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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 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) and US 20040129137 A1 (hereinafter US 137)
Regarding claim 1, US 952 discloses a device for separation of a feed by simulated moving bed (see US 952 figures 1 & 5 and paragraphs 0001, 0019, 0032 & 0072-0076) comprising a plurality of a number m 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, 0074, 0075).
US 952 does not disclose each adsorber (1, 2) being divided into n adsorption chambers each adsorption chamber comprising one adsorbent bed, the n adsorbent beds being separated by n plates for injecting the feed and a desorbent and withdrawing an extract and a raffinate, and at least one bypass line (3) adapted to bypass at least one adsorber (1, 2).
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 adsorbent 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 0037-0039, 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 discloses that
at least one column comprising a plurality of adsorbant beds Ai separated by distributor/extractor plates Pi to sequentially supply and extract at least two supply fluids: a feed F and a desorbant D, and at least two withdrawn fluids: a raffinate R and an extract E, Pi being disposed between the bed Ai and the immediately inferior bed Ai+1; the device also comprising at least one feed network F-Net, a desorbant network D-Net, a raffinate network R-Net and an extract network E-Net, each of said networks being connected to the column via a plurality of lines comprising controlled two-way isolating valves with an opening diameter of a or above, termed network valves, for sequential supply or withdrawal of said supply or withdrawal fluids;in which the column is divided, over at least the major part of its height, into a plurality of adjacent superimposed sections Sk, each sector Sk being essentially constituted by 2 successive adsorbant beds Ai, Ai+1 and by the 2 distributor/extractor plates Pi, Pi+1 which are respectively disposed immediately below Ai and Ai+1 (i.e. exactly 2 beds and 2 plates as well as the corresponding shell section);each of the distributor/extractor plates Pi, Pi+1 of each of the sectors Sk has a single common network for sequential supply and withdrawal of F, D, R, E
(see US 232 paragraph 0045).
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 it would assist with “minimizing the pollution generated by the liquid encountered in the various zones and volumes of the supply and withdrawal circuits for the fluids to/from the plates during modifications to the supply and withdrawal points during operation of the SMB” (see US 232 paragraphs 0018) and/or the recirculation between various zones (see US 232 paragraphs 0019-0024 & 0031).
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 of a feed by simulated moving bed comprising a plurality of a number m 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 adsorption chamber comprising one adsorbent bed, the n adsorbent beds being separated by n plates for injecting the feed and a desorbent and withdrawing an extract and a raffinate.
US 952 in view of US 232 does not disclose at least one bypass line (3) adapted to bypass at least one adsorber (1, 2).
US 137 discloses a simulated moving bed system comprising a series of sequential SMB columns, wherein the SMB is “adaptable to a wide range of SMB configurations, including moving port chromatography, and having improved configurational flexibility, operational flexibility and operating performance” (see US 137 paragraph 0030); achieves independent column switching (see US 137 paragraph 0031); can achieve an open loop and closed loop separation configuration (see US 137 paragraph 0034); can achieve zone bypass operations (see US 137 paragraph 0034); provide online decoupled regeneration schemes (see US 137 paragraph 0032) and/or minimizes contamination without sacrificing flexibility (see US 137 paragraph 0033). US 137 discloses a simulated moving bed system comprises
distributed valves form a series of junctions that separate successive columns in an SMB and control the flow of process fluid between the columns. These junctions impart tremendous versatility to the SMB design by interrupting the flow of process fluid between columns, and either transmitting the process fluid through a zone bypass to a succeeding column within the same zone or, if the junction is located between zones, directing the process fluid to an input/output line that is dedicated to the particular zone that immediately follows the junction. Thus, in a 2-2-2-2 four zone closed loop binary SMB, the junction would be dedicated to a desorbent input/output line if the junction preceded zone I; an extract input/output line if the junction preceded zone II; a feed input/output line if the junction preceded zone III; and a raffinate input/output line if the junction preceded zone IV. At each step of the SMB's operation, the distribution of flows in each junction is modulated to accomplish movement of ports consistent with the SMB's design
(see US 137 paragraph 0040; see also US 137 figures 17-19 as well as abstract, figures 1, 6-10, 13-16, 32, 36 and paragraphs 0034, 0041-0042, 0044, 105-0116).
US 137 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 to incorporate the bypass line features, including lines and valves, as disclosed in US 137, because it would assist with achieving improved configurational flexibility, operational flexibility and operating performance” (see US 137 paragraph 0030); achieves independent column switching (see US 137 paragraph 0031); can achieve an open loop and closed loop separation configuration (see US 137 paragraph 0034); can achieve zone bypass operations (see US 137 paragraph 0034); provide online decoupled regeneration schemes (see US 137 paragraph 0032) and/or minimizes contamination without sacrificing flexibility (see US 137 paragraph 0033) and/or because it would assist purification treatment of the water to be treated.
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 to incorporate the bypass line features, including lines and valves, as disclosed in US 137, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. controlling the movement of fluid through the system.
Hence, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 is deemed to disclose a device for separation of a feed by simulated moving bed comprising a plurality of a number m 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 adsorption chamber comprising one adsorbent bed, the n adsorbent beds being separated by n plates for injecting the feed and a desorbent and withdrawing an extract and a raffinate, and at least one bypass line (3) adapted to bypass at least one adsorber (1, 2).
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 and US 137 is substantially identical to the claimed at least one bypass line (3) of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 is presumed inherently capable of bypassing at least one adsorber (1, 2).
Regarding claim 2, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the number of adsorbers m is between 3 and 15 (see US 952 paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 3, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the number of adsorbers m is an even number (see US 952 paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 4, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the number n of adsorbent beds per adsorber (1, 2) is between 1 and 4 (see rejection of claim 1).
In US 952, there must be at least one adsorbent beds per adsorber (1, 2) (see US 952 figures 1 and 5). In US 232 there are multiple adsorbent beds per adsorber, such as 4 beds per adsorber (see US 232 figures 2-3).
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 in US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 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 in US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137. 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 in view of US 232 and US 137. 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 in US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 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.
Regarding claim 5, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 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 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the adsorbent beds have a height H to diameter D ratio H/D equal to or greater than 1, as recited in claim 6, and discloses the adsorbent beds have a height H to diameter D ratio H/D between 1 and 12 (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 9, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1/8. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the at least one bypass line (3) is adapted to bypass two adjacent adsorbers (1, 2) (see rejection of claim 1; see US 137 figures 17-19 as well as abstract, figures 1, 6-10, 13-16, 32, 36 and paragraphs 0034, 004-0042, 0044, 105-0116).
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 and US 137 is substantially identical to the claimed at least one bypass line (3) of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 is presumed inherently capable of bypassing two adjacent adsorbers (1, 2).
Regarding claim 10, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the bypass line (3) connects a downflow adsorber (1) to an upflow adsorber (2) (see rejection of claims 1 and 9).
Regarding claim 11, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 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).
Regarding claim 12, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 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 in view of US 232 and US 137 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 in view of US 232 and US 137 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 in view of US 232 and US 137 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 in view of US 232 and US 137 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 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses feeding the adsorbers (1, 2) with at least one feed and a desorbent at feet points, and withdrawing at least one extract and at least one raffinate at withdrawal points from said adsorbers (1, 2), the adsorbent beds being interconnected in a closed loop, shifting the at least one feed and withdrawal points in the adsorbers (1, 2) 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 (see rejection of claim 1; see also US 952 figure 3; paragraphs 0064, 0074, 0075, 0084).
US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 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 and US 137 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 137 discloses - 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 (see US 137 figures 1, 2, 4, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 26, 28, 30, 35).
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 and US 137 to the four zone configuration, as disclosed in US 137, 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 and US 137 to the four zone configuration, as disclosed in US 137, because US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 does not provide guidance on the configuration of the columns in the system of US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 and US 137 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 and US 137 to the four zone configuration, as disclosed in US 137, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. separation/purification of a target substance from a mixture.
Additionally, 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 and US 137 to a four zone configuration 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 US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 to a four zone configuration 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.
Regarding claim 16, regarding claim 17 and regarding claim 18, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses when a number x of adsorbers is bypassed, the position of the feed and withdrawal points is modified so that the predetermined proportion of the average number of adsorbent beds operating in zones I to IV is maintained within an approximation of ±20%, as recited in claim 16, and discloses when a number x of adsorbers is bypassed, the position of the feed and withdrawal points is modified so that the predetermined proportion of the average number of adsorbent beds operating in zones I to IV is maintained within an approximation of ±10%, as recited in claim 17, and discloses when a number x of adsorbers is bypassed, the position of the feed and withdrawal points is modified so that the predetermined proportion of the average number of adsorbent beds operating in zones I to IV is maintained within an approximation of ±5%. That is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, x may be zero and thus no modified position is achieved. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “predetermined portion of the average number of adsorbent beds operating in zones I to IV” may be any portion. Herein, there must necessarily be a value within the prior art. . “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that when a number x, wherein x is greater than zero, of adsorbers is bypassed, the position of the feed and withdrawal points is modified so that the predetermined proportion of the average number of adsorbent beds operating in zones I to IV is maintained within ±20% to ±5% in the system of US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 to ±20% because it would assist with achieving sufficient treatment of the fluid through the system.
Regarding claim 19, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the number n of adsorbent beds per adsorber (1, 2) is 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
In US 952, there must be at least one adsorbent bed per adsorber (1, 2) (see US 952 figures 1 and 5).
US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 does not disclose the number n of adsorbent beds per adsorber (1, 2) is between 1 and 2.
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 2in US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 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 2in US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137. 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 in view of US 232 and US 137. 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 2 in US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 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.
Regarding claim 20, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 does not disclose the total number t of adsorbent beds is between 12 and 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 modify the total number t of adsorbent beds to be between 12 and 15 in US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 because it 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 the total number t of adsorbent beds to be between 12 and 15 in US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137. 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 total number t of adsorbent beds to be between 12 and 15 in US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137. 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 total number of adsorbent beds 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 total number t of adsorbent beds to be between 12 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 21, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses the adsorbent beds have a height H to diameter D ratio H/D 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).).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 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 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 discloses all the limitations of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above) except 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 and US 137 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 and US 137 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 and US 137 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, US 137 and Toumi discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 13. Further, US 952 in view of US 232, US 137 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, US 137 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, US 137 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).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 952 in view of US 232, and US 137 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 and US 137 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 952 in view of US 232 and US 137 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 and US 137 discloses shifting the at least one feed and withdrawal points in the adsorbers (1, 2) 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 and US 137 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 and US 137 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 and US 137 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 and US 137 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 232, US 137 and US 292 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 13. Further, US 952 in view of US 232, US 137 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 US 232, US 137 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 US 232, US 137 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments and remarks with respect to the obviousness rejection(s) have been considered but are moot because Applicant's amendments and remarks do not apply to the combination of references used in the current rejection.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated 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 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
Prosecution Insights