0017], [0059], [0119], Fig. 2). Hale further discloses incoming gas stream 201 passes through an acid gas removal step 202 (aka S1) where CO2 is removed by scrubbing the gas with amine solution, acid gas stream 203 is sent for disposal and sweetened gas stream 204 is sent to a dehydration step 205 (aka S2) to remove water vapor 206 and sweet, dry gas 207 goes to a hydrocarbon removal step 208 (aka S3) to remove hydrocarbons 209 (acid removal step, dehydration step, and hydrocarbon removal step meet the limitation of preconditioning/a preconditioning device with stages S1 to Sn, where n=3; [0119]-[0121], Fig. 2); therefore, Hale meets the limitation of preconditioning the off-gas using a multi-stage preconditioning device so as to obtain preconditioned off-gas, wherein the preconditioning device comprising 3 stages S1 to S3, each stage being adapted to precondition off-gas by at least partially removing at least one component other than helium from the off-gas, wherein the stage S1 to S3 are in linear fluid succession so that off-gas which has been preconditioned in stage Sx, with 1: x < 3, is sent to stage Sx+1 for further preconditioning, whereas off-gas which has been preconditioned in stage S3 is sent as the preconditioned off-gas to the cryogenic separation device.
The limitation of chemically converting at least one component other than helium in the off-gas was not addressed because this limitation is considered optional.
The limitation wherein the preconditioning device comprises means for adjusting the temperature and/or pressure of the off-gas upstream of one or more of the stages S1 to Sn was not addressed because this limitation is considered optional.
Hale further discloses sweet, dry gas 207 goes to a hydrocarbon removal step 208 (aka S3) to remove hydrocarbons 209 and stream 210 (stream 210 meets the limitation of preconditioned off-gas) proceeds to a methane removal step 211 for cryogenic separation, where methane is removed 212 ([0121], [0122] , Fig. 2), and a side stream 214 is withdrawn from overhead stream 213 (stream 213 and 214 meet the limitation of a helium-enriched gas) and passed to membrane separation 215 (membrane separation meets the limitation of a purification device; [0125]), which produces a helium-enriched permeate stream 217 (helium-enriched permeate stream 217 meets the limitation of a purified helium gas with a higher helium content than the helium enriched gas; [0127]; Fig. 2). Therefore, Hale meets the limitation wherein the off-gas streams are treated, in order of succession, by preconditioning, cryogenic separation and purification in an installation.
Hale is silent to the preconditioning device having multiple off-gas inlets, each off-gas inlet corresponding to one of the stages S1 to Sn so that the off-gas of an off-gas stream introduced into the preconditioning device via one of the off-gas inlets is thereafter preconditioned in the corresponding stage.
However, the incoming gas stream of Hale passes through all of the stages of the preconditioning device, such that the incoming gas stream of Hale is preconditioned in its corresponding stage, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hale to flow the off-gas to each stage, because selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C). It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide multiple off-gas inlets to accommodate the off-gas flow to each stage.
Hale is further silent to, for each off-gas stream from which helium is to be recovered, components other than helium which are present in the off-gas and which are to be chemically converted and/or removed therefrom in the preconditioning device are determined and the off-gas inlet via which said off-gas stream is introduced into the preconditioning device is selected in function of said determined components.
However, the incoming gas stream of Hale passes through all of the stages of the preconditioning device, such that the incoming gas stream of Hale is preconditioned in its corresponding stage for which said determined components are removed and/or chemically converted, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hale wherein for each off-gas stream from which helium is to be recovered, components other than helium which are present in the off-gas and which are to be chemically converted and/or removed therefrom in the preconditioning device are determined and the off-gas inlet via which said off-gas stream is introduced into the preconditioning device is selected in function of said determined components, because selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
Regarding Claim 8, Hale discloses incoming gas stream 201 passes through an acid gas removal step 202 where carbon dioxide is removed by scrubbing the gas with an amine solution (gas scrubbing meets the limitation of off-gas washing; [0120], Fig. 2). Hale further discloses a hydrocarbon removal step 208 to remove hydrocarbons 209 ([0121], Fig. 2), wherein heat exchangers and a turboexpander to cool the gas, vessels to separate condensed hydrocarbons from the gas (separating condensed hydrocarbons meets the limitation of a condensation device; [0079]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hale discloses a hydrocarbon removal step 208 to remove hydrocarbons 209 ([0121], Fig. 2), wherein heat exchangers and a turboexpander to cool the gas, vessels to separate (vessels to separate meets the limitation of a separator device) condensed hydrocarbons from the gas (separating condensed hydrocarbons meets the limitation of a condensation stage; [0079]).
Regarding Claim 14, Hale discloses cryogenic distillation to separate liquid methane (aka natural gas) from crude helium ([0002], [0003], [0079], [0122]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale (US 2005/02017479) as evidenced by NOAA (“The Atmosphere”).
Regarding Claim 2, Hale discloses stream 210 (stream 210 meets the limitation of preconditioned off-gas) comprises methane, nitrogen, and helium [0121].
NOAA teaches methane, nitrogen, and helium are all considered air gases (bottom of pg. 2).
Therefore, Hale meets the limitation wherein the preconditioned off- gas consists of between 99.0000 %vol and 100.0000 %vol of helium and air gases.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale (US 2005/02017479) in view of Shah (US 2016/0231051) as evidenced by NOAA (“The Atmosphere”).
Alternatively, regarding Claim 2, Hale discloses stream 210 (stream 210 meets the limitation of preconditioned off-gas) comprises methane, nitrogen, and helium [0121]. Hale further discloses treatment to remove acid gases, water, hydrocarbons and any other relatively high-boiling components is usually carried out at the front of the train of gas processing operations before separation of methane and nitrogen, and if any additional composition adjustment is desired, it may be carried out within the scope of the invention [0073].
Hale is silent to the percentage of each component in the preconditioned off-gas.
Shah discloses a process for recovery of helium from an off-gas feed stream [0035]. Shah further discloses the feed 1 is sent to a compressor 51, heat exchanger 52 and phase separator 53 for cryogenic separation 100 to remove higher boiling point components 25 [0036]-[0037], and further sent to membrane separation 56 to remove hydrogen 12 [0038], and further sent to an oxidation unit 58 to oxidize hydrogen and form water [0040], which is then separated in a phase separator 60 and dryer with an adsorbent 61 as streams 18 and 20, (cryogenic separation unit, membrane separation unit, oxidation unit, phase separator, and dryer meet the limitation of a multi-stage preconditioning device; [0041]), wherein dried helium 19 (dried helium 19 meets the limitation of preconditioned off-gas) is sent to cryogenic separation unit 100 (cryogenic separation unit 100 meets the limitation of a cryogenic separation device; [0044]), and crude helium 22 (crude helium 22 meets the limitation of helium-enriched gas) is sent to a helium purifier 68 (helium purifier 68 meets the limitation of a purification device) to produce purified helium product 30 (helium product 30 meets the limitation of purified helium gas; [0045], Fig. 1).
Shah further discloses dried helium 19 (dried helium 19 meets the limitation of preconditioned off-gas) contains 16% He, 70% N2, 1% Ar, and 15% CH4 (Table 1).
NOAA teaches methane, nitrogen, argon, and helium are all considered air gases (bottom of pg. 2).
Therefore, Shah meets the limitation wherein the preconditioned off- gas consists of between 99.0000 %vol and 100.0000 %vol of helium and air gases; and 78.0000 %vol to 100.0000 %vol of helium and nitrogen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hale to incorporate the teachings of Shah wherein the preconditioned off- gas consists of between 99.0000 %vol and 100.0000 %vol of helium and air gases; and/or 78.0000 %vol to 100.0000 %vol of helium and nitrogen, in order to obtain a target composition in the preconditioned off-gas, as Hale teaches additional composition adjustment may be carried out if desired [0073], and these compositions are process parameters well-known in the art of recovering helium from off-gas streams by preconditioning, cryogenic separation, and purification, as recognized by Shah.
Claims 3-4, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale (US 2005/02017479) in view of Shah (US 2016/0231051).
Regarding Claim 3, Hale discloses crude helium stream 213 (crude helium stream 213 meets the limitation of the helium-enriched gas) contains 50 mol % nitrogen and 50 mol % helium [0160], or stream 404, which is leaving cryogenic separation 402, (stream 404 meets the limitation of the helium-enriched gas) contains 2.7 mol% He and 97.3 mol% N2 (Table 3).
Hale is silent to the helium-enriched gas fraction having a helium content of at least 95.0000 %vol.
Shah discloses a process for recovery of helium from a feed stream (feed stream meets the limitation of a helium-containing off-gas stream) comprising: (a) routing a pressurized feed stream to a cryogenic separation unit wherein the majority of the higher boiling components are separated and removed from the feed stream; (b) heating a stream containing helium removed from the cryogenic separation unit and routing the heated stream to at least one hydrogen transport membrane where the heated stream is separated into a hydrogen rich permeate stream, and a retentate stream depleted of hydrogen; (c) routing the retentate stream depleted of hydrogen to at least one oxidation unit and reacting it with an oxidant to remove substantially all the remaining hydrogen in the retentate to produce a helium containing stream; (d) routing the helium containing stream to a phase separator and sequentially a dryer wherein most of the water is removed (cryogenic separation unit, membrane separation unit, oxidation unit, phase separator, and dryer meet the limitation of a multi-stage preconditioning device); and (e) routing the dried helium (dried helium meets the limitation of a preconditioned off-gas) containing stream to the same or different cryogenic separation unit where the majority of remaining higher-boiling components are removed and a helium rich product stream (helium rich product stream meets the limitation of a helium-enriched gas fraction) having about 80% or higher helium content by volume is obtained (claim 1).
Regarding the vol% of helium in the helium-enriched gas fraction in claim 3, it appears that 80% or higher taught by Shah overlaps the claimed range of at least 95.0000 %vol such that the range taught by Shah obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hale to incorporate the teachings of Shah wherein the helium-enriched gas fraction has a helium content of at least 95.0000 %vol, in order to obtain a helium-enriched gas fraction with a desired helium composition, as a composition of at least 95.0000 %vol helium is a process parameter well-known in the art of recovering helium from off-gas streams by preconditioning, cryogenic separation, and purification, as recognized by Shah.
The limitation “preferably at least 99.0000 %vol but less than 100.0000 %vol, in particular ≤99.9700 %vol or ≤ 99.9500 %vol” was not addressed because this limitation is considered optional.
Regarding Claim 4, Hale discloses producing a permeate stream containing 90% or 95% helium [0113]. Hale further discloses it is possible to use a more complicated membrane array, in which either the residue or the permeate stream, or both, from the first bank of modules is passed to a second or subsequent bank of modules for further processing to obtain specific composition targets for both the residue and permeate streams, and such multi-stage or multi-step processes, and variants thereof, will be familiar to those of skill in the art [0112].
Hale is silent to the purified helium gas having a helium content of at least 99.9900%vol and up to 100%vol.
Shah discloses purified helium product 30 (purified helium product 30 meets the limitation of purified helium gas) contains more than 98% helium [0045], and further discloses helium product stream 30 contains 100% He (Table 1), such that Shah meets the limitation wherein the purified helium gas has a helium content of at least 99.9900%vol and up to 100%vol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hale to incorporate the teachings of Shah wherein the purified helium gas has a helium content of at least 99.9900%vol and up to 100%vol, because this is a process parameter well-known in the art of recovering helium from off-gas streams by preconditioning, cryogenic separation, and purification, as recognized by Shah, and adjusting process parameters to obtain a target helium composition is familiar to those of skill in the art, as recognized by Hale [0112].
The limitation “preferably at least 99.9990%vol, more preferably at least 99.9999%vol” was not addressed because this limitation is considered optional.
Regarding Claim 10, Hale discloses that an actual process train will usually include many additional components such as heaters, chillers, gas compressors, etc. [0117], which meets the limitation of a means for adjusting the temperature and/or pressure of the off-gas.
Hale is silent to means for adjusting the temperature and/or pressure of the off-gas upstream of one or more of the stages S1 to Sn.
Shah illustrates heat exchangers 11, 55, 67, 59 upstream the membrane separation unit 56, oxidation unit 58, and phase separator 60 (Fig. 1), and a compressor 51 upstream the cryogenic separation unit 100 (aka S1) (Fig. 1, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hale to incorporate the teachings of Shah wherein the preconditioning device comprises means for adjusting the temperature and/or pressure of the off-gas upstream of one or more of the stages S1 to Sn, because Hale teaches a means for adjusting the temperature and/or pressure of the off-gas, and having heat exchangers and compressors upstream one or more of the stages S1 to Sn is a process parameter well-known in the art of recovering helium from off-gas streams by preconditioning, cryogenic separation, and purification, as recognized by Shah.
Regarding Claim 11, Hale discloses that an actual process train will usually include many additional components such as heaters, chillers, etc. [0117], which meets the limitation of a means for adjusting the temperature of the off-gas.
Hale is silent to the preconditioning device comprises means for adjusting the temperature of the off-gas upstream of one or more of the stages S1 to Sn selected from electrical gas heating devices, gas/gas heat exchange devices, gas/liquid heat exchange devices and adiabatic compression heaters.
Shah illustrates heat exchangers 11, 55, 67, 59 upstream the membrane separation unit 56, oxidation unit 58, and phase separator 60 (Fig. 1). Shah further discloses hot permeate hydrogen 1 provides heat to membrane feed 7 in heat exchanger 54 [0038]; hot permeate hydrogen 1 is in gaseous form, and membrane feed 7 is in gaseous form, such that Shah meets the limitation of gas/gas heat exchange devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hale to incorporate the teachings of Shah wherein the preconditioning device comprises means for adjusting the temperature of the off-gas upstream of one or more of the stages S1 to Sn selected from gas/gas heat exchange devices, because Hale teaches a means for adjusting the temperature of the off-gas, and having gas/gas heat exchange devices upstream one or more of the stages S1 to Sn is a process parameter well-known in the art of recovering helium from off-gas streams by preconditioning, cryogenic separation, and purification, as recognized by Shah.
Regarding Claim 12, Hale discloses that an actual process train will usually include many additional components such as gas compressors, etc. [0117], which meets the limitation of a means for adjusting the pressure of the off-gas.
Hale is silent to the compressor being upstream of one or more of the stages S1 to Sn.
Shah illustrates a compressor 51 upstream the cryogenic separation unit 100 (aka S1) (Fig. 1, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hale to incorporate the teachings of Shah wherein the preconditioning device comprises at least one compressor or expander for adjusting the pressure of the off-gas upstream of one or more of the stages S1 to Sn, because Hale teaches a compressor for adjusting pressure, and having compressors upstream one or more of the stages S1 to Sn is a process parameter well-known in the art of recovering helium from off-gas streams by preconditioning, cryogenic separation, and purification, as recognized by Shah.
Regarding Claim 13, Hale discloses other gases such as hydrogen may be present in the gas stream [0072].
Hale is silent to an off-gas heating device and a catalytic oxidation stage downstream of the off-gas heating device.
Shah illustrates a heat exchanger 54 (heat exchanger meets the limitation of an off-gas heating device) to heat membrane feed 7 [0038] and an oxidation unit 58, which could contain a catalyst to promote oxidation reaction (an oxidation unit containing a catalyst meets the limitation of a catalytic oxidation stage) downstream of the off-gas heating device ([0040], Fig. 1). Shah further discloses the oxidation unit allows for removal of substantially all the hydrogen [0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hale to incorporate the teachings of Shah wherein the gas-preconditioning device comprises an off-gas heating device and a catalytic oxidation stage downstream of the off-gas heating device, as the gas stream of Hale may contain hydrogen, and an oxidation unit removes substantially all the hydrogen, as recognized by Hale [0015], to obtain a high purity helium product.
Regarding Claim 15, Hale discloses membrane separation 215 (membrane separation meets the limitation of a purification device; [0125]), which produces a helium-enriched permeate stream 217 (helium-enriched permeate stream 217 meets the limitation of a purified helium gas with a higher helium content than the helium enriched gas; [0127]; Fig. 2). Hale further discloses the helium-enriched permeate stream may be sent for further helium separation or purification (Abstract). Hale further discusses purification of helium using pressure swing adsorption [0002]-[0003].
Shah discloses purification is accomplished by adsorption, or a combination of membrane separation and adsorption in order to produce a purified helium product with more than 98% helium [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hale to incorporate the teachings of Shah wherein the helium-enriched gas fraction is purified into the purified helium gas using adsorption processes in order to produce a purified helium product, as recognized by Shah [0045], as Hale discloses the helium-enriched permeate stream may be sent for further helium purification (Abstract).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale (US 2005/02017479) in view of Baksh (US 2004/0237789).
Regarding Claim 5, Hale discloses the feed stream can be described as an effluent stream, secondary stream, side stream or ancillary stream [0068], and include, but are not limited to, reject streams sent to vent, flare or reinjection, side streams used as fuel gas to run plant equipment, such as engines, turbines, boilers, reboilers or fuel cells, and miscellaneous streams taken off to provide purge gas for regeneration of unit operations, insulation of cold boxes or the like, blanketing of storage tanks and so on [0070], and the gas streams contain helium [0071].
Hale is silent to the off-gas stream being generated during semiconductor manufacturing.
Baksh discloses a helium recovery process to recover and purify helium for use in semiconductor applications [0016]. Baksh further discloses helium is used in the production of semiconductor devices such as semiconductor integrated circuits, which is used large quantities of helium [0002]-[0003]. Baksh further discloses the cost of using helium would be prohibitive without some form of recycle system for the used gas [0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hale to incorporate the teachings of Baksh wherein the one or more off-gas streams include or consist of off-gas which has been generated during semiconductor manufacturing in a semiconductor manufacturing installation, because helium is used in large quantities in semiconductor manufacturing, such that the cost of using helium would be prohibitive without some form of recycle system for the used gas, as recognized by Baksh [0003], and the off-gas of Hale is not limited [0070].
The limitation “the one or more off-gas streams preferably including off-gases generated by one or more than one semiconductor factoring tools” was not addressed because this limitation is considered optional.
Regarding Claim 6, Hale discloses the permeate stream is sent for further helium separation or purification in the gas plant or at another facility or sold as crude helium (Abstract), such that the helium product of Hale is not particularly limited as to how the helium is used.
Hale is silent to the purified helium gas being recycled to and used in a semiconductor manufacturing installation.
Baksh discloses a helium recovery process to recover/recycle and purify helium for use in semiconductor applications [0001], [0016]. Baksh further discloses helium is used in the production of semiconductor devices such as semiconductor integrated circuits, which is used large quantities of helium [0002]-[0003]. Baksh further discloses the cost of using helium would be prohibitive without some form of recycle system for the used gas [0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hale to incorporate the teachings of Baksh wherein at least part of the purified helium gas is recycled to and used in the semiconductor manufacturing installation, because helium is used in large quantities in semiconductor manufacturing, such that the cost of using helium would be prohibitive without some form of recycle system for the used gas, as recognized by Baksh [0003], and the helium product of Hale is not particularly limited as to how the helium is used.
The limitation “at least part of the purified helium being preferably recycled to and used in the one or more semiconductor factoring tools” was not addressed because this limitation is considered optional.
Regarding Claim 7, Hale discloses the feed stream can be described as an effluent stream, secondary stream, side stream or ancillary stream [0068], and include, but are not limited to, reject streams sent to vent, flare or reinjection, side streams used as fuel gas to run plant equipment, such as engines, turbines, boilers, reboilers or fuel cells, and miscellaneous streams taken off to provide purge gas for regeneration of unit operations, insulation of cold boxes or the like, blanketing of storage tanks and so on [0070], and the gas streams contain helium [0071].
Hale is silent to a process for manufacturing semiconductors.
Baksh discloses a highly efficient and low-cost helium recovery system, which may be used for helium recovery from plasma CVD, sputtering system, reactive ion etching system, etc. [0017]. Baksh further discloses during the manufacture of the semiconductor devices, systems for generating plasma in a noble gas (i.e. helium) atmosphere under reduced pressure are utilized for various treatments of the semiconductor devices with the plasma, for example, a sputtering system, a plasma CVD system and reactive ion etching system [0002]. Baksh further discloses the cost of using helium would be prohibitive without some form of recycle system for the used gas [0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hale to incorporate the teachings of Baksh to produce semiconductors in a semiconductor production installation, during which helium-containing off-gas is generated; collecting one or more streams of helium-containing off-gas from the semiconductor production installation; and recovering purified helium from the collected off-gas streams by means of the process of claim 1, because helium is used in large quantities in semiconductor manufacturing, such that the cost of using helium would be prohibitive without some form of recycle system for the used gas, as recognized by Baksh [0003], and the off-gas of Hale is not limited [0070].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735