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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 15-23, in the reply filed on May 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Group II, claims 24-28, is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The reference to “claim 1” on page 3 (line 1) should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-23 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.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation of “the outflow” (at lines 8-9), which refers to one outflow, renders the claim indefinite because the claim previously recited “at least one outflow” (at line 7), which refers to one or a plurality of outflows.
Regarding claim 20, the recitation of “the fluidic connection” (at line 2) lacks proper positive antecedent basis. It is suggested that the phrase --by a fluidic connection-- be inserted after “connected” (in line 2).
Regarding claim 22, the phrase “heated in such that the temperature is” (at line 2) is unclear. It is suggested that the phrase be changed to --heated to a temperature of--.
Regarding claim 23, the recitation of “the spray water” (twice, at lines 2, 4) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
Also, the recitation of “the spray condenser” (twice, at lines 2, 4), which refers to one spray condenser, renders the claim indefinite because claim 19, from which this claim depends, sets forth “at least one spray condenser”, which refers to one or a plurality of spray condensers.
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected 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.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scotto et al. (US 2017/0312717 A1) in view of Davis (US 3,084,914 A).
Regarding claim 15, Scotto et al. discloses an installation (an apparatus) for the production of granular urea (see FIG. 1), comprising:
a urea granulator (i.e., a urea granulation unit 2 for producing solid granules of urea 10 from a urea melt 9; for example, a fluid-bed granulation unit; see paragraph [0059]);
a dust scrubber (i.e., a scrubbing unit 3 for washing a stream of dust- and ammonia-laden air 12 drawn off from the granulation unit 2 with water 17 and an acid solution 18 to produce a scrubbed purified stream 19 and an aqueous solution 13 containing urea and salts; see paragraphs [0059]-[0063]);
a concentrating device (i.e., a second evaporation section 4 for subjecting the aqueous solution 13 to an evaporation step to produce a gaseous stream 15 mainly consisting of water vapor and a stream 14 containing recovered urea and the majority of ammonium sulphate of the aqueous solution 13, and a small amount of water; see paragraph [0064]); and
a condensation device (i.e., a second condensation section 5 for condensing the gaseous stream 15 to produce an aqueous stream 16 containing water and small amounts of urea and ammonium sulphate; see paragraph [0065]);
wherein an exhaust gas flow (i.e., the stream of dust- and ammonia-laden air 12) from the urea granulator 2 is arranged to be fed to the dust scrubber 3, wherein the exhaust gas flow is configured to be washed (i.e., using water 17 and acid solution 18) in the dust scrubber;
wherein at least one outflow (i.e., the aqueous solution 13) from the dust scrubber 3 is configured to be fed to the concentrating device 4, wherein the outflow is configured to be concentrated in the concentrating device; and
wherein vapors (i.e., the gaseous stream 15) created during concentration are configured to be fed, at least in part, to the condensation device 5, and wherein the vapors are at least partially configured to be condensed in the condensation device 5.
Scotto et al. fails to disclose that the condensation device 5 is configured such that possible deposits of non-water-soluble substances in the condensation device are avoided during operation or removed from the condensation device during operation.
Davis discloses a condensation device for at least partially condensing vapors that contain sublimable materials (see column 1, lines 10-12), said condensation device (i.e., a condenser 21; see FIG. 1-4) being configured such that deposits of the materials in the condensation device are removed from the condensation device during operation (i.e., to remove deposits of the material from the condenser 21, the coolant flow to the tubes 12 is periodically shut off, and the tubes 12 are heated by a flow of steam or other heating media; the deposits are thereby melted and removed as a liquid from the condenser through a liquid outlet nozzle 17; see column 3, lines 33-39).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the condensation device of Davis for the condensation device 5 in the installation of Scotto et al. because the condensation device would have allowed for periodic removal of deposits from the condensation device during operation, thereby preventing a reduction in the heat and mass transfer effectiveness of the condensation device that would arise from the obstruction of the flow path of the vapors by the deposits, as taught by Davis (see column 1, lines 51-62).
Regarding claim 16, Davis (see column 3, lines 40-51) discloses that the condensation device preferably comprises at least a first condenser and a second condenser (i.e., multiple parallel condensers) configured such that the vapors are able to flow through the condensers independently of one another, and that, during operation, the vapors can selectively flow either through the first condenser or the second condenser (i.e., when deposits are to be removed from some of the condensers, the flow of coolant is shut off for these condensers and the vapor flow is diverted to the remaining condensers; a flow of steam is then fed to the tubes of the condensers to melt the deposits in those condensers where solids have deposited; at any given time, one set of condensers cools and at least partially condense the vapors, and the remaining condensers melt the deposits in order to remove the deposits from the condensers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the condensation device to comprise at least a first condenser and a second condenser in the modified installation of Scotto et al. because the provision of multiple condensers, connected in parallel and operated simultaneously, would have allowed for the condensation to be performed as a continuous process, wherein, at any given time, one set of condensers operates to cool and at least partially condense the vapors, and the remaining condensers operate to melt the deposits in order to remove the deposits from the condensers, as taught by Davis.
Regarding claim 17, Davis discloses that the first condenser or the second condenser are selectively operated either with cooling water or with steam (see column 3, lines 33-51).
Regarding claim 18, Davis discloses that first condenser and/or the second condenser is/are designed as a U-tube condenser (i.e., the finned tubes 12 comprise U-tubes; see FIG. 1,4).
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scotto et al. (US 2017/0312717 A1) in view of Davis (US 3,084,914 A), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sauer (US 2004/0244588 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Scotto et al. (see FIG. 1) discloses that the concentrating device 4 is fluidically connected (i.e., via gaseous stream 15) to the condensation device 5. Scotto et al., however, fails to disclose that the fluidic connection 15 is configured to be heated.
Sauer discloses an apparatus (see FIG. 3-4) comprising a condensation device (i.e., a cooling zone 120; or a first cooling zone 120 and a second cooling zone 220) and a fluidic connection (i.e., an inlet conduit 105) between a source (not shown) of a vapor containing substances to be at least partially condensed by the condensation device 120,220 and the condensation device 120,220. Specifically, Sauer discloses that the fluidic connection 105 is configured to be heated (i.e., by means a heat exchanger 115 provided in a heating zone 110, or heat exchangers 115,215 respectively provided in heating zones 110,210).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the fluidic connection between the concentrating device and the condensation device to be heated in the modified installation of Scotto et al. because the substances in the vapor would be prevented from undergoing a phase change (condensation/solidification) prior to entering the condensation device, so as to remain in the vapor phase in the fluidic connection, as taught by Sauer (see paragraphs [0015], [0038]).
Regarding claim 21, Sauer (see FIG. 3-4) does not specifically disclose that the fluid connection 105 comprises at least one flange connection. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the fluid connection in the modified installation of Scotto et al. to comprise at least one flange connection, because the examiner takes Official notice that the provision of flange connections for attaching fluid piping to process units, so as to establish a fluid-tight connection for the passage of fluid between the process units, would have been well-known to one of ordinary skill in the engineering art.
Regarding claim 22, Sauer (see paragraph [0038]) also discloses that the fluidic connection 105 is configured to be heated to a temperature sufficient to ensure that substantially all of the substances within the vapor are prevented from undergoing a phase change and remain in the vapor phase.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the fluidic connection in the modified installation of Scotto et al. to be heated to a temperature that was sufficient to ensure that substantially all of the substances within the vapor (in this case, the water, urea, and ammonium sulphate in the gaseous stream) were prevented from undergoing a phase change (condensation/solidification) before entering the condensation device, and remained in the vapor phase in the fluidic connection, as taught by Sauer.
Furthermore, the specific temperature (of greater than 115 °C) to which the fluidic connection is to be heated is not considered to confer patentability to the claim because the precise temperature would have been considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the temperature to which the fluidic connection was to be heated in the modified installation of Scotto et al. in order to ensure that substantially all of the substances within the vapor (in this case, the water, urea, and ammonium sulphate in the gaseous stream) remained in the vapor phase.
Claims 15, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scotto et al. (US 2017/0312717 A1) in view of Karasiak et al. (DE 102011007543 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Scotto et al. discloses an installation (apparatus) for the production of granular urea (see FIG. 1), comprising:
a urea granulator (i.e., a urea granulation unit 2 for producing solid granules of urea 10 from a urea melt 9; for example, a fluid-bed granulation unit; see paragraph [0059]);
a dust scrubber (i.e., a scrubbing unit 3 for washing a stream of dust- and ammonia-laden air 12 drawn off from the granulation unit 2 with water 17 and an acid solution 18 to produce a scrubbed purified stream 19 and an aqueous solution 13 containing urea and salts; see paragraphs [0059]-[0063]);
a concentrating device (i.e., a second evaporation section 4 for subjecting the aqueous solution 13 to an evaporation step to produce a gaseous stream 15 mainly consisting of water vapor and a stream 14 containing recovered urea and the majority of ammonium sulphate of the aqueous solution 13, and a small amount of water; see paragraph [0064]); and
a condensation device (i.e., a second condensation section 5 for condensing the gaseous stream 15 to produce an aqueous stream 16 containing water and small amounts of urea and ammonium sulphate; see paragraph [0065]);
wherein an exhaust gas flow (i.e., the stream of dust- and ammonia-laden air 12) from the urea granulator 2 is arranged to be fed to the dust scrubber 3, wherein the exhaust gas flow is configured to be washed (i.e., using water 17 and acid solution 18) in the dust scrubber;
wherein at least one outflow (i.e., the aqueous solution 13) from the dust scrubber 3 is configured to be fed to the concentrating device 4, wherein the outflow is configured to be concentrated in the concentrating device; and
wherein vapors (i.e., the gaseous stream 15) created during concentration are configured to be fed, at least in part, to the condensation device 5, and wherein the vapors are at least partially configured to be condensed in the condensation device 5.
Scotto et al. fails to disclose that the condensation device 5 is configured such that possible deposits of non-water-soluble substances in the condensation device are avoided during operation or removed from the condensation device during operation.
Karasiak et al. discloses a condensation device for condensing vapors (i.e., an apparatus comprising a condensation region 311 with a spray condenser 3, the spray condenser 3 producing a liquid spray 51 as a coolant for at least partially condensing a vapor containing substances from a process equipment 1; see FIG. 2-8, translation), wherein the condenser is configured such that possible deposits of substances in the condensation device are avoided during operation (i.e., blockage by substances entrained in the vapors can be avoided by use of the spray condenser; see translation at page 3, second to last paragraph). Karasiak et al. (see translation at page 2, fourth paragraph) further discloses,
“Frequently, so-called spray condensers are used for the condensation, in which the vapors are condensed by sprayed liquid ... In such cases, the liquid is circulated while being filtered and cooled according to requirements, and then again in the condenser as a condensing agent available. These spray condensers are often used when the vapors to be condensed are loaded with substances which could contaminate or block tube bundle condensers.” (with emphasis added).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the condensation device of Karasiak et al. for the condensation device 5 in the installation of Scotto et al. because condensation of the vapors by means of the spray condenser would have avoided the formation of deposits of the substances in the condensation device during operation, and thereby avoided a contamination or blockage of the condensation device by deposits of the substances, as taught by Karasiak et al.
Regarding claim 19, Karasiak et al. discloses that the condensation device comprises at least one spray condenser 3 (see FIG. 2-8).
Regarding claim 23, Karasiak et al. also discloses that the condensation device (see FIG. 4) comprises a pump 4 through which the spray liquid of the spray condenser is configured to be circulated (i.e., spray liquid is circulated through a closed cooling circuit, between a condensate collection area 312 and the spray condenser 3), and that the condensation device comprises a heat exchanger (i.e., a cooling device 5) through which the spray water of the spray condenser is configured to be cooled.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
De Munck et al. (US 2013/0001448 A1) is cited to further illustrates the state of the art.
* * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights