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 .
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.
Specification
The amendment to the disclosure dated 12/18/2025 is accepted.
Drawings
The amendment to the drawings dated 12/18/2025 is 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) 1-11 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 1, the recitation, “and the casing pulverulent thermal insulation” is indefinite for having a dearth of appropriate punctuation.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “a volume of liquid” (line 20, page 9) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing liquid creating ambiguity as to whether this liquid is the same or other liquid as already recited.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “the space between” is indefinite for creating ambiguity with the already recited “space” recited in claim 1 and referring to what appears a different space.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “four side walls” is indefinite for failing to properly reference the previously recited four side walls as --the four side walls--.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “of liquid” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing liquid and making it unclear as to whether this is the liquid already introduced previously or some other liquid.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz (US 2022/0373256) in view of Cavagne (US 2020/0333071) and Ryu (KR 20160148309).
See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Kurtz teaches an enclosure (CB) for at least one distillation column (K) for distillation at a temperature below 0C (para. 44) comprising:
the at least one distillation column (K) has a circular cross section (para. 40, 24) and is to be thermally insulated (pulverulent thermal insulation, para. 44), the at least one column (K) being configured to contain liquid (capable thereof) during use;
at least one pipe (implicit fluid lines to bring fluid to and from column) attached to the at least one column (K) for transporting a liquid;
a casing (of CB; para. 3, 44) enclosing the at least one column (K) in a sealed manner (para. 43) to prevent uncontrolled release of contents, wherein the casing (of CB) has a parallelepipedal shape (para. 3, 44);
a space (S) between the at least one distillation column (K) and the casing (of CB);
pulverulent thermal insulation (para. 14, 44) filling the space (S) between the at least one column (K) and the casing (of CB);
wherein the at least one column (K) rests on a bottom of the casing (of CB) through a skirt (J), the skirt (J) being a cylinder (para. 40, 7) and having the same diameter (para. 7, 40) as the at least one column (K) and being made from stainless steel (para. 7); further it is noted that a lower portion (at least) of the skirt (J) is filled with pulverulent thermal insulation (para. 14, 44, 41, 42).
Kurtz does not explicitly teach that the casing (of CB) is made from carbon steel. However, it is routine to form cold boxes from carbon steel as taught by Cavagne (para. 27). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the casing (of CB) of Kurtz to be made from carbon steel to provide a strong material that is relatively affordable.
Kurtz does not explicitly teach a liquid-retaining tank under the at least one column (K), as claimed. However, providing drain pans to catch leaks is routine and ordinary throughout many domains, including containers of liquefied gas. Ryu teaches a liquid-retaining tank (110, 210; 310, 340; 410, 450) having a flat rectangular bottom (see flat bottoms in figures and page 5, para. 3) and four side walls (page 5, para. 3), defining a liquid retaining space (page 5, para. 1, hereafter within tank), the tank (110, 210; 310, 340; 410, 450) being arranged inside a casing (surrounding structure, including 50), below at least one container (liquefied gas storage tank page 4, para. 5) of cryogenic liquid (page 1, para. 1), and being configured to collect and accumulate liquid (leaked liquid, page 4, para. 4) that has leaked from the at least one container (liquefied gas storage tank).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kurtz with a liquid-retaining tank, at least as outlined above, under the at least one column (K) for the purpose of providing a leak containment space to prevent leaked fluid from reaching other parts of the cold box casing (of CB) to reduce negative impacts of leaked fluid; thereby providing the skirt (J) of the at least one distillation column (K) on the bottom of the tank (from Ryu).
Further, as Kurtz itself teaches filling spaces (S and I) under and around the at least one column (K) with pulverulent thermal insulation (para. 14, 41-42), it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to fill the liquid retaining space (within the tank from Ryu) with pulverulent thermal insulation for the purpose of maintaining insulation performance during regular operation.
Kurtz, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the tank (Ryu-110, 210; 310, 340; 410, 450) is made from stainless steel. However, it is common knowledge that stainless steel is routine for resisting corrosion and rusting. Further, Kurtz teaches providing the skirt (J) from stainless steel (para. 7) to support the weight of the at least one column (K). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the liquid retaining tank from Ryu from stainless steel for the purpose of providing a material that will last a long time and is robust and able to handle the leaked fluid with low corrosion and can handle the weight of the at least one column (K).
In regard to claim 2, Kurtz, as modified, does not explicitly state that the tank (Ryu-110, 210; 310, 340; 410, 450) is dimensioned to contain at most a volume of liquid corresponding to at most 5% of the volume of the at least one column (K). However, it is routine and ordinary to size drain pans to accommodate leaks, which are routinely small in comparison to a volume of stored fluid. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the tank to be less than 5% of a volume of the at least one column (K) for the purpose of providing a leak containment space that does not waste space or material on volume that is unnecessary for leaked fluid volumes, especially since such leaked fluids are ordinarily discovered quickly and resolved.
In regard to claim 3, Kurtz teaches that a space (I) between the skirt (J) of the at least one column (K) and the tank (Ryu-110, 210; 310, 340; 410, 450) contains pulverulent thermal insulation (para. 14).
In regard to claim 4, Kurtz teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach that the tank rests on supports. However, Ryu explicitly teaches a tank (Ryu-110, 210; 310, 340; 410, 450) that rests on supports (350; 450). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide supports under the liquid-retaining tank for the purpose of reducing any negative thermal impacts of the leaked fluid on the cold box casing (of CB). Further, in view of the robust nature of stainless steel and the provision of the tank itself being stainless steel, forming the supports from stainless steel would provide all of the same benefits and permit easier welding and connection of the supports to the liquid retaining tank.
In regard to claims 5, 11, Kurtz does not explicitly teach that the tank (Ryu-110, 210; 310, 340; 410, 450) is attached to the casing (of CB) by way of stainless steel elements (interpreted as any metal structures) . However, in view of the teachings of Kurtz of welding the skirt (J) to the flat base (F, para. 40) of the casing (of CB), it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to attach the tank (Ryu-110, 210; 310, 340; 410, 450) to the casing (of CB) at least with welds and to use stainless steel for the purpose of providing a strong, stable connection that has low corrosion.
In regard to claim 6, Kurtz, as modified, teaches that the tank (Ryu-110, 210; 310, 340; 410, 450) comprises the four side walls (Ryu-see figures and page 5, para. 3) extending in a direction of an axis (up and down in figures) of the at least one column (K), the four side walls (page 5, para. 3) being attached to the periphery (see figures) of the rectangular bottom (see figures), the four walls being planar walls (see figures).
In regard to claim 7, Kurtz, as modified, teaches that the tank (Ryu-110, 210; 310, 340; 410, 450) does not comprise any downward openings (see figures of Ryu).
In regard to claim 8, Kurtz does not explicitly teach a sensor for detecting presence of liquid and triggering an alarm signal. However, Ryu teaches a sensor (120, 220, 320, 420) within the liquid-retaining space of the tank (Ryu-110, 210; 310, 340; 410, 450) the sensor configured to detect a presence of the liquid (page 6, para. 1-2) and trigger an alarm signal (signal indicating liquid leaked into tank, page 6, para. 1-2).
In regard to claim 9, Kurtz teaches that an outside of the casing (of CB) is exposed to open air (outside of CB).
In regard to claim 10, Kurtz does not explicitly teach what mixture is separated in the at least one distillation column. However, Cavagne teaches that it is routine and ordinary to perform a method of separating mixtures comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide at temperatures below 0C (para. 4-5). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kurtz to operate to separate a mixture containing carbon monoxide and hydrogen as claimed for the purpose of provide the benefits of Kurtz as modified to such separation operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant (page 7) requests withdrawal of the specification objection in response to the amendment of the specification dated 12/18/2026. In response the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant (page 7) requests withdrawal of the drawing objection in response to the amendment of the drawing dated 12/18/2026. In response the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments (page 8) are an allegation that the 112 issues have been overcome. In response, the amendments are an improvement, however, some issues remain as explained above.
Applicant's arguments (page 8-11) are an allegation that the modification would fill the drain pan of RYU. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since there is no evidence that the presence of the pulverulent insulation from Kurtz would prevent leaked liquid from being captured and contained by the tank from Ryu. The allegation ignores the physical nature of pulverulent insulation and leaked liquid under gravity.
Applicant's arguments (page 12) are a false allegation that the prior art does not consider the skirt of the column resting on the liquid retaining tank.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive - the modification of Kurtz explicitly provides the tank of Ryu under the skirt (J) of the column (K) and explicitly in the casing (of CB) for the purpose of catching any of the leaked liquid.
Applicant's arguments (page 13) are an allegation that the tray of Ryu is “non-load bearing” and allegedly would not be placed under “the structural base of a multi-ton industrial column”. In response, the allegation fails to address the claimed invention. There are no claim limitations concerning any load bearing capacity of the tank and therefore the tank of the prior art cannot be deficient relative to features that are not claimed. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that the tank of Ryu would fail to be sufficiently supported and be provided with sufficient thickness and support when provided to Kurtz in the modification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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