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 Objection
Claim 13 recites past tense language, i.e. “are fed” and “are withdrawn”. Claim 13 is a method claim. All method step are to be presented in present tense.
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 " each adsorber (1, 2) being divided into n adsorption chambers each comprising one adsorbent bed, the n adsorbent beds being separated by n plates for injecting a feed and a desorbent and withdrawing an extract and a raffinate" limitation, as recited in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). A drawing illustrating the claimed 1) “n adsorption chambers”, 2) “n adsorption chambers each comprising one adsorbent bed”, 3) “n adsorbent beds being separated by n plates” limitations must be illustrated in a drawing as it is essential to understanding the claimed device. No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the "adsorbers (1, 2) are arranged in a horizontal position for substantially horizontal distribution of the fluid flowing through the adsorbers (1, 2), the flow through the adsorbers (1, 2) taking place in a horizontal plane and in two opposite directions" limitation, as recited in claim 12, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). A horizontal radial flow through the claimed device must be illustrated in a drawing as it is essential to understanding the claimed device, as recited in claim 12. 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 1-14 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 recites “Device for separation by simulated moving bed”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how a device is separated by simulated moving bed. A liquid feed is for separation by simulated moving bed, but not a device.
Claim 1 recites “each adsorber (1, 2) being divided into n adsorption chambers each comprising one adsorbent bed, the n adsorbent beds being separated by n plates” (emphasis added). Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the term “each” refers to the claimed “adsorbers (1, 2)” or the claimed “chambers”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear what “a plurality of adsorbers (1, 2)” means. That is, it is unclear if there are two adsorbers or more than 2 adsorbers or if there is a multiple of two adsorbers where the total is greater than 2. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 1 is understood as being open to any of these interpretations.
Claim 2 recites “the number of adsorbers m”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how “m” defines the number of adsorbers in relation to the unclear “plurality of adsorbers (1, 2)” limitation, as recited in claim 1. is an undefined limitation.
Claim 4 recites “the number n of adsorbent beds per adsorber (1, 2) is between 1 and 4, preferably between 1 and 3, and highly preferably between 1 and 2”. Claim 4 is deemed indefinite because the claim recites a range within a range feature. The scope of the claim is unclear. Claims 5-7 are deemed is deemed indefinite for similar reasoning.
Claim 13 recites “the device for separation by simulated moving bed according to Claim 1 any one of the preceding claims”. Claim 13 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if claim 13 is dependent upon claim 1 or dependent upon a different, preceding claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 13 is understood as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “the process comprising the following steps: the adsorbers (1, 2) are fed with at least one feed and a desorbent, and at least one extract and at least one raffinate are withdrawn from said adsorbers (1, 2), the adsorbent beds being interconnected in a closed loop, the feed and withdrawal points in the adsorbers (1, 2) being shifted over the course of time by an amount corresponding to one adsorbent bed with a switching time and determining a plurality of operating zones of the device for separation by simulated moving bed, including the following main zones….” Claim 13 is deemed indefinite. Lastly, it is noted that “determining a plurality of operating zones of the device for separation by simulated moving bed” is the only positively recited step. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 13 is understood as a process for separation by simulated moving bed using the device for separation by simulated moving bed according to Claim 1 comprising determining a plurality of operating zones of the device for separation by simulated moving bed, including the following main zones: - zone I for desorption of a product to be separated is between the injection of the desorbent D and the withdrawal of the extract E; - zone II for desorption of the isomers of the product to be separated is between the withdrawal of the extract E and the injection of the feed F; - zone III for adsorption of the product to be separated is between the injection of the feed F and the withdrawal of the raffinate R; and - zone IV is between the withdrawal of raffinate R and the injection of desorbent D.
Claim 13 recites “the feed and withdrawal points”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-15 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20110120952 A1 (hereinafter US 952) (US 952 was filed on January 21, 2011 and was published on May 26, 2011. US 952 is available as prior art under either 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2).).
Regarding claim 1, US 952 discloses a device for separation by simulated moving bed (see US 952 figures 1 & 5 and paragraphs 0001, 0019, 0032 & 0072-0076) comprising a plurality of adsorbers (1, 2) which are positioned in series (see US 952 figures 1 & 5; paragraphs 0019, 0045, 0072; claim 1) and arranged alternately for upflow and downflow (see US 952 figures 1 & 5; paragraphs 0072, 0075), each adsorber (1, 2) being divided into n adsorption chambers each comprising one adsorbent bed (see US 952 paragraphs 0018-0022, 0035, 0074), the n adsorbent beds being separated by n plates for injecting a feed and a desorbent and withdrawing an extract and a raffinate (see US 952 paragraphs 0021-0022).
US 952 discloses “a plurality of connecting flow passages connecting the plurality of columns in series in the endless shape” (see US 952 claim 1) with the plurality of columns being connected by flow passages to form an endless flow passage (see US 952 paragraph 0072) wherein the pump and valves within the pipeline assist with controlling the flow of fluid through the plurality of columns (see US 952 paragraphs 0072, 0075 & figures 1 & 5). US 952 discloses that in each column tube has a “total number of theoretical plates of the columns” (see US 952 claim 1; see also US 952 paragraphs 0021-0022).
US 952 discloses that in the SMBC system
first, an eluant is supplied to the endless flow passage from the flow passage 3 a, a material solution is supplied to the endless flow passage from the flow passage 3 e, the eluant in the endless flow passage is discharged from the flow passages 3 c and 3 g, and the other supply and discharge flow passages 3 are disconnected from the endless flow passage. At this time, an eluant mainly containing an extract as a component likely to be adsorbed by the separating agent is discharged from the flow passage 3 c, and an eluant mainly containing raffinate as a component unlikely to be adsorbed by the separating agent is discharged from the flow passage 3 g. Then, while keeping the relative relationship, these supply and discharge positions move to the connecting flow passages 2 on a downstream side in a flow direction of the eluant in the endless flow passage after a predetermined period of time. That is, when a predetermined period of time elapses, the flow passages 3 a, 3 c, 3 e, and 3 g are disconnected respectively, the eluant is supplied to the endless flow passage from the flow passage 3 b, a material solution is supplied to the endless flow passage from the flow passage 3 f, and the eluant in the endless flow passage is discharged from the flow passages 3 d and 3 h.
(see US 952 paragraph 0074). Herein, the structure of US 952 is substantially identical to the claimed “the n adsorbent beds being separated by n plates” of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 952 is presumed inherently capable of injecting a feed and a desorbent and withdrawing an extract and a raffinate
Regarding claim 2, US 952 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 discloses the number of adsorbers m is between 3 and 15 (see US 952 paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 3, US 952 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 discloses the number of adsorbers m is an even number (see US 952 paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 5, US 952 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 discloses the total number t of adsorbent beds is between 6 and 24 (see rejection of claims 2 & 4).
Regarding claim 6 and regarding claim 7, US 952 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 discloses the adsorbent beds have a height H to diameter D ratio H/D equal to or greater than 1, preferably equal to or greater than 1.5, and highly preferably equal to or greater than 2, as recited in claim 6, and discloses the adsorbent beds have a height H to diameter D ratio H/D between 1 and 12, preferably between 1.5 and 10, and highly preferably between 2 and 8 (see US 952 paragraph 0096 (US 952 discloses “the first SMBC separation system using columns in which column tubes each having an inner diameter of 3 cm and a fill length of 10 cm …, in the second SMBC separation system using columns in which column tubes each having the same inner diameter as that in the first system and a fill length of 25 cm ….” (see US 952 paragraph 0096), which is understood as a ratio of 3.333 and 8.333).).
Regarding claim 8 and regarding claim 9, US 952 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1/8. Further, US 952 discloses at least one bypass line (3) adapted to bypass at least one adsorber (1, 2), as recited in claim 8, and discloses the bypass line (3) is adapted to bypass two adjacent adsorbers (1, 2) (see US 952 figures 1 & 5 and paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 10, US 952 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 discloses the bypass line (3) connects a downflow adsorber (1) to an upflow adsorber (2) (see rejection of claims 8 & 9).
Regarding claim 11, US 952 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 discloses the adsorbers (1, 2) are arranged in a vertical position for substantially vertical distribution of the fluid flowing through the adsorbers (1, 2) (see rejection of claim 1; see US 952 figures 1 & 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 20110120952 A1 (hereinafter US 952), as applied to the claims above.
Regarding claim 4, US 952 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 discloses the number n of adsorbent beds per adsorber (1, 2) is 1 (see rejection of claim 1). That is, there must be at least one adsorbent beds per adsorber (1, 2).
US 952 does not disclose the number n of adsorbent beds per adsorber (1, 2) is greater than 1. That is, US 952 discloses at least the number of n of adsorbent beds per adsorber (1, 2) is 1 but does not disclose the number n is between 2-4.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the number of adsorbent beds per adsorber to be between 1 and 4 because there must be at least one bed per adsorber and/or because an increase in beds per adsorber would assist with the purification/separation process.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify and/or optimize the number of adsorbent beds per adsorber to be between 1 and 4. Without showing unexpected results, the claimed number of adsorbent beds per adsorber cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed number of adsorbent beds per adsorber in US 952. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of adsorbent beds per adsorber and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify and/or optimize the number of adsorbent beds per adsorber to be between 1 and 4 because if there are too few beds then sufficient purification/separation may not occur and if there are too many beds then it would not be economical, would be wasteful and/or could negatively effect the efficiency of the purification/separation process.
Hence, US 952 anticipates at least one adsorbent bed per adsorber (1, 2) and renders obvious the number n of adsorbent beds per adsorber (1, 2) is between 1 and 4, preferably between 1 and 3, and highly preferably between 1 and 2.
Claim(s) 12 and 13is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110120952 A1 (hereinafter US 952), as applied to the claims above.
Regarding claim 12, US 952 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 does not disclose the adsorbers (1, 2) are arranged in a horizontal position for substantially horizontal distribution of the fluid flowing through the adsorbers (1, 2), the flow through the adsorbers (1, 2) taking place in a horizontal plane and in two opposite directions.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art, such as a chemical engineer with a Bachelors of Science, would have the capacity to modify the system of US 952 to orientation of the adsorbers, such that the adsorbers (1, 2) are arranged in a horizontal position for substantially horizontal distribution of the fluid flowing through the adsorbers (1, 2), the flow through the adsorbers (1, 2) taking place in a horizontal plane and in two opposite directions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the orientation of the adsorbers in the system of US 952 such that the adsorbers (1, 2) are arranged in a horizontal position for substantially horizontal distribution of the fluid flowing through the adsorbers (1, 2), and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. purify/separate a target substance from a mixture.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the orientation of the adsorbers in the system of US 952 such that the adsorbers (1, 2) are arranged in a horizontal position for substantially horizontal distribution of the fluid flowing through the adsorbers (1, 2), choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, such as a horizontal orientation or a vertical orientation, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the orientation of the adsorbers in the system of US 952 such that the adsorbers (1, 2) are arranged in a horizontal position for substantially horizontal distribution of the fluid flowing through the adsorbers (1, 2), because a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 13, US 952 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 discloses the adsorbers (1, 2) are fed with at least one feed and a desorbent, and at least one extract and at least one raffinate are withdrawn from said adsorbers (1, 2), the adsorbent beds being interconnected in a closed loop, the feed and withdrawal points in the adsorbers (1, 2) (see rejection of claim 1).
US 952 discloses the feed and withdrawal points in the adsorbers (1, 2) being shifted over the course of time by an amount corresponding to one adsorbent bed with a switching time (see US 952 figure 3; paragraphs 0064, 0074, 0075, 0084 (US 952 discloses “As the switching interval (i.e., the control time at one flow rate of the pump 5) of the flow passages 3 is set in accordance with the supply and discharge positions and the position of the pump 5 in the endless flow passage, the switching interval of the flow passages 3 in the SMBC separation system of FIG. 5 becomes longer in accordance with an increase in fill length of the columns, compared with the switching interval of the flow passages 3 in the SMBC separation system of FIG. 1” (see US 952 paragraph 0084).).
US 952 discloses determining a plurality of operating zones of the device for separation by simulated moving bed (see US 952 paragraph 0046).
US 952 does not disclose - zone I for desorption of a product to be separated is between the injection of the desorbent D and the withdrawal of the extract E; - zone II for desorption of the isomers of the product to be separated is between the withdrawal of the extract E and the injection of the feed F; - zone III for adsorption of the product to be separated is between the injection of the feed F and the withdrawal of the raffinate R; and - zone IV is between the withdrawal of raffinate R and the injection of desorbent D.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of US 952 to comprise a zone I through zone IV because it would assist with purify/separate a target substance from a mixture.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of US 952 to comprise a zone I through zone IV and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. purify/separate a target substance from a mixture.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 952 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toumi, A., Hanisch, F. and Engell, S., 2002. Optimal operation of continuous chromatographic processes: mathematical optimization of the VARICOL process. Industrial & engineering chemistry research, 41(17), pp.4328-4337 (hereinafter Toumi).
Regarding claim 13, US 952 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. As noted above, claim 13 is deemed indefinite and is understood as “as a process for separation by simulated moving bed using the device for separation by simulated moving bed according to Claim 1 comprising determining a plurality of operating zones of the device for separation by simulated moving bed, including the following main zones: - zone I for desorption of a product to be separated is between the injection of the desorbent D and the withdrawal of the extract E; - zone II for desorption of the isomers of the product to be separated is between the withdrawal of the extract E and the injection of the feed F; - zone III for adsorption of the product to be separated is between the injection of the feed F and the withdrawal of the raffinate R; and - zone IV is between the withdrawal of raffinate R and the injection of desorbent D”.
US 952 discloses determining a plurality of operating zones of the device for separation by simulated moving bed (see US 952 paragraph 0046).
US 952 does not disclose - zone I for desorption of a product to be separated is between the injection of the desorbent D and the withdrawal of the extract E; - zone II for desorption of the isomers of the product to be separated is between the withdrawal of the extract E and the injection of the feed F; - zone III for adsorption of the product to be separated is between the injection of the feed F and the withdrawal of the raffinate R; and - zone IV is between the withdrawal of raffinate R and the injection of desorbent D.
Toumi discloses “In SMB chromatography, the adsorbent is distributed over a number of columns, 6−24 in standard applications. 2 Desorbent and feed streams enter the process continuously. A counter-current solid stream is approximated by shifting the inlet ports periodically in the direction of the internal recycle flow (compare Figure 1). Thus, the solid stream is “simulated” by a discrete movement of columns rather than using a continuous stream. This leads to the desired separation of the feed components which can be withdrawn at the extract and raffinate ports which are shifted in the same manner as the inlets. Inlet and outlet ports divide the SMB process into four zones with characteristic functionalities: zone I, desorption of component A (purification of adsorbent); zone II, desorption of component B; zone III, adsorption of component A; zone IV, adsorption of component B (purification of desorbent). Designing SMB processes involves, among other tasks, the selection of the number of columns per zone” (see Toumi section I/page 4328; see also Toumi figure 1). Toumi discloses “asynchronous SMB or VARICOL process 3 is characterized by an asynchronous shifting of the inlet and the outlet ports. This results in a varying number of columns per zone over time. The same regime of switching operations, however, is repeated from period to period. Thus an average number of columns per zone can be calculated over one cycle of the VARICOL process. The main innovation of the VARICOL process is a more flexible allocation of the adsorbent to each of the four zones of continuous chromatography according to the needs of a specific separation task, as the average number of columns can assume rational values” (see Toumi section I/pages 4328-29; figure 2).
Toumi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. a simulated moving bed system and process for purification/separation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 952 with one of configurations, SMB or VARICOL, as disclosed in Toumi, because it would assist with the separation/purification of the target substance from a mixture.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 952 with one of configurations, SMB or VARICOL, as disclosed in Toumi, because US 952 does not provide guidance on the configuration of the columns in the system of US 952 and Toumi provides guidance for a configuration that would achieve or assist with the separation/purification of a target substance from a mixture.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 952 with one of configurations, SMB or VARICOL, as disclosed in Toumi, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. separation/purification of a target substance from a mixture.
Regarding claim 14 and regarding claim 15, US 952 in view of Toumi discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 13. Further, US 952 in view of Toumi does not disclose the adsorbent beds are distributed in zones I to IV according to the following configurations referred to as a / b / c / d type configurations:- a is the number of beds in zone I; - b is the number of beds in zone II; - c is the number of beds in zone III; and - d is the number of beds in zone IV, and - a =(t*O.2) *(1- b =(t*O.4) *(1- c =(t*0.27) *(1±0.2); and - d=(t*0.13) *(1±0.2), and in which t is a natural integer between 6 and 24, preferably between 8 and 15, as recited in claim 14, and does not disclose the adsorbent beds are distributed in zones I to IV according to the following configurations referred to as a / b / c / d type configurations:- a is the number of beds in zone I; - b is the number of beds in zone II; - c is the number of beds in zone III; and - d is the number of beds in zone IV, and - a =(t*O.17) *(1- b =(t*O.42) *(1- c =(t*0.25) *(1±0.2); and - d =(t*0.17) *(1±0.2), and in which t is a natural integer between 6 and 24, preferably between 8 and 15, as recited in claim 15.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize each of the adsorbent beds/zones in the device of US 952 in view of Toumi because it would assist with the separation/purification of the target substance from a mixture and/or because if the beds/zones are too small or too big there will not be efficient desorption of the product, desportion of the isomer, and/or adsorption of the product, and if the beds/zones are too big, then there would be a waste of materials and increase cost (see Toumi section 1/page 4329; section 4/pages 4332-4333).
Without showing unexpected results, the claimed a/b/c/d type configuration, as recited in claim 14 and claim 15, cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed a/b/c/d type configuration in US 952 in view of Toumi. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).) The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the a/b/c/d type configuration and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention (see Toumi section 2/pages 4329-4331; section 4/pages 4332-4333; section 7/page 4336).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 952 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4297292 A (hereinafter US 292).
Regarding claim 13, US 952 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 discloses the adsorbers (1, 2) are fed with at least one feed and a desorbent, and at least one extract and at least one raffinate are withdrawn from said adsorbers (1, 2), the adsorbent beds being interconnected in a closed loop, the feed and withdrawal points in the adsorbers (1, 2) (see rejection of claim 1).
US 952 discloses the feed and withdrawal points in the adsorbers (1, 2) being shifted over the course of time by an amount corresponding to one adsorbent bed with a switching time (see US 952 figure 3; paragraphs 0064, 0074, 0075, 0084 (US 952 discloses “As the switching interval (i.e., the control time at one flow rate of the pump 5) of the flow passages 3 is set in accordance with the supply and discharge positions and the position of the pump 5 in the endless flow passage, the switching interval of the flow passages 3 in the SMBC separation system of FIG. 5 becomes longer in accordance with an increase in fill length of the columns, compared with the switching interval of the flow passages 3 in the SMBC separation system of FIG. 1” (see US 952 paragraph 0084).).
US 952 discloses determining a plurality of operating zones of the device for separation by simulated moving bed (see US 952 paragraph 0046).
US 952 does not disclose - zone I for desorption of a product to be separated is between the injection of the desorbent D and the withdrawal of the extract E; - zone II for desorption of the isomers of the product to be separated is between the withdrawal of the extract E and the injection of the feed F; - zone III for adsorption of the product to be separated is between the injection of the feed F and the withdrawal of the raffinate R; and - zone IV is between the withdrawal of raffinate R and the injection of desorbent D.
US 292 discloses a simulated moving bed apparatus wherein the apparatus is
operated so that four functional zones are in operation. The first of the functional zones is usually referred to as the adsorption zone. This zone is downstream of a feed inflow and upsteam of a raffinate outflow. In the adsorption zone, there is a net and selective adsorption of triglyceride of higher Iodine Value and a net desorption of solvent and of triglyceride of lower Iodine Value. The second of the functional zones is usually referred to as the purification zone. It is downstream of an extract outflow and upstream of the feed inflow and just upstream of the adsorption zone. In the purification zone, triglyceride of higher Iodine Value which has previously been desorbed is preferentially adsorbed and there is a net desorption of solvent and of triglyceride of lower Iodine Value. The third of the functional zones is referred to as the desorption zone. It is downstream of a solvent inflow and upstream of the extract outflow and just upstream of the purification zone. In the desorption zone, there is a net desorption of triglyceride of higher Iodine Value and a net adsorption of solvent. The fourth functional zone is usually referred to as the buffer zone. It is downstream of the raffinate outflow and upstream of the solvent inflow and just upstream of the desorption zone. In the buffer zone, triglyceride of lower Iodine Value is adsorbed and solvent is desorbed. The various liquid access lines are utilized to provide the feed inflow between the purification and adsorption zones, the raffinate outflow between the adsorption and buffer zones, the solvent inflow between the buffer and desorption zones and the extract outflow between the desorption and purification zones. The liquid flow is manipulated at predetermined time periods and the speed of the pump in the recirculation loop is varied concurrent with such manipulation so that the inlet points (for feed and solvent) and the outlet points (for raffinate and extract) are moved one position in the direction of liquid flow (in a downstream direction) thereby moving the aforedescribed zones in the direction of liquid flow and simulating countercurrent flow of resin adsorbent.
(see US 292 col 9 line 41 – col 10 line 27).
US 292 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. a simulated moving bed system and process for purification/separation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of US 952 to comprise a zone I through zone IV, as disclosed in US 292, because it would assist with purify/separate a target substance from a mixture.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of US 952 to comprise a zone I through zone IV, as disclosed in US 292, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. purify/separate a target substance from a mixture.
Regarding claim 14 and regarding claim 15, US 952 in view of US 292 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 13. Further, US 952 in view of US 292 does not disclose the adsorbent beds are distributed in zones I to IV according to the following configurations referred to as a / b / c / d type configurations:- a is the number of beds in zone I; - b is the number of beds in zone II; - c is the number of beds in zone III; and - d is the number of beds in zone IV, and - a =(t*O.2) *(1- b =(t*O.4) *(1- c =(t*0.27) *(1±0.2); and - d=(t*0.13) *(1±0.2), and in which t is a natural integer between 6 and 24, preferably between 8 and 15, as recited in claim 14, and does not disclose the adsorbent beds are distributed in zones I to IV according to the following configurations referred to as a / b / c / d type configurations:- a is the number of beds in zone I; - b is the number of beds in zone II; - c is the number of beds in zone III; and - d is the number of beds in zone IV, and - a =(t*O.17) *(1- b =(t*O.42) *(1- c =(t*0.25) *(1±0.2); and - d =(t*0.17) *(1±0.2), and in which t is a natural integer between 6 and 24, preferably between 8 and 15, as recited in claim 15.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize each of the adsorbent beds/zones in the device of US 952 in view of US 292 because it would assist with the separation/purification of the target substance from a mixture and/or because if the beds/zones are too small or too big there will not be efficient desorption of the product, desportion of the isomer, and/or adsorption of the product, and if the beds/zones are too big, then there would be a waste of materials and increase cost (see US 292 col 10 lines 36-48).
Without showing unexpected results, the claimed a/b/c/d type configuration, as recited in claim 14 and claim 15, cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed a/b/c/d type configuration in US 952 in view of US 292. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).) The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the a/b/c/d type configuration and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110120952 A1 (hereinafter US 952) in view of US 20080217232 A1 (hereinafter US 232).
Regarding claim 1, US 952 discloses a device for separation by simulated moving bed (see US 952 figures 1 & 5 and paragraphs 0001, 0019, 0032 & 0072-0076) comprising a plurality of adsorbers (1, 2) which are positioned in series (see US 952 figures 1 & 5; paragraphs 0019, 0045, 0072; claim 1) and arranged alternately for upflow and downflow (see US 952 figures 1 & 5; paragraphs 0072, 0075).
US 952 does not disclose each adsorber (1, 2) being divided into n adsorption chambers each comprising one adsorbent bed, the n adsorbent beds being separated by n plates for injecting a feed and a desorbent and withdrawing an extract and a raffinate. That is, US 952 does not disclose a device wherein the claimed “n” is greater than 1 for the claimed “n adsorption chambers each comprising one adsorbent bed” and the “n” is greater than 1 for the claimed “n adsorbent beds being separated by n plates”.
US 232 discloses a simulated moving bed adsorption separation device and method, wherein “the column or a principal portion of that column (more than 50% of the height of the column at least) is grouped into superimposed sectors Sk, each sector Sk comprising two successive beds of adsorbant Ai, Ai+1, and 2 plates Pi, Pi+1 located respectively immediately below these beds, and also comprising a principal bypass line Lk” (see US 232 paragraph 0037; see also US 232 abstract, figures 2-3 and paragraphs 0104-0106). US 232 discloses a device comprising a plurality of columns, wherein each column comprises a plurality of adsorption chambers each comprising one adsorbent bed and wherein the adsorbent beds are separated by a plate (see US 232 figures 2-3, abstract and paragraphs 0037, 0045, 0104, 0161). US 232 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. a simulated moving bed system and process for purification/separation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify and/or substitute the columns in the method and device of US 952 with a column with multiple sectors/plates/valve system, as disclosed in US 232, because it would assist with the purification/separation of a target substance from a mixture.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify and/or substitute the columns in the method and device of US 952 with a column with multiple sectors/plates/valve system, as disclosed in US 232, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of separating/purifying a target substance from a mixture.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify and/or substitute the columns in the method and device of US 952 with a column with multiple sectors/plates/valve system, as disclosed in US 232, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. separate/purify a target substance from a mixture.
Hence, US 952 in view of US 232 is deemed to disclose a device for separation by simulated moving bed comprising a plurality of adsorbers (1, 2) which are positioned in series and arranged alternately for upflow and downflow, each adsorber (1, 2) being divided into n adsorption chambers each comprising one adsorbent bed, the n adsorbent beds being separated by n plates for injecting a feed and a desorbent and withdrawing an extract and a raffinate.
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 952 in view of US 232 is substantially identical to the claimed “the n adsorbent beds being separated by n plates” of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 952 in view of US 232 is presumed inherently capable of injecting a feed and a desorbent and withdrawing an extract and a raffinate.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5 and 8-15, US 952 in view of US 232 is deemed disclosed for at least the reasons, as presented above.
Regarding claim 4, US 952 in view of US 232 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 discloses the number n of adsorbent beds per adsorber (1, 2) is between 1 and 4, preferably between 1 and 3, and highly preferably between 1 and 2 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6 and regarding claim 7, US 952 in view of US 232 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 discloses the adsorbent beds have a height H to diameter D ratio H/D equal to or greater than 1, preferably equal to or greater than 1.5, and highly preferably equal to or greater than 2, as recited in claim 6, and discloses the adsorbent beds have a height H to diameter D ratio H/D between 1 and 12, preferably between 1.5 and 10, and highly preferably between 2 and 8, as recited in claim 7 (see US 952 paragraph 0096 (US 952 discloses “the first SMBC separation system using columns in which column tubes each having an inner diameter of 3 cm and a fill length of 10 cm …, in the second SMBC separation system using columns in which column tubes each having the same inner diameter as that in the first system and a fill length of 25 cm ….” (see US 952 paragraph 0096), which is understood as a ratio of 3.333 and 8.333).).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the height and/or diameter parameters of the column(s) of US 952 in view of US 232, as disclosed in US 952, because US 232 does not disclose a height and/or diameter parameters of each column, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the guidance of the primary reference, i.e. US 952, to form a height/diameter ratio, as disclosed in US 952 (see US 952 paragraph 0096).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the height and/or diameter parameters of the column(s) of US 952 in view of US 232, as disclosed in US 952, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. purify/separate a target substance from a mixture.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 952 in view of US 232 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toumi, A., Hanisch, F. and Engell, S., 2002. Optimal operation of continuous chromatographic processes: mathematical optimization of the VARICOL process. Industrial & engineering chemistry research, 41(17), pp.4328-4337 (hereinafter Toumi).
Regarding claim 13, US 952 in view of US 232 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. As noted above, claim 13 is deemed indefinite and is understood as “as a process for separation by simulated moving bed using the device for separation by simulated moving bed according to Claim 1 comprising determining a plurality of operating zones of the device for separation by simulated moving bed, including the following main zones: - zone I for desorption of a product to be separated is between the injection of the desorbent D and the withdrawal of the extract E; - zone II for desorption of the isomers of the product to be separated is between the withdrawal of the extract E and the injection of the feed F; - zone III for adsorption of the product to be separated is between the injection of the feed F and the withdrawal of the raffinate R; and - zone IV is between the withdrawal of raffinate R and the injection of desorbent D”.
US 952 in view of US 232 discloses determining a plurality of operating zones of the device for separation by simulated moving bed (see US 952 paragraph 0046).
US 952 in view of US 232 does not disclose - zone I for desorption of a product to be separated is between the injection of the desorbent D and the withdrawal of the extract E; - zone II for desorption of the isomers of the product to be separated is between the withdrawal of the extract E and the injection of the feed F; - zone III for adsorption of the product to be separated is between the injection of the feed F and the withdrawal of the raffinate R; and - zone IV is between the withdrawal of raffinate R and the injection of desorbent D.
US 952 does not disclose - zone I for desorption of a product to be separated is between the injection of the desorbent D and the withdrawal of the extract E; - zone II for desorption of the isomers of the product to be separated is between the withdrawal of the extract E and the injection of the feed F; - zone III for adsorption of the product to be separated is between the injection of the feed F and the withdrawal of the raffinate R; and - zone IV is between the withdrawal of raffinate R and the injection of desorbent D.
Toumi discloses “In SMB chromatography, the adsorbent is distributed over a number of columns, 6−24 in standard applications. 2 Desorbent and feed streams enter the process continuously. A counter-current solid stream is approximated by shifting the inlet ports periodically in the direction of the internal recycle flow (compare Figure 1). Thus, the solid stream is “simulated” by a discrete movement of columns rather than using a continuous stream. This leads to the desired separation of the feed components which can be withdrawn at the extract and raffinate ports which are shifted in the same manner as the inlets. Inlet and outlet ports divide the SMB process into four zones with characteristic functionalities: zone I, desorption of component A (purification of adsorbent); zone II, desorption of component B; zone III, adsorption of component A; zone IV, adsorption of component B (purification of desorbent). Designing SMB processes involves, among other tasks, the selection of the number of columns per zone” (see Toumi section I/page 4328; see also Toumi figure 1). Toumi discloses “asynchronous SMB or VARICOL process 3 is characterized by an asynchronous shifting of the inlet and the outlet ports. This results in a varying number of columns per zone over time. The same regime of switching operations, however, is repeated from period to period. Thus an average number of columns per zone can be calculated over one cycle of the VARICOL process. The main innovation of the VARICOL process is a more flexible allocation of the adsorbent to each of the four zones of continuous chromatography according to the needs of a specific separation task, as the average number of columns can assume rational values” (see Toumi section I/pages 4328-29; figure 2).
Toumi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. a simulated moving bed system and process for purification/separation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 952 in view of US 232 with one of configurations, SMB or VARICOL, as disclosed in Toumi, because it would assist with the separation/purification of the target substance from a mixture.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 952 in view of US 232 with one of configurations, SMB or VARICOL, as disclosed in Toumi, because US 952 does not provide guidance on the configuration of the columns in the system of US 952 and Toumi provides guidance for a configuration that would achieve or assist with the separation/purification of a target substance from a mixture.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 952 in view of US 232 with one of configurations, SMB or VARICOL, as disclosed in Toumi, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. separation/purification of a target substance from a mixture.
Regarding claim 14 and regarding claim 15, US 952 in view of US 232 and Toumi discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 13. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and Toumi does not disclose the adsorbent beds are distributed in zones I to IV according to the following configurations referred to as a / b / c / d type configurations:- a is the number of beds in zone I; - b is the number of beds in zone II; - c is the number of beds in zone III; and - d is the number of beds in zone IV, and - a =(t*O.2) *(1- b =(t*O.4) *(1- c =(t*0.27) *(1±0.2); and - d=(t*0.13) *(1±0.2), and in which t is a natural integer between 6 and 24, preferably between 8 and 15, as recited in claim 14, and does not disclose the adsorbent beds are distributed in zones I to IV according to the following configurations referred to as a / b / c / d type configurations:- a is the number of beds in zone I; - b is the number of beds in zone II; - c is the number of beds in zone III; and - d is the number of beds in zone IV, and - a =(t*O.17) *(1- b =(t*O.42) *(1- c =(t*0.25) *(1±0.2); and - d =(t*0.17) *(1±0.2), and in which t is a natural integer between 6 and 24, preferably between 8 and 15, as recited in claim 15.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize each of the adsorbent beds/zones in the device of US 952 in view of US 232 and Toumi because it would assist with the separation/purification of the target substance from a mixture and/or because if the beds/zones are too small or too big there will not be efficient desorption of the product, desportion of the isomer, and/or adsorption of the product, and if the beds/zones are too big, then there would be a waste of materials and increase cost (see Toumi section 1/page 4329; section 4/pages 4332-4333).
Without showing unexpected results, the claimed a/b/c/d type configuration, as recited in claim 14 and claim 15, cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed a/b/c/d type configuration in US 952 in view of US 232 and Toumi. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).) The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the a/b/c/d type configuration and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention (see Toumi section 2/pages 4329-4331; section 4/pages 4332-4333; section 7/page 4336).
Additionally, US 952 in view of US 232 and Toumi discloses modeling and optimizing strategies (see Toumi sections 3 and 4/pages 4331-4333). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the a / b / c / d type configuration of the adsorbent beds/zones in the device of US 952 in view of US 232 and Toumi because one of ordinary skill in the art would have a desire to achieve optimal design and operating parameters (see Toumi section 4/page 4332-4333).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 952 and US 232 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4297292 A (hereinafter US 292).
Regarding claim 13, US 952 in view of US 232 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 discloses the adsorbers (1, 2) are fed with at least one feed and a desorbent, and at least one extract and at least one raffinate are withdrawn from said adsorbers (1, 2), the adsorbent beds being interconnected in a closed loop, the feed and withdrawal points in the adsorbers (1, 2) (see rejection of claim 1).
US 952 in view of US 232 discloses the feed and withdrawal points in the adsorbers (1, 2) being shifted over the course of time by an amount corresponding to one adsorbent bed with a switching time (see US 952 figure 3; paragraphs 0064, 0074, 0075, 0084 (US 952 discloses “As the switching interval (i.e., the control time at one flow rate of the pump 5) of the flow passages 3 is set in accordance with the supply and discharge positions and the position of the pump 5 in the endless flow passage, the switching interval of the flow passages 3 in the SMBC separation system of FIG. 5 becomes longer in accordance with an increase in fill length of the columns, compared with the switching interval of the flow passages 3 in the SMBC separation system of FIG. 1” (see US 952 paragraph 0084).).
US 952 in view of US 232 discloses determining a plurality of operating zones of the device for separation by simulated moving bed (see US 952 paragraph 0046).
US 952 in view of US 232 does not disclose - zone I for desorption of a product to be separated is between the injection of the desorbent D and the withdrawal of the extract E; - zone II for desorption of the isomers of the product to be separated is between the withdrawal of the extract E and the injection of the feed F; - zone III for adsorption of the product to be separated is between the injection of the feed F and the withdrawal of the raffinate R; and - zone IV is between the withdrawal of raffinate R and the injection of desorbent D.
US 292 discloses a simulated moving bed apparatus wherein the apparatus is
operated so that four functional zones are in operation. The first of the functional zones is usually referred to as the adsorption zone. This zone is downstream of a feed inflow and upsteam of a raffinate outflow. In the adsorption zone, there is a net and selective adsorption of triglyceride of higher Iodine Value and a net desorption of solvent and of triglyceride of lower Iodine Value. The second of the functional zones is usually referred to as the purification zone. It is downstream of an extract outflow and upstream of the feed inflow and just upstream of the adsorption zone. In the purification zone, triglyceride of higher Iodine Value which has previously been desorbed is preferentially adsorbed and there is a net desorption of solvent and of triglyceride of lower Iodine Value. The third of the functional zones is referred to as the desorption zone. It is downstream of a solvent inflow and upstream of the extract outflow and just upstream of the purification zone. In the desorption zone, there is a net desorption of triglyceride of higher Iodine Value and a net adsorption of solvent. The fourth functional zone is usually referred to as the buffer zone. It is downstream of the raffinate outflow and upstream of the solvent inflow and just upstream of the desorption zone. In the buffer zone, triglyceride of lower Iodine Value is adsorbed and solvent is desorbed. The various liquid access lines are utilized to provide the feed inflow between the purification and adsorption zones, the raffinate outflow between the adsorption and buffer zones, the solvent inflow between the buffer and desorption zones and the extract outflow between the desorption and purification zones. The liquid flow is manipulated at predetermined time periods and the speed of the pump in the recirculation loop is varied concurrent with such manipulation so that the inlet points (for feed and solvent) and the outlet points (for raffinate and extract) are moved one position in the direction of liquid flow (in a downstream direction) thereby moving the aforedescribed zones in the direction of liquid flow and simulating countercurrent flow of resin adsorbent.
(see US 292 col 9 line 41 – col 10 line 27).
US 292 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. a simulated moving bed system and process for purification/separation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of US 952 in view of US 232 to comprise a zone I through zone IV, as disclosed in US 292, because it would assist with purify/separate a target substance from a mixture.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of US 952 in view of US 232 to comprise a zone I through zone IV, as disclosed in US 292, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. purify/separate a target substance from a mixture.
Regarding claim 14 and regarding claim 15, US 952 in view of US232 and US 292 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 13. Further, US 952 in view of US232 and US 292 does not disclose the adsorbent beds are distributed in zones I to IV according to the following configurations referred to as a / b / c / d type configurations:- a is the number of beds in zone I; - b is the number of beds in zone II; - c is the number of beds in zone III; and - d is the number of beds in zone IV, and - a =(t*O.2) *(1- b =(t*O.4) *(1- c =(t*0.27) *(1±0.2); and - d=(t*0.13) *(1±0.2), and in which t is a natural integer between 6 and 24, preferably between 8 and 15, as recited in claim 14, and does not disclose the adsorbent beds are distributed in zones I to IV according to the following configurations referred to as a / b / c / d type configurations:- a is the number of beds in zone I; - b is the number of beds in zone II; - c is the number of beds in zone III; and - d is the number of beds in zone IV, and - a =(t*O.17) *(1- b =(t*O.42) *(1- c =(t*0.25) *(1±0.2); and - d =(t*0.17) *(1±0.2), and in which t is a natural integer between 6 and 24, preferably between 8 and 15, as recited in claim 15.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize each of the adsorbent beds/zones in the device of US 952 in view of US232 and US 292 because it would assist with the separation/purification of the target substance from a mixture and/or because if the beds/zones are too small or too big there will not be efficient desorption of the product, desportion of the isomer, and/or adsorption of the product, and if the beds/zones are too big, then there would be a waste of materials and increase cost (see US 292 col 10 lines 36-48).
Without showing unexpected results, the claimed a/b/c/d type configuration, as recited in claim 14 and claim 15, cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed a/b/c/d type configuration in US 952 in view of US232 and US 292. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).) The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the a/b/c/d type configuration and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
Related Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure:
US 20140155672 A1 (hereinafter US 672) discloses a system for the process of separation of xylenes in a simulated moving bed device (simulated counter-current chromatography) (see US 672 abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0021, 0025). US 672 discloses that the process comprises two or more adsorbers (see US 672 paragraphs 0024, 0037-0038, 0041) and has four chromatographic zones (see US 672 claim 1 and paragraphs 0025-0029). US 672 discloses the internal diameter of the adsorber is between 4 to 10 cm and the height of the adsorber is between 6 to 21 m and that each bed has a height of between 0.70 to 1.40 m (see US 672 paragraphs 0053, 0055, 0082). US 672 discloses an example comprising a SCC adsorber formed by 14 beds separated by plates (see US 672 paragraphs 0112-0124).
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773