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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I (Claims 12-22) and Species 1 in the reply filed on 3/16/2026 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 23-25 and 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. It is noted that claims 13-16 are withdrawn for being drawn to at least one of the non-elected species 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, as the elected species 1 does not have an external source of nitrogen (see spec. para. 23, 37).
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method being free of a flow of gaseous nitrogen into the distillation column from an external source must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 12, 17-22 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 12, the recitation, “at the upstream most portion of the distillation column” is indefinite since there is no way to determine what stream the recited portion of the column must be downstream relative to.
The recitations, “to further cool the feed stream” and “condensing the feed stream” is indefinite for referring to the feed stream instead of the cooled feed stream and thereby creating confusion as to what stream is further cooled.
The recitation, “such that upon separation in the separator” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing separation that was already introduced previously and it is unclear why the recitation is not --such that upon the separation in the separator--.
The recitation, “such that concentrations of nitrogen, methane, and oxygen in the gaseous phase result in a non-flammable mixture” is indefinite since it is not clear what concentration levels are included and excluded. The specification never states what concentrations are considered non-flammable and never explains how such is determined. The recitation is also unclear since it is not clear if the recitation requires that the gaseous phase must be non-flammable itself only or if some “mixture” resulting from the gaseous phase or downstream of the gaseous phase must be non-flammable.
In addition to the issues above, the disclosure displays an “explosive zone” in Fig. 1 and there is no way to determine how the explosive zone relates to the recited concentrations required by the recitations.
The recitation, “wherein the gaseous phase flows into the distillation column as a sweeping gas” is indefinite since it is not clear what features or functions are included and excluded for a fluid to flow “as” a sweeping gas.
The recitation, “and participates in distillation by diluting a concentration of gaseous oxygen present in the distillation column to thereby maintain a mixture of nitrogen, methane, and oxygen within the distillation column that is nonflammable” is indefinite since participation in distillation implies participating in separation by distillation, but the phase “by diluting a concentration of gaseous oxygen present in the distillation column” describes another function altogether that has nothing to do with participating in separation by distillation and therefore it is unclear what function the gaseous phase must have in the distillation column other than merely mixing with the fluids therein. Further, there is no way to discern what amount of oxygen, nitrogen, and methane are considered nonflammable and how this determination is made.
The recitation, “drawing, after distillation,” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing distillation.
The recitation, “methane-depleted gaseous stream” is indefinite for being relative and unclear as there is no way to determine what amount of methane is permitted and it is unclear what the recited stream must be depleted in methane relative to.
The recitation, “a methane rich gaseous phase” is indefinite for being relative and unclear as there is no way to determine what amount of methane is required and it is unclear what the recited stream must be rich in methane relative to.
The recitation, “a methane rich gaseous phase that is flowed into the distillation column downstream of a location at which the gaseous phase from the separator is flowed into the distillation column as the sweeping gas” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what is “downstream” of the recited location in the context of a distillation column since it is not clear what fluid considered.
In regard to claim 19, the recitation, “the adjacent ones” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 21, the recitation, “into the heat exchange” makes no grammatical sense and it is not clear why the recitation is not --into the heat exchanger--.
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 limitation(s) “at least one purification unit” and “unit for purification by adsorption of PSA or PTSA” appear to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not explain what structure the unit must have to satisfy the recitation. The description appears to merely describe the unit in terms of function and fails to identify the structure that is fully capable of performing the function. In addition, the claim does appear to describe that the unit has an adsorbent, but it is unclear if this is sufficient to perform all of the functional limitations claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, the only structure required of the recited unit is “an adsorbent” capable of adsorbing CO2.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 12, 17, 18, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prince (US 2019/0001263) in view of Oakey (US 2003/0019241).
In regard to claim(s) 12, Prince teaches a method for cryogenic separation (see whole disclosure) in a distillation column (62) of a feed stream (1, 20) containing a mixture of methane and air gases comprising nitrogen and oxygen (para. 1, 5), the distillation column (62) comprising a distillation head (see at least top half of 62, including top) and an oppositely disposed distillation bottom (bottom half of 62 including bottom), and one or more distillation segments (see there are an arbitrary number of segments in 62, as the segments claimed can have any structure) arranged between the distillation head (top) and the distillation bottom (bottom), the method comprising:
flowing the feed stream (1, 20) through a heat exchanger (at least 60) to cool the feed stream (1, 20) thereby forming a cooled feed stream (63);
flowing the cooled feed stream (63) into a reboiler condenser (61) to further cool the cooled feed stream (63) by heat exchange thereby condensing the cooled feed stream (63) into a condensed stream (65);
decompressing the condensed stream (65) to an operating pressure (para. 99) of the distillation column (62) thereby forming a decompressed stream (67);
drawing, after distillation, a methane-rich bottom liquid stream (69) off of the bottom (bottom) of the distillation column (62) and a methane-depleted gaseous stream (68) off the distillation column (62) at the distillation head (top),
wherein the methane-rich bottom liquid stream (69) is enriched in methane as compared to the feed stream (1, 20; para. 102, 5);
wherein: a portion of the methane-rich bottom liquid stream (69) is flowed into the reboiler condenser (61) to cool by heat exchange the cooled feed stream (63), and the portion of the methane-rich liquid bottom stream (69) is vaporized in the reboiler condenser (61) into a methane-rich gaseous phase (64) that is flowed into the distillation column (62) at a lower location.
Prince does not teach flowing the decompressed stream (67) into a separator, as claimed, separating a gaseous phase and a liquid phase, flowing the liquid phase into the distillation head such that the liquid phase flows down through at least one of the distillation segments, flowing the gaseous phase into a lower portion of distillation column. Further, while the recitations of the claim are not clear as to what is required relative to avoiding explosive mixtures in the distillation column, Prince explicitly teaches that avoiding an explosive mixture is a routine requirement of separation (para. 10).
In addition, Oakey teaches that it is routine and ordinary to provide a separator upstream of a distillation column. Oakey teaches cooling a feed gas (in 4) to form a cooled feed gas (to 23), decompressing the cooled feed gas (via 23) into a separator (10), the separator (10) separating a gaseous phase (20) and a liquid phase (22), flowing the liquid phase (22) such that the liquid phase flows down through at least one distillation segment; flowing the gaseous phase (20) into the distillation column below at least one of the distillation segments, wherein the gaseous phase (20) flows into the distillation column (14).Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Prince with the separator upstream of the distillation column (62) to provide the ability to flow some liquid downwards through contacting elements of the distillation column (62) and some of the vapor upwards through the contacting elements of the distillation column (62) to improve the mass transfer in the distillation column (62).
In regard to claim 17, Prince teaches flowing the feed stream (1, 20) through at least one purification unit (5, 7) before flowing the feed stream (1, 20) through the heat exchanger (60), wherein the purification unit (5, 7) is loaded with an adsorbent (para. 96) capable of reversibly adsorbing CO2 to thereby reduce a CO2 concentration of the feed stream (1, 20).
In regard to claim 18, Prince teaches that the purification unit (5, 7) is a unit for purification by PTSA (para. 96) and wherein the PTSA is regenerated by flowing the methane-depleted gaseous stream (68) drawn off the distillation column (62) through the purification unit (5, 7).
In regard to claim 20, Prince teaches that the condensed stream (65) is decompressed (by 66) to a pressure between 1 and 5 bar absolute (para. 99).
In regard to claim 21, Prince teaches that the methane-depleted gaseous stream (68) drawn off of the distillation column (62) at the distillation head (top) is flowed into the heat exchanger (60) to cool the feed stream (1, 20) by heat exchange.
In regard to claim 22, Prince teaches that the method is free of a flow of gaseous nitrogen into the distillation column (62) from an external source for dilution of oxygen within the distillation column (62; see that at least one embodiment of Prince teaches fluid 72 is ejected and therefore is not mixed with fluid in column 62).
Claim(s) 12, 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prince (US 2019/0001263) in view of Roberts (US 6425266).
In regard to claim(s) 12, Prince teaches a method for cryogenic separation (see whole disclosure) in a distillation column (62) of a feed stream (1, 20) containing a mixture of methane and air gases comprising nitrogen and oxygen (para. 1, 5), the distillation column (62) comprising a distillation head (see at least top half of 62, including top) and an oppositely disposed distillation bottom (bottom half of 62 including bottom), and one or more distillation segments (see there are an arbitrary number of segments in 62, as the segments claimed can have any structure) arranged between the distillation head (top) and the distillation bottom (bottom), the method comprising:
flowing the feed stream (1, 20) through a heat exchanger (at least 60) to cool the feed stream (1, 20) thereby forming a cooled feed stream (63);
flowing the cooled feed stream (63) into a reboiler condenser (61) to further cool the cooled feed stream (63) by heat exchange thereby condensing the cooled feed stream (63) into a condensed stream (65);
decompressing the condensed stream (65) to an operating pressure (para. 99) of the distillation column (62) thereby forming a decompressed stream (67);
drawing, after distillation, a methane-rich bottom liquid stream (69) off of the bottom (bottom) of the distillation column (62) and a methane-depleted gaseous stream (68) off the distillation column (62) at the distillation head (top),
wherein the methane-rich bottom liquid stream (69) is enriched in methane as compared to the feed stream (1, 20; para. 102, 5);
wherein: a portion of the methane-rich bottom liquid stream (69) is flowed into the reboiler condenser (61) to cool by heat exchange the cooled feed stream (63), and the portion of the methane-rich liquid bottom stream (69) is vaporized in the reboiler condenser (61) into a methane-rich gaseous phase (64) that is flowed into the distillation column (62) at a lower location.
Prince does not teach flowing the decompressed stream (67) into a separator, as claimed, separating a gaseous phase and a liquid phase, flowing the liquid phase into the distillation head such that the liquid phase flows down through at least one of the distillation segments, flowing the gaseous phase into a lower portion of distillation column; the distillation column comprising at least two distillation segments, wherein the gaseous phase is flowed into the distillation column between adjacent ones of the at least two distillation segments and the methane-rich gaseous phase from the reboiler condenser is flowed below both of the adjacent ones of the at least two distillation segments. Further, while the recitations of the claim are not clear as to what is required relative to avoiding explosive mixtures in the distillation column, Prince explicitly teaches that avoiding an explosive mixture is a routine requirement of separation (para. 10).
In addition, Roberts teaches that it is routine and ordinary to provide a separator upstream of a distillation column. Roberts teaches cooling a feed gas (99) to form a cooled feed gas (123), decompressing the cooled feed gas (via 101) into a separator (124), the separator (124) separating a gaseous phase (126) and a liquid phase (125), flowing the liquid phase (125) into a distillation head (top half of 102) of a distillation column (102) such that the liquid phase flows down through at least one distillation segment (of 102); flowing the gaseous phase (126) into the distillation column (102) below at least one of the distillation segments (see figure 1), wherein the gaseous phase (126) flows into the distillation column (102); Roberts teaches that the distillation column (102) comprises at least two distillation segments (see fig. 1), wherein the gaseous phase (126) is flowed into the distillation column (102) between adjacent ones of the at least two distillation segments and a methane-rich gaseous phase (to 128) from a reboiler is flowed below both of the adjacent ones of the at least two distillation segments (see fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Prince with the separator of Roberts upstream of the distillation column (62) to provide ability to the liquid phase downwards through adjacent two distillation segments of the distillation column (62) and the gaseous phase upwards through the adjacent two distillation segments of the distillation column (62) to improve the mass transfer in the distillation column (62).
In regard to claim 17, Prince teaches flowing the feed stream (1, 20) through at least one purification unit (5, 7) before flowing the feed stream (1, 20) through the heat exchanger (60), wherein the purification unit (5, 7) is loaded with an adsorbent (para. 96) capable of reversibly adsorbing CO2 to thereby reduce a CO2 concentration of the feed stream (1, 20).
In regard to claim 18, Prince teaches that the purification unit (5, 7) is a unit for purification by PTSA (para. 96) and wherein the PTSA is regenerated by flowing the methane-depleted gaseous stream (68) drawn off the distillation column (62) through the purification unit (5, 7).
In regard to claim 20, Prince teaches that the condensed stream (65) is decompressed (by 66) to a pressure between 1 and 5 bar absolute (para. 99).
In regard to claim 21, Prince teaches that the methane-depleted gaseous stream (68) drawn off of the distillation column (62) at the distillation head (top) is flowed into the heat exchanger (60) to cool the feed stream (1, 20) by heat exchange.
In regard to claim 22, Prince teaches that the method is free of a flow of gaseous nitrogen into the distillation column (62) from an external source for dilution of oxygen within the distillation column (62; see that at least one embodiment of Prince teaches fluid 72 is ejected and therefore is not mixed with fluid in column 62).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763