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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claims 1, 4, 7, 8 and 10; cancelation of claims 9 and 20; and addition of new claims 21 and 22 are noted.
The claim amendments overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is patentable over Tonkovich because the claim requires open vapor channels bounded by the channel walls. Applicant is of the position that Tonkovich does not teach this feature because “the only vapor channel…which is bounded by a channel wall and comprising bonded particles is process channel 310 which is straight and is therefore excluded from the claim.”
The office respectfully disagrees. Tonkovich discloses vapor channels between walls and wherein the vapor channels are not straight (see, e.g., Fig. 6, wall 319, vapor channels 384, 386; [0045]; [0061]).
Applicant argues that the vapor channels in Tonkovich are not open but instead are heavily blocked by baffles.
This argument is not found persuasive. Applicant appears to be applying an overly narrow interpretation of the claim, in particular with respect to open vapor channels. The flow arrows of vapor within the channels of Tonkovich (see Fig. 6 & 7) are considered to depict flow of vapor in such a manner as to allow open (i.e., unblocked) flow therethrough, from an inlet to an outlet. The office is of the position that the arraignment depicted in Tonkovich teaches the configuration required by the instant claim.
Applicant argues that Tonkovich does not suggest flow channels that are undulating or helical.
The office respectfully disagrees. The office is of the position that the flow channels depicted in Figs. 6 & 7 are adjacent and are undulating or helical, as claimed.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: “vapor channels a curved” is a typo of –vapor channels are curved—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 specifies that the open vapor channels have a continuously positive vector in the length direction. The office was unable to locate support for this limitation in the as-filed specification.
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, 4-7, 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonkovich et al (US 2006/0016215).
Regarding claim 1, Tonkovich discloses a distillation apparatus comprising a column having mutually perpendicular dimensions of length, width, and thickness (see Fig. 18; [0007]; [0023]; [0105]), the column comprising:
a plurality of adjacent flow channels comprising channel walls comprising a first material comprising bonded particles (see Figs. 6 & 7; [0012]; [0018]-[0019]; [0045]; [0061]; [0090]);
wherein the first material forms continuous wicking channels along the length of the column (see Figs. 6 & 7; [0012]; [0018]);
wherein the wicking channels have a contiguous porosity along the length of the column formed from interstices between the bonded particles (see [0084]; [0090], describing the wicking material being formed from metals formed by bonding, wicking in the interstices formed is considered an inherent feature based on the description of wicking therein);
a plurality of open vapor channels bounded by the channel walls (see Figs. 6 & 7; [0013]; [0018]; [0061]-[0062]);
wherein the column has a length of at least 5 cm (see [0020]); and
an impermeable outer jacket surrounding the flow channels, including the first material and the open vapor channels, in the length direction (see Figs. 7, 8 & 18; [0105]).
Tonkovich discloses embodiments wherein the vapor channels are not straight (see Figs. 6 & 7; [0061]). Based on the disclosed suitable dimensions (see [0075]), the open diameter is in line with that claimed and the length of a straight line which could be drawn along the length of the column in the vapor channels would be, at the very least, overlapping with that claimed. Furthermore, such dimensions claimed are a matter of scale of the overall microchannel distillation unit. A person of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the disclosure of Tonkovich, would determine the suitable size/scale of the distillation device which is appropriate for the intended separation processes performed therein. MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Tonkovich discloses wherein the flow channels are adjacent and are undulating or helical (see Figs. 6 & 7; [0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Tonkovich discloses wherein the channel walls have a gradient of porosity “to help drain liquid in a desired direction” (see [0084]). While Tonkovich does not explicitly disclose the claimed porosity gradient parameters, based on the suggestions therein, a person of ordinary skill in the art would optimize, by routine experimentation, the porosity gradient of the wicking material in Tonkovich in order to assist in draining the liquid in the desired direction. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, the claimed porosity gradient is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claimed invention over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Tonkovich discloses nickel-based metal particles (see [0088]).
Regarding claim 9, the intended manner of operating the claimed apparatus is not patentably distinguishing. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 10, Tonkovich discloses wherein the column comprises a first end and a second end at opposite sides along the length of the column, wherein the first end comprises a liquid inlet and a vapor outlet and the second end comprises a liquid outlet and a vapor inlet (see Figs. 6 & 7).
Regarding claim 11, Tonkovich discloses the liquid inlet being disposed between the column and a condenser (see Fig. 1; [0051]).
Regarding claim 12, Tonkovich further discloses a recuperator (heat exchanger) connected to an inlet and an outlet (see Fig. 18; [0074], heat exchange fluid inlet and outlet). The material worked upon does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus. MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 15, Tonkovich discloses wherein the flow channels comprise a first portion having a length that is perpendicular to the force of gravity and a second portion having a length that is parallel to the force of gravity (see Figs. 6 & 7, flow arrows).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonkovich, as applied to the claims above, in view of Mardani et al (“Development of a unique modular distillation column using 3D printing”).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Tonkovich discloses the channel walls and distillation column being formed from metal particles (see [0088]; [0090]; [0105]). Additionally, Tonkovich discloses the channel walls and outer jacket being made by conventional machining, laser cutting, molding, stamping, etching, etc. (see [0090]; [0105]), but does not explicitly disclose additive manufacturing.
Mardani discloses that 3D printing (additive manufacturing) has recently been used in many fields of technology and offers a specific application to a distillation column. Mardani discloses that the technique is faster and increases the design flexibility in comparison with conventional machining (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tonkovich by forming it with an additive manufacturing process, as suggested by Mardani, in order to use a technique that is faster and provides greater design flexibility over conventional machining.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonkovich, as applied to the claims above, in view of Kudaravalli et al (US 2013/0068220).
Regarding claim 13, Tonkovich does not disclose a vacuum can, in which the column, liquid inlet, vapor outlet, liquid outlet, and vapor inlet are disposed within.
Kudaravalli discloses a distillation unit that separates air into multiple products (see Abstract). The distillation unit, including the column and inlets and outlets, is housed in a vacuum insulation unit (see Fig. 8; [0059]). The purpose of the vacuum insulation unit is based on the cryogenic nature of the process, which operates at very low temperatures (see [0059]).
The office notes that cryogenic separation of air is one of the uses of Tonkovich’s distillation apparatus (see [0106]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tonkovich by housing the distillation column and its respective conduits within a vacuum insulation unit, as suggested by Kudaravalli, in order to provide sufficient insulation for carrying out the cryogenic process.
Regarding claim 14, the intended manner of operating the claimed apparatus is not structurally distinguishing. MPEP 2114.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the additional features required by claims 8 and 21 are considered to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
With respect to claim 8, Tonkovich does not disclose the claimed configuration wherein the channel walls are hexagonal and the column has a porous honeycomb internal structure. As set forth in the previous office action, Tonkovich discloses that the channel walls may be any configuration/shape (see [0082]) and the office took the position that the claimed shape is considered to be an obvious design choice. However, Applicant has established that the particular shape claimed is associated with advantageous results (see p. 8 of reply; Table 1 of specification).
With respect to claim 21, the office notes that Tonkovich’s distillation column contains capture structures within (i.e., intervening materials between the inlet and outlet) (see [0011]; [0019]; [0047]), which is contrary to the claimed embodiment. There does not appear to be sufficient teachings and/or suggestions in the prior art which would lead a person of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed embodiment wherein the open vapor channels are 90 to 100% open and have an open flow path from an inlet to an outlet of the column with no intervening filters or other materials.
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 RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772