DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II, claims 13–18 in the reply filed on October 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 17/361,395 and 17/264,445, and provisional Application No. 63/067,539 (collectively the “prior applications”), fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, each of the prior applications fails to provide support for the feature of a volume and/or average particle size of the first hopcalite material in the first hopcalite catalyst layer is different than a volume and/or average particle size of the second hopcalite material in the second hopcalite catalyst layer, as required by independent claim 13 of the instant application. Accordingly, claims 13–18 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
As such, the effective filing date of claims 13–18 is May 22, 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites:
18. The pre-purification unit of claim 13, wherein the adsorbent layer comprises a molecular sieve layer or a layer of alumina or both a molecular sieve layer and a layer of alumina. Emphasis added.
Claim 18 is indefinite because “the adsorbent layer” lacks antecedent basis. The limitation also renders claim 18 indefinite because it is unclear if “the adsorbent layer” refers to the “one or more initial adsorbent layers,” the “intermediate adsorbent layer” or the “final adsorbent layer” of claim 13. Further clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 13–15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mancini et al., US 2022/0054976 A1, optionally in view of Rege, US 2008/0148938 A1 and in further view of Iida et al., US 2007/0098614 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Mancini teaches a pre-purification unit configured for use as an air-separation unit, which reads on the claimed “pre-purification unit.” See Mancini [0019].
The pre-purification unit comprises a vessel (the “pre-purification vessel”) having an inlet (the “inlet”) configured to receive a stream of feed air and an outlet (the “outlet”) configured to release a purified stream, as claimed. See Mancini [0039].
The pre-purification unit also comprises at least one layer of adsorbent (the “one or more initial adsorbent layers”) configured to receive the feed stream and produce a dry feed stream, as claimed. See Mancini [0019].
The pre-purification unit further comprises a first layer of manganese and copper oxide containing catalyst (the “first hopcalite catalyst layer”), disposed downstream of the at least one layer of adsorbent, configured to remove carbon monoxide from the dry feed stream and produce a first intermediate effluent stream, as claimed. See Mancini [0019]. The first intermediate effluent stream is substantially free of carbon monoxide because the first layer of manganese and copper oxide containing catalyst is the only layer that is described as removing carbon monoxide, while the stream that exits the pre-purification unit is substantially free of carbon monoxide. Id. This means that the first intermediate effluent stream has a carbon monoxide concentration that is less than or equal to 10% of the carbon monoxide concentration in the stream of feed air, as claimed, because substantially free of carbon monoxide means less than 10% of the carbon monoxide content in the feed air. Id. at [0038]. The first layer of manganese and copper oxide containing catalyst includes a first hopcalite material that comprises a mixture of copper oxide and manganese oxide, as claimed. Id. at [0019], [0041].
The pre-purification unit comprises a first intermediate layer (the “intermediate adsorbent layer”) disposed downstream of the first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst, as claimed. See Mancini [0019]. The first intermediate layer is configured to remove at least carbon dioxide from the first intermediate effluent stream and produce a second intermediate effluent stream, as claimed. Id. The second intermediate effluent stream has a carbon dioxide concentration less than or equal to 10 ppm, as claimed, because it is substantially free of carbon dioxide (as the dry feed stream, upstream of the second intermediate effluent stream, is substantially free of carbon dioxide), while the substantially free of carbon dioxide means a concentration of 10 ppm or less. Id. at [0019], [0038].
The pre-purification unit further comprises a second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst (the “second hopcalite catalyst layer”). See Mancini [0019]. The second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst is configured to remove hydrogen from the second intermediate effluent and yield a third intermediate effluent stream (the “intermediate purified stream”). The third intermediate effluent stream has a hydrogen concentration that is less than or equal to 500 ppb or less than 20% of the hydrogen concentration of the stream of feed air, whichever is lower, as claimed. This is because the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing is the last layer that is described as removing hydrogen, and the purified stream exiting the unit is substantially free of hydrogen, with substantially free of hydrogen meaning that it has less than about 500 ppb hydrogen or less than 20% of the hydrogen content in the feed gas, whichever is lower. Id. at [0019], [0038]. The second intermediate effluent also has a carbon monoxide concentration that is less than or equal to 50 ppb or less than 10% of the carbon monoxide concentration in the stream of feed air, whichever is lower, as claimed. This is because the layer that removes carbon monoxide is upstream of the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst and the purified stream exiting the unit is substantially free of carbon monoxide, with substantially free meaning that the carbon monoxide content is less than 50 ppb carbon monoxide or less than 10% of the carbon monoxide content in the feed air, whichever is lower. Id. at [0019], [0038]. The second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst includes a second hopcalite material that comprises a mixture of copper oxide and manganese oxide. Id. at [0019], [0041].
The pre-purification unit also comprises one or more further layers of adsorbent (the “final adsorbent layer”) disposed downstream of the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst. See Mancini [0019]. The one or more further layers of adsorbent is configured to remove at least carbon dioxide from the second intermediate effluent and produce a purified stream, as claimed. Id. The purified stream has less than or equal to 10 ppm of water and less than or equal to 10 ppm of carbon dioxide, as claimed. This is because the purified stream is substantially free of water and carbon dioxide, while substantially free of carbon dioxide and substantially free of water means a concentration of 10 ppm or less. Id. at [0019], [0038].
PNG
media_image1.png
865
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mancini differs from claim 13 because it is silent as to a volume and/or an average particle size of the “first hopcalite material” of the first layer of manganese and copper oxide containing catalyst (the “first hopcalite catalyst layer”) being different than a volume and/or average particle size of the “second hopcalite material” in the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst (the “second hopcalite catalyst layer”), as claimed.
But, with respect to the different “volume” limitation, Mancini teaches that the adsorbent layers of the pre-purifier unit can be dense loaded with uniform packing of adsorbents. See Mancini [0054]. Also, one of the hopcalite layers (Layer 4) can have a different length than another hopcalite layer (Layer 6). Id. at [0055], Table 1. Furthermore, the figures illustrate the first and second hopcalite layers (e.g., Fig. 1, 41 & 45) having roughly the same diameter. Therefore, it would have been obvious for each of the first and second layers of manganese and copper oxide containing catalyst to be dense loaded with uniform packing of adsorbents, with the first layer having a greater length than the second layer, and with the first and second layers having the same diameter because the reference teaches that these conditions are possible for constructing the first and second layers of manganese and copper oxide containing catalyst. With these modifications, the “first hopcalite material” of the first layer of manganese and copper oxide containing catalyst would have a larger volume compared to the “second hopcalite material” in the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst, as claimed.
Also, with respect to the different “average particle size” limitation, Mancini is silent as to whether the adsorbent layers comprise particulate adsorbents. But Mancini teaches that the at least one adsorbent layer, the first intermediate layer, and the one or more further layers (see Mancini [0019]) can be made of adsorbents such as alumina or zeolite (id. at [0040]–[0042]). Also, the first and second layers of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst (id. at [0019]) are made of hopcalite catalyst materials (id. at [0041]). Rege teaches that alumina and zeolite adsorbents are commonly in particulate form (see Rege [0045]) and Iida teaches that hopcalite catalysts are conventionally in particulate form (see Iida [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the alumina or zeolite material of the at least one adsorbent layer, the first intermediate layer, and the one or more further layers to be made of particulates and for the “first hopcalite material” and the “second hopcalite material” of Mancini to also be made of particulates because this is a conventional structure for alumina or zeolite adsorbents and for hopcalite catalyst materials. Further, Rege teaches that for a tower comprising multiple layers of adsorbents, it is desirable to select different particle sizes for the layers to enhance mass transfer or alter the pressure drop characteristics of the bed. See Rege [0045]. For example, the gradient can be increasing or decreasing along the height of the adsorbent layer. Id. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the particle size of the particles in the at least one layer of adsorbent, the first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst, the first intermediate layer, the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst and the one or more further layers to increase or decrease along the height of the pre-purification unit to enhance mass transfer or alter the pressure drop characteristics across the pre-purification unit.
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious for the volume of the “second hopcalite material” to be different than the volume of the “first hopcalite material,” as explained in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 15, Mancini teaches the limitations of claim 14, as explained above.
Mancini differs from claim 15 because it is silent as to the volume of the “second hopcalite material” in the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst (the “second hopcalite catalyst layer”) being more than the volume of the “first hopcalite material” in the first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst. But the first layer of manganese oxide and copper containing catalyst is provided to remove at least some of the carbon monoxide and hydrogen from the dry feed stream while the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst is provided to remove hydrogen from the second intermediate effluent stream so that the purified stream exiting the pre-purification unit is substantially free of hydrogen. See Mancini [0019]. It would have been obvious for the volume of the “second hopcalite material” in the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst to be more than the “first hopcalite material” in the first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst in the situation where the gas stream being treated by the pre-purification unit comprises a relatively large amount of hydrogen and a relatively small amount of carbon monoxide, with there being a need for the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst to have a relatively large volume for hydrogen removal to ensure that the purified stream is substantially free of hydrogen.
Regarding claim 18, Mancini teaches that the at least one layer of adsorbent comprises a molecular sieve or one or more layers of activated alumina. See Mancini [0019], [0035].
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mancini et al., US 2022/0054976 A1 in view of Rege, US 2008/0148938 A1 and in further view of Iida et al., US 2007/0098614 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Mancini as modified by Rege and Iida teaches that the particle size of the particles in the at least one layer of adsorbent, the first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst, the first intermediate layer, the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst and the one or more further layers can increase along the axial length of the pre-purification unit. See Rege [0045]. Because the first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst (the “first hopcalite catalyst layer”) is upstream of the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst (the “second hopcalite catalyst layer”), this means that the average particle size of the “first hopcalite material” in the first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst is smaller than the average particle size of the “second hopcalite material” in the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst, as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Mancini as modified by Rege and Iida teaches that the particle size of the particles in the at least one layer of adsorbent, the first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst, the first intermediate layer, the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst and the one or more further layers can increase along the axial length of the pre-purification unit. See Rege [0045]. Because the first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst (the “first hopcalite catalyst layer”) is upstream of the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst (the “second hopcalite catalyst layer”), this means that the average particle size of the “first hopcalite material” in the first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst is smaller than the average particle size of the “second hopcalite material” in the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst, as claimed.
Mancini differs from claim 17 because it is silent as to the volume of the “second hopcalite material” in the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst (the “second hopcalite catalyst layer”) being more than the volume of the “first hopcalite material” in the first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst. But the first layer of manganese oxide and copper containing catalyst is provided to remove at least some of the carbon monoxide and hydrogen from the dry feed stream while the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst is provided to remove hydrogen from the second intermediate effluent stream so that the purified stream exiting the pre-purification unit is substantially free of hydrogen. See Mancini [0019]. It would have been obvious for the volume of the “second hopcalite material” in the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst to be more than the “first hopcalite material” in the first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst in the situation where the gas stream being treated by the pre-purification unit comprises a relatively large amount of hydrogen and a relatively small amount of carbon monoxide, with there being a need for the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst to have a relatively large volume for hydrogen removal to ensure that the purified stream is substantially free of hydrogen.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
U.S. Patent No. 11,826,703 B2
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,826,703 B2 in view of Mancini et al., US 2022/0054976 A1, optionally in view of Rege, US 2008/0148938 A1 and Iida et al., US 2007/0098614 A1.
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 17 of the ’703 patent teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 131, except that it is silent as to the pre-purification unit comprising one or more initial adsorbent layers configured to receive the stream of feed air and produce a dry feed air stream, and is silent as to the volume and/or average particle size of the first hopcalite catalyst layer is different than a volume and/or average particle size of the second hopcalite material in the second hopcalite catalyst layer.
But Mancini teaches a similar pre-purification unit comprising at least one layer of adsorbent, upstream of a first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst, with the at least one layer of adsorbent being configured to remove water and carbon dioxide from the feed stream and yield a dry feed stream substantially free of water and carbon dioxide. See Mancini [0019]. It would have been obvious for the pre-purification unit of claim 17 of the ’703 patent to comprise at least one layer of adsorbent upstream of the first hopcalite catalyst layer to water and carbon dioxide from the feed stream from the fluid before it enters the first hopcalite catalyst layer.
With respect to the to the different “volume” limitation, Mancini teaches a pre-purification unit similar to claim 17, where the adsorbent layers of the pre-purifier unit can be dense loaded with uniform packing of adsorbents. See Mancini [0054]. Also, one of the hopcalite layers (Layer 4) can have a different length than another hopcalite layer (Layer 6). Id. at [0055], Table 1. Furthermore, the figures illustrate the first and second hopcalite layers (e.g., Fig. 1, 41 & 45) having roughly the same diameter. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the volume of the first hopcalite material of the first hopcalite catalyst layer of claim 17 of the ’703 patent to be larger than (different) the volume of the second hopcalite material of the second hopcalite catalyst layer because Mancini teaches a similar pre-purification unit where these conditions are possible.
Also, with respect to the different “average particle size” limitation, claim 17 of the ’703 patent is silent as to whether the adsorbent layers comprise particulate adsorbents. But claim 17, as modified by Mancini, teaches that the pre-purification unit comprises adsorbent layers, and that that the first and second hopcalite catalyst layer comprise hopcalite catalyst materials (id. at [0041]). Rege teaches that adsorbents are commonly in particulate form (see Rege [0045]) and Iida teaches that hopcalite catalysts are conventionally in particulate form (see Iida [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the adsorbents of the adsorbent layers to be made of particulates and for the hopcalite material of the first and second hopcalite catalyst layers to be made of particulates because this is a conventional structure for adsorbents and for hopcalite catalyst materials. Further, Rege teaches that for a tower comprising multiple layers of adsorbents, it is desirable to select different particle sizes for the layers to enhance mass transfer or alter the pressure drop characteristics of the bed. See Rege [0045]. For example, the gradient can be increasing or decreasing along the height of the adsorbent layer. Id. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the particle size of the particles in the layers to increase or decrease along the height of the pre-purification unit to enhance mass transfer or alter the pressure drop characteristics across the pre-purification unit.
Regarding instant claim 14, it would have been obvious for the volume of the second hopcalite material to be different than the volume of the first hopcalite material, as explained in the rejection of instant claim 13 above.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 17 of the ’703 patent as modified teaches the limitations of instant claim 14, as explained above.
Claim 17 of the ’703 patent differs from instant claim 15 because it is silent as to the volume of the second hopcalite material being more than the volume of the first hopcalite material. But the first layer of hopcalite catalyst is provided to remove at least some of the carbon monoxide and hydrogen from the dry feed stream while the second layer of hopcalite catalyst is provided to remove hydrogen from the second intermediate effluent stream so that the purified stream exiting the pre-purification unit is substantially free of hydrogen. It would have been obvious for the volume of the second hopcalite material to be more than the first hopcalite material in the situation where the gas stream being treated by the pre-purification unit comprises a relatively large amount of hydrogen and a relatively small amount of carbon monoxide, with there being a need for the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst to have a relatively large volume for hydrogen removal to ensure that the purified stream is substantially free of hydrogen.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,826,703 B2 in view of Mancini et al., US 2022/0054976 A1 in view of Rege, US 2008/0148938 A1 and in further view of Iida et al., US 2007/0098614 A1.
Regarding instant claim 16, claim 17 of the ’703 patent as modified by teaches that the particle size of the particles in the at least one layer of adsorbent, the first layer hopcalite catalyst layer, the adsorbent layer, the second hopcalite catalyst layer and the final adsorbent layer can increase along the axial length of the pre-purification unit. See Rege [0045]. Because the first hopcalite catalyst layer is upstream of the second hopcalite catalyst layer, this means that the average particle size of the first hopcalite material is smaller than the average particle size of the second hopcalite material.
Regarding instant claim 17, claim 17 of the ’703 patent as modified by teaches that the particle size of the particles in the at least one layer of adsorbent, the first layer hopcalite catalyst layer, the adsorbent layer, the second hopcalite catalyst layer and the final adsorbent layer can increase along the axial length of the pre-purification unit. See Rege [0045]. Because the first hopcalite catalyst layer is upstream of the second hopcalite catalyst layer, this means that the average particle size of the first hopcalite material is smaller than the average particle size of the second hopcalite material.
Claim 17 of the ’703 patent differs from instant claim 17 because it is silent as to the volume of the second hopcalite material being more than the volume of the first hopcalite material. But the first layer of hopcalite catalyst is provided to remove at least some of the carbon monoxide and hydrogen from the dry feed stream while the second layer of hopcalite catalyst is provided to remove hydrogen from the second intermediate effluent stream so that the purified stream exiting the pre-purification unit is substantially free of hydrogen. It would have been obvious for the volume of the second hopcalite material to be more than the first hopcalite material in the situation where the gas stream being treated by the pre-purification unit comprises a relatively large amount of hydrogen and a relatively small amount of carbon monoxide, with there being a need for the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst to have a relatively large volume for hydrogen removal to ensure that the purified stream is substantially free of hydrogen.
U.S. Patent No. 11,666,861 B2
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,666,861 B2 in view of Mancini et al., US 2022/0054976 A1, optionally in view of Rege, US 2008/0148938 A1 and Iida et al., US 2007/0098614 A1.
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 4 of the ’861 patent teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 132, except that it is silent as to the volume and/or average particle size of the material of the first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst (the “first hopcalite material of the first hopcalite catalyst layer”) being different than a volume and/or average particle size of the material of the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst (the “second hopcalite material in the second hopcalite catalyst layer”).
But Mancini teaches a similar pre-purification unit comprising at least one layer of adsorbent, upstream of a first layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst, with the at least one layer of adsorbent being configured to remove water and carbon dioxide from the feed stream and yield a dry feed stream substantially free of water and carbon dioxide. See Mancini [0019]. It would have been obvious for the pre-purification unit of claim 4 of the ’861 patent to comprise at least one layer of adsorbent upstream of the first hopcalite catalyst layer to water and carbon dioxide from the feed stream from the fluid before it enters the first hopcalite catalyst layer.
With respect to the to the different “volume” limitation, Mancini teaches a pre-purification unit similar to claim 4, where the adsorbent layers of the pre-purifier unit can be dense loaded with uniform packing of adsorbents. See Mancini [0054]. Also, one of the hopcalite layers (Layer 4) can have a different length than another hopcalite layer (Layer 6). Id. at [0055], Table 1. Furthermore, the figures illustrate the first and second hopcalite layers (e.g., Fig. 1, 41 & 45) having roughly the same diameter. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the volume of the first hopcalite material of the first hopcalite catalyst layer of claim 4 of the ’861 patent to be larger than (different) the volume of the second hopcalite material of the second hopcalite catalyst layer because Mancini teaches a similar pre-purification unit where these conditions are possible.
Also, with respect to the different “average particle size” limitation, claim 4 of the ’861 patent is silent as to whether the adsorbent layers comprise particulate adsorbents. But claim 4, as modified by Mancini, teaches that the pre-purification unit comprises adsorbent layers, and that that the first and second hopcalite catalyst layer comprise hopcalite catalyst materials (id. at [0041]). Rege teaches that adsorbents are commonly in particulate form (see Rege [0045]) and Iida teaches that hopcalite catalysts are conventionally in particulate form (see Iida [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the adsorbents of the adsorbent layers to be made of particulates and for the hopcalite material of the first and second hopcalite catalyst layers to be made of particulates because this is a conventional structure for adsorbents and for hopcalite catalyst materials. Further, Rege teaches that for a tower comprising multiple layers of adsorbents, it is desirable to select different particle sizes for the layers to enhance mass transfer or alter the pressure drop characteristics of the bed. See Rege [0045]. For example, the gradient can be increasing or decreasing along the height of the adsorbent layer. Id. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the particle size of the particles in the layers to increase or decrease along the height of the pre-purification unit to enhance mass transfer or alter the pressure drop characteristics across the pre-purification unit.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 4 of the ’861 patent as modified teaches the limitations of instant claim 14, as explained above.
Claim 4 of the ’861 patent differs from instant claim 15 because it is silent as to the volume of the second hopcalite material being more than the volume of the first hopcalite material. But the first layer of hopcalite catalyst is provided to remove at least some of the carbon monoxide and hydrogen from the dry feed stream while the second layer of hopcalite catalyst is provided to remove hydrogen from the second intermediate effluent stream so that the purified stream exiting the pre-purification unit is substantially free of hydrogen. It would have been obvious for the volume of the second hopcalite material to be more than the first hopcalite material in the situation where the gas stream being treated by the pre-purification unit comprises a relatively large amount of hydrogen and a relatively small amount of carbon monoxide, with there being a need for the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst to have a relatively large volume for hydrogen removal to ensure that the purified stream is substantially free of hydrogen.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,666,861 B2 in view of Mancini et al., US 2022/0054976 A1, optionally in view of Rege, US 2008/0148938 A1 and Iida et al., US 2007/0098614 A1.
Regarding instant claim 16, claim 4 of the ’861 patent as modified by teaches that the particle size of the particles in the at least one layer of adsorbent, the first layer hopcalite catalyst layer, the adsorbent layer, the second hopcalite catalyst layer and the final adsorbent layer can increase along the axial length of the pre-purification unit. See Rege [0045]. Because the first hopcalite catalyst layer is upstream of the second hopcalite catalyst layer, this means that the average particle size of the first hopcalite material is smaller than the average particle size of the second hopcalite material.
Regarding instant claim 17, claim 4 of the ’861 patent as modified by teaches that the particle size of the particles in the at least one layer of adsorbent, the first layer hopcalite catalyst layer, the adsorbent layer, the second hopcalite catalyst layer and the final adsorbent layer can increase along the axial length of the pre-purification unit. See Rege [0045]. Because the first hopcalite catalyst layer is upstream of the second hopcalite catalyst layer, this means that the average particle size of the first hopcalite material is smaller than the average particle size of the second hopcalite material.
Claim 4 of the ’861 patent differs from instant claim 17 because it is silent as to the volume of the second hopcalite material being more than the volume of the first hopcalite material. But the first layer of hopcalite catalyst is provided to remove at least some of the carbon monoxide and hydrogen from the dry feed stream while the second layer of hopcalite catalyst is provided to remove hydrogen from the second intermediate effluent stream so that the purified stream exiting the pre-purification unit is substantially free of hydrogen. It would have been obvious for the volume of the second hopcalite material to be more than the first hopcalite material in the situation where the gas stream being treated by the pre-purification unit comprises a relatively large amount of hydrogen and a relatively small amount of carbon monoxide, with there being a need for the second layer of manganese oxide and copper oxide containing catalyst to have a relatively large volume for hydrogen removal to ensure that the purified stream is substantially free of hydrogen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Note that the first intermediate effluent stream of claim 17 of the ’703 patent has a carbon monoxide concentration less than or equal to 10 % of the carbon monoxide concentration in the stream of feed air because the first intermediate effluent stream is substantially free of carbon monoxide, which means that it has a concentration of less than or equal to 10 % of the carbon monoxide concentration in the stream of feed air. See ’703 patent, col. 7, ll. 11–17. Also, the second intermediate effluent has a carbon dioxide concentration that is less than or equal to 10 ppm because it is substantially free of carbon dioxide, meaning it has a carbon dioxide concentration that is less than or equal to 10 ppm. Id. at col. 7, ll. 17–20. Further, the intermediate purified stream has a hydrogen concentration that is less than or equal to 500 ppb or less than 20% of the hydrogen concentration in the stream of feed air, whichever is lower, and a carbon monoxide concentration that is less than or equal to 50 ppb or less than 10% of the carbon monoxide concentration in the stream of feed air, whichever is lower. This is because the intermediate purified stream is substantially free of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, meaning it satisfies these conditions. Id. at col. 7, ll. 4–17. Also, the purified stream has less than or equal to 10 ppm of water and less than or equal to 10 ppm of carbon dioxide because it is substantially free of water and carbon dioxide, meaning it satisfies these conditions. Id. at col. 7, ll. 17–20.
2 Note that the first intermediate effluent stream of claim 4 of the ’861 patent has a carbon monoxide concentration less than or equal to 10% of the carbon monoxide concentration in the stream of feed air because the first intermediate effluent stream is substantially free of carbon monoxide, which means that it has a concentration of less than or equal to 10 % of the carbon monoxide concentration in the stream of feed air. See ’861 patent, col. 7, ll. 3–18. Also, the second intermediate effluent has a carbon dioxide concentration that is less than or equal to 10 ppm because it is substantially free of carbon dioxide, meaning it has a carbon dioxide concentration that is less than or equal to 10 ppm. Id. Further, the intermediate purified stream has a hydrogen concentration that is less than or equal to 500 ppb or less than 20% of the hydrogen concentration in the stream of feed air, whichever is lower, and a carbon monoxide concentration that is less than or equal to 50 ppb or less than 10% of the carbon monoxide concentration in the stream of feed air, whichever is lower. This is because the intermediate purified stream is substantially free of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, meaning it satisfies these conditions. Id. Also, the purified stream has less than or equal to 10 ppm of water and less than or equal to 10 ppm of carbon dioxide because it is substantially free of water and carbon dioxide, meaning it satisfies these conditions. Id.