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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1, 5, and 20. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new prior art rejections. See prior art rejections below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2/10/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2/10/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the claims are allowable over Hutchinson on account of the claimed “higher-relief portions [having] a lower total slot area than the lower-relief portions,” which allegedly yields unexpected advantages in the form of better contact between vapor and liquid and improved efficiency. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Examiner agrees that Hutchinson does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the higher-relief portions have a lower total slot area than the lower-relief portions. However, following further search and consideration, Examiner has found that said feature is obvious over Chave (US 2,767,966), previously cited by Applicant in the 3/13/2024 IDS.
To elaborate, Chave teaches a distillation column comprising a plurality of dual-flow trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 for vapor-liquid contacting (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65), the trays comprising: Higher relief portions (raised parts) 44 comprising first valves (perforations/openings/holes) 47 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65); Lower relief portions (depressions) 42 comprising second valves (perforations/openings/holes) 46 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65); and interconnecting portions that interconnect the higher relief portions and the lower relief portions (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Chave teaches that “The size and number of the holes 46 and 47 is determined by the relative rates of liquid and vapor flow desired for given circumstances and to enable the maintenance of the requisite height of liquid above the surface of the undepressed parts 44 of the tray,” (Column 3 Lines 55-60). By this teaching, Chave clearly indicates that the relative slot areas of the lower and higher relief portions are result effective variables which should be optimized to for particular relative liquid and vapor flow rates in the columns. Furthermore, from said teaching, a person having ordinary skill in the art would easily infer that a lower total slot area in the higher relief portions (relative to the lower relief portions) supports a column operating with a relatively low gas flow rate and a relatively high liquid flow rate.
Chave states that “it is among the objects of this invention to enable stability of operation to be achieved with a perforated bubble plate or tray even at low gas flow rates… and that unaerated liquid or liquid of low aeration will flow continuously rather than intermittently through the discharge holes and high liquid downflow capacity thus be effected.” (Column 1 Lines 57-71).
Accordingly, the claims are rejected under 103 over Chave as a primary reference, and alternately over Hutchinson in view of Chave. See 103 rejections below for further details.
As for the allegation that better contact between vapor and liquid and improved efficiency are achieved from the higher-relief portions having a lower total slot area than the lower-relief portions, Examiner is not persuaded that such advantages are necessarily achieved by providing lower relief portions with a total slot area that is merely greater than the upper relief portions.
Regardless, the disclosure of Chave indicates that there are advantages to the higher-relief portions having a lower slot area than the lower-relief portions. Namely, Chave’s disclosure indicates that by providing lower relief portions with a relatively greater total slot area, a column can be made to be operable with a relatively low gas flow rate and a relatively high liquid flow rate. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant has argued that Hutchinson teaches away from the higher-relief portions having a lower total slot area than the lower-relief portions by several teachings which suggest that the total slot areas of the higher and lower relief portions are the same. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
First, Examiner is not fully persuaded that the higher and lower relief portions of Hutchinson necessarily have equal total slot areas. A review of the Figures, e.g. Figures 2, 4, and 9-11, suggest that the higher and lower relief portions can have different total slot areas. Examiner believes that there is a case to be made that said Figures suggest an embodiment wherein the higher relief portions have a slightly lower total slot area than the lower relief portions.
Regardless, the fact that some teachings of Hutchinson suggest that the higher and lower relief portions will have the same total slot area does not amount to a teaching away from a difference in total slot area.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chave (US 2,767,966).
With regard to claim 1: Chave teaches a distillation column comprising a plurality of dual-flow trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 for vapor-liquid contacting (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65), the trays comprising:
Higher relief portions (raised parts) 44 comprising first valves (perforations/openings/holes) 47 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65),
Lower relief portions (depressions) 42 comprising second valves (perforations/openings/holes) 46 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
And interconnecting portions that interconnect the higher relief portions and the lower relief portions (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Chave does not explicitly describe an embodiment wherein the higher-relief portions have a lower total slot area than the lower-relief portions.
Chave teaches that “The size and number of the holes 46 and 47 is determined by the relative rates of liquid and vapor flow desired for given circumstances and to enable the maintenance of the requisite height of liquid above the surface of the undepressed parts 44 of the tray,” (Column 3 Lines 55-60). By this teaching, Chave clearly indicates that the relative slot areas of the lower and higher relief portions are result effective variables which should be optimized to for particular relative liquid and vapor flow rates in the columns. Furthermore, from said teaching, a person having ordinary skill in the art would easily infer that a lower total slot area in the higher relief portions (relative to the lower relief portions) supports a column operating with a relatively low gas flow rate and a relatively high liquid flow rate.
Chave states that “it is among the objects of this invention to enable stability of operation to be achieved with a perforated bubble plate or tray even at low gas flow rates… and that unaerated liquid or liquid of low aeration will flow continuously rather than intermittently through the discharge holes and high liquid downflow capacity thus be effected.” (Column 1 Lines 57-71). Thus, there is clear motivation to optimize the system of Chave to be suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art optimize Chave by configuring the higher-relief portions to have a lower total slot area than the lower-relief portions, in order to obtain distillation trays and a distillation column suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
With regard to claim 3: The higher-relief portions 44 and the lower relief portions 42 are planar (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
With regard to claim 4: Modified Chave does not explicitly teach that the higher-relief portions and the lower relief portions have different areas.
However, Chave teaches that “The relative area of depressed and companion "raised" portions of the tray may be adjusted by design to take care of the relative amounts of gas and liquid flowing through the apparatus,” (Column 3 Lines 22-26), thereby clearly indicating that the relative areas are result effective variables.
Chave states that “it is among the objects of this invention to enable stability of operation to be achieved with a perforated bubble plate or tray even at low gas flow rates… and that unaerated liquid or liquid of low aeration will flow continuously rather than intermittently through the discharge holes and high liquid downflow capacity thus be effected.” (Column 1 Lines 57-71). Thus, there is clear motivation to optimize the system of Chave to be suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave by optimizing the areas of the higher-relief portions and the lower relief portions such that said portions have different areas, in order to obtain distillation trays and a distillation column suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
With regard to claim 5: The higher-relief portions 44 are formed as parallel elongate strips and the lower-relief portions 42 are formed as parallel elongate strips (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
With regard to claim 6: The lower-relief portions 42 form elongate channels and the higher-relief portions 44 form elongate ridges between the elongate channels (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
With regard to claim 7: The elongate channels 42 and the elongate ridges 44 are lengthwise parallel and alternate (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
With regard to claim 8: The interconnecting portions each comprise one or more planar portions (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
With regard to claim 10: The first valves 47 are associated with a fluid flow path having at least a first direction, and the second valves 46 are associated with a fluid flow path having at least a second direction, wherein the first direction and the second direction are orthogonal to the surfaces in which the first and second valves are disposed (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
With regard to claim 12: The first and second valves are necessarily provided at first and second surface area densities respectively.
Modified Chave is silent to the first and second surface area densities being different.
However, Chave teaches that “The size and number of the holes 46 and 47 is determined by the relative rates of liquid and vapor flow desired for given circumstances and to enable the maintenance of the requisite height of liquid above the surface of the undepressed parts 44 of the tray,” (Column 3 Lines 55-60). Chave also teaches that “The relative area of depressed and companion "raised" portions of the tray may be adjusted by design to take care of the relative amounts of gas and liquid flowing through the apparatus,” (Column 3 Lines 22-26). Because Chave indicates that the number and size of the first and second valves are result effective variables, and that the area of the higher and lower relief portions are also result effective variables, a person having ordinary skill would recognize that the surface area density of the first and second valves, i.e. the number of valves per unit area, is also a result effective variable.
Chave states that “it is among the objects of this invention to enable stability of operation to be achieved with a perforated bubble plate or tray even at low gas flow rates… and that unaerated liquid or liquid of low aeration will flow continuously rather than intermittently through the discharge holes and high liquid downflow capacity thus be effected.” (Column 1 Lines 57-71). Thus, there is clear motivation to optimize the system of Chave to be suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave by optimizing the surface area densities of the first and second valves, such that said surface area densities are different, in order to obtain distillation trays and a distillation column suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
With regard to claim 13: Each higher-relief portion 44 provides the first valves 47 in two parallel rows extending in a first direction, and each of the lower-relief portions 42 provides two parallel rows of the second valves extending in the first direction (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Modified Chave does not explicitly teach that the first valves are oriented in a first direction and that the second valves are oriented in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction.
However, the drawings of Chave, e.g. Figure 2, at least suggest that the first and second valves 47 and 46 should be formed with a circular cross section, and thus, that each of said valves should be radially symmetrical, such that said valves would appear structurally identical regardless of which way they are rotated. Given the circular valve shape suggested by Chave, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize (or at least reasonably expect) that the relative orientations of particular valves are of no consequence with respect to the form and function of the distillation tray in Chave.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave by forming the first and second valves with a circular cross section, such that that each of said valves is radially symmetrical such that said valves would appear structurally identical regardless of which way they are rotated, in order to obtain a predictably functional distillation tray that is congruent with the suggestions of Chave. In making said modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave by orienting the first valves in the first direction and orienting the second valves in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, in order to obtain a predictably function distillation tray.
Alternatively, if it were argued that a valve oriented in the second direction must be visually distinguishable from a valve in the oriented in the first direction, then the orientation of said valves is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely a matter concerning the shapes of the first and second valves. To elaborate, if arguendo a valve oriented in the second direction must be visually distinguishable from a valve in the oriented in the first direction, then the claimed orientations of the first and second valves could be achieved merely by changing the shapes of the first and second valves, e.g. by merely making the first and second valves slightly ovoidal in shape, wherein the first and second valves are identical in shape, except that the second valves are rotated 90 degrees relative to the first valves. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not expect such a change to substantially alter the function of Chave’s distillation tray. Mere changes in shape are considered to be matters of obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave by changing the shapes of the first and second valves, so as to make the first and second valves slightly ovoidal in shape, wherein the first and second valves are identical in shape, except that the second valves are rotated 90 degrees relative to the first valves, thereby obtaining a distillation tray wherein the first valves are oriented in the first direction and the second valves are oriented in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, in order to obtain a predictably functional distillation tray.
With regard to claim 20: Chave teaches a method comprising:
Performing fractional distillation using the dual flow trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Chave does not explicitly teach further processing at least one fraction from the fractional distillation to make, as a direct product of the method, a commercial product.
However, it is notoriously well-known and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to market and/or sell a fractional distillation product as a commercial product. For example, it is notoriously well-known in the art to sell various fractions of petroleum distillation as commercial products, e.g. as gasoline, diesel, etc.
Regarding the requirement that the at least one fraction from the fractional distillation be subjected to “further processing” to be made into a commercial product, said requirement is not particularly limiting. Processes as simple as transporting (via pipeline or otherwise) and packaging (e.g. filling into a bottle, barrel, or other container) constitute further processing “further processing”. It is virtually impossible to market or sell a fractional distillation product as a commercial product without subjecting said product to some type of packaging and/or transportation. Accordingly, if any product of the fractional distillation is to be made into a commercial product, it is necessary, or at least obvious, for said product to be subjected to some degree of “further processing” to be formed into a commercial product.
Regarding the requirement that that the at least one fraction from the fractional distillation be made into a commercial product “as a direct product of the method”, the scope of the claimed method is completely open ended as to what steps are involved in forming the at least one fraction from the fractional distillation into a commercial product. Therefore, any steps which are necessary to form a fraction from the fractional distillation into a commercial product can be fairly considered to be part of the method. Thus, any commercial product formed from the at least one fraction can be fairly considered to have been formed “as a direct product of the method”, regardless of what is involved in formation of said commercial product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave by further processing at least one fraction from the fractional distillation to make, as a direct product of the method, a commercial product, in order to obtain a product which can be marked and sold for financial gain.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chave as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hutchinson (US 2,767,967).
With regard to claim 9: Modified Chave does not explicitly teach that the higher-relief portions, the lower-relief portions, and the interconnecting portions form a trapezoidal wave.
However, trapezoidal wave-form dual flow trays are known in the art. For example, Hutchinson teaches a distillation column having dual flow sieve trays similar to the column and trays of Chave (Figures 1-4, columns 3-6), wherein said dual flow trays may comprise higher-relief portions 69, lower-relief portions 70, and interconnecting portions 71 which form flat portions of a trapezoidal wave, wherein the trapezoidal wave is an isosceles trapezoidal wave (Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above). Hutchinson’s teaching would, to one of ordinary skill, at least suggest that a trapezoidal wave-form dual flow tray is a workable alternative to the rectangular wave-form dual flow sieve trays of Chave.
Furthermore, Mere changes in shape are considered to be matters of obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave in view of Hutchinson by reshaping the trays of Chave such that the higher-relief portions, the lower-relief portions, and the interconnecting portions form flat portions of an isosceles trapezoidal wave, in order to obtain a predictably functional dual-flow sieve tray.
With regard to claims 2, 9, 15 and 16: In modified Chave, the first valves 47 and the second valves 46 are static valves (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Modified Chave is silent to the dual flow tray comprising open apertures in the interconnecting portions, wherein each of the interconnecting portions comprises at least two rows of the open apertures. Modified Chave does not explicitly teach that the higher-relief portions, the lower-relief portions, and the interconnecting portions form a trapezoidal wave.
Hutchinson teaches a distillation column having dual flow sieve trays similar to the column and trays of Chave (Figures 1-4, columns 3-6), wherein said dual flow trays may comprise higher-relief portions 69, lower-relief portions 70, and interconnecting portions 71 which form flat portions of a trapezoidal wave, wherein the trapezoidal wave is an isosceles trapezoidal wave, and wherein the interconnecting portions comprise a plurality of open apertures (Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above). Hutchinson’s teachings at least suggest (e.g. when one considers the embodiment of Figure 7 in the context of the teachings to the distillation column illustrated in Figures 1 and 2) that the that the interconnecting portions all comprise at least two rows of the open apertures.
Hutchinson’s teaching would, to one of ordinary skill, at least suggest that a trapezoidal wave-form dual flow tray is a workable alternative to the rectangular wave-form dual flow sieve trays of Chave.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave in view of Hutchinson by reconfiguring the trays such that the higher-relief portions, the lower-relief portions, and the interconnecting portions form flat portions of an isosceles trapezoidal wave, wherein each of the interconnecting portions comprise a plurality of open apertures disposed in two rows, in order to obtain a predictably functional dual-flow sieve tray.
With regard to claims 17-19: Chave teaches a vapor-liquid column for vapor-liquid contacting comprising the plurality of dual-flow trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Wherein each of the dual-flow trays is connected to a single periphery rim, i.e. the cylindrical sidewall of the distillation column (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Chave does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein vertically adjacent trays of the dual flow trays are rotated 90 degrees to each other.
Hutchinson teaches a distillation column having dual flow sieve trays similar to the column and trays of Chave (Figures 1-4, columns 3-6). Hutchinson teaches an embodiment wherein vertically adjacent trays of the dual flow trays are rotated 90 degrees to each other (Figures 1 and 2, columns 3-6). Hutchinson also teaches an embodiment wherein vertically adjacent trays of the dual flow trays are arranged as they are in Chave (Figures 3 and 4, columns 3-6; compare Hutchinson Figure 3 to Chave Figure 1). Hutchinson thereby at least suggests that an arrangement wherein vertically adjacent trays of the dual flow trays are rotated 90 degrees to each other is a suitable alternative to the arrangement taught by Chave. Furthermore, Hutchinson teaches that an arrangement wherein vertically adjacent trays are rotated 90 degrees to each other yields “best distribution onto each tray” (Column 4 Lines 34-51, especially Lines 41-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave in view of Hutchinson by configuring the dual flow trays of Chave such that vertically adjacent trays of the dual flow trays are rotated 90 degrees to each other, in order to achieve a predictably functional column which attains best distribution onto each tray.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chave in view of Tower-Packing.org (web article titled “Fixed Valves Tray Has Efficient Vapor-Liquid Mass Transfer”; URL: https://www.tower-packing.org/products/towertray/fixed-valves-tray.html; date obtained from WayBack Machine).
With regard to claims 1, 11, and 14: Chave teaches a distillation column comprising a plurality of dual-flow trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 for vapor-liquid contacting (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65), the trays comprising:
Higher relief portions (raised parts) 44 comprising first valves (perforations/openings/holes) 47 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65),
Lower relief portions (depressions) 42 comprising second valves (perforations/openings/holes) 46 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
And interconnecting portions that interconnect the higher relief portions and the lower relief portions (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Chave does not explicitly describe an embodiment wherein the higher-relief portions have a lower total slot area than the lower-relief portions.
Chave teaches that “The size and number of the holes 46 and 47 is determined by the relative rates of liquid and vapor flow desired for given circumstances and to enable the maintenance of the requisite height of liquid above the surface of the undepressed parts 44 of the tray,” (Column 3 Lines 55-60). By this teaching, Chave clearly indicates that the relative slot areas of the lower and higher relief portions are result effective variables which should be optimized to for particular relative liquid and vapor flow rates in the columns. Furthermore, from said teaching, a person having ordinary skill in the art would easily infer that a lower total slot area in the higher relief portions (relative to the lower relief portions) supports a column operating with a relatively low gas flow rate and a relatively high liquid flow rate.
Chave states that “it is among the objects of this invention to enable stability of operation to be achieved with a perforated bubble plate or tray even at low gas flow rates… and that unaerated liquid or liquid of low aeration will flow continuously rather than intermittently through the discharge holes and high liquid downflow capacity thus be effected.” (Column 1 Lines 57-71). Thus, there is clear motivation to optimize the system of Chave to be suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art optimize Chave by configuring the higher-relief portions to have a lower total slot area than the lower-relief portions, in order to obtain distillation trays and a distillation column suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
Modified Chave is silent to each of the first valves comprising a first aperture and a fixed partial obstruction to the first aperture and each of the second valves comprising an aperture and a fixed partial obstruction to the aperture. Chave is also silent to each first valve being configured to create two opposing flow paths that combine and each second valve being configured to create two opposing flow paths that combine.
However, such valves for distillation trays are well known in the art. For example, Tower-Packing.org teaches fixed valves for distillation trays, wherein each valve comprises an aperture and fixed partial obstruction to the aperture, wherein each valve (the fixed partial obstruction thereof) is configured such that it will create two opposing flow paths that will combine on either side of the fixed partial obstruction (see Figures). These valves are known to confer numerous advantages, including high efficiency & capacity, low pressure drop, broader regulation range, anti-clogging, reduced entrainment, and reduced liquid back-mixing (see section titled “features”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave in view of Tower-Packing.org by configuring each of the first valves to comprise a first aperture and a fixed partial obstruction to the first aperture, wherein the fixed partial obstruction creates two opposing flow paths that combine, and by configuring each of the second valves to comprise an aperture and a fixed partial obstruction to the aperture, wherein the fixed partial obstruction creates two opposing flow paths that combine, in order to obtain the known advantages associated with tray valves having such configurations.
With regard to claim 3: In modified Chave, the higher-relief portions 44 and the lower relief portions 42 are planar (Chave: Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
With regard to claim 4: Modified Chave does not explicitly teach that the higher-relief portions and the lower relief portions have different areas.
However, Chave teaches that “The relative area of depressed and companion "raised" portions of the tray may be adjusted by design to take care of the relative amounts of gas and liquid flowing through the apparatus,” (Column 3 Lines 22-26), thereby clearly indicating that the relative areas are result effective variables.
Chave states that “it is among the objects of this invention to enable stability of operation to be achieved with a perforated bubble plate or tray even at low gas flow rates… and that unaerated liquid or liquid of low aeration will flow continuously rather than intermittently through the discharge holes and high liquid downflow capacity thus be effected.” (Column 1 Lines 57-71). Thus, there is clear motivation to optimize the system of Chave to be suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave by optimizing the areas of the higher-relief portions and the lower relief portions such that said portions have different areas, in order to obtain distillation trays and a distillation column suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
With regard to claim 5: In modified Chave, the higher-relief portions 44 are formed as parallel elongate strips and the lower-relief portions 42 are formed as parallel elongate strips (Chave: Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
With regard to claim 6: In modified Chave, the lower-relief portions 42 form elongate channels and the higher-relief portions 44 form elongate ridges between the elongate channels (Chave: Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
With regard to claim 7: In modified Chave, the elongate channels 42 and the elongate ridges 44 are lengthwise parallel and alternate (Chave: Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
With regard to claim 8: In modified Chave, the interconnecting portions each comprise one or more planar portions (Chave: Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
With regard to claim 10: In modified Chave, the first valves 47 are associated with a fluid flow path having at least a first direction, and the second valves 46 are associated with a fluid flow path having at least a second direction, wherein the first direction and the second direction are orthogonal to the surfaces in which the first and second valves are disposed (Chave: Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
With regard to claim 12: The first and second valves are necessarily provided at first and second surface area densities respectively.
Modified Chave is silent to the first and second surface area densities being different.
However, Chave teaches that “The size and number of the holes 46 and 47 is determined by the relative rates of liquid and vapor flow desired for given circumstances and to enable the maintenance of the requisite height of liquid above the surface of the undepressed parts 44 of the tray,” (Column 3 Lines 55-60). Chave also teaches that “The relative area of depressed and companion "raised" portions of the tray may be adjusted by design to take care of the relative amounts of gas and liquid flowing through the apparatus,” (Column 3 Lines 22-26). Because Chave indicates that the number and size of the first and second valves are result effective variables, and that the area of the higher and lower relief portions are also result effective variables, a person having ordinary skill would recognize that the surface area density of the first and second valves, i.e. the number of valves per unit area, is also a result effective variable.
Chave states that “it is among the objects of this invention to enable stability of operation to be achieved with a perforated bubble plate or tray even at low gas flow rates… and that unaerated liquid or liquid of low aeration will flow continuously rather than intermittently through the discharge holes and high liquid downflow capacity thus be effected.” (Column 1 Lines 57-71). Thus, there is clear motivation to optimize the system of Chave to be suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave by optimizing the surface area densities of the first and second valves, such that said surface area densities are different, in order to obtain distillation trays and a distillation column suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
With regard to claim 13: Each higher-relief portion 44 provides the first valves 47 in two parallel rows extending in a first direction, and each of the lower-relief portions 42 provides two parallel rows of the second valves extending in the first direction (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Modified Chave does not explicitly teach that the first valves are oriented in a first direction and that the second valves are oriented in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction.
However, the drawings of Chave, e.g. Figure 2, at least suggest that the first and second valves 47 and 46 should be formed with a circular cross section, and thus, that each of said valves should be radially symmetrical, such that said valves would appear structurally identical regardless of which way they are rotated. Given the circular valve shape suggested by Chave, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize (or at least reasonably expect) that the relative orientations of particular valves are of no consequence with respect to the form and function of the distillation tray in Chave.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave by forming the first and second valves with a circular cross section, such that that each of said valves is radially symmetrical such that said valves would appear structurally identical regardless of which way they are rotated, in order to obtain a predictably functional distillation tray that is congruent with the suggestions of Chave. In making said modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave by orienting the first valves in the first direction and orienting the second valves in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, in order to obtain a predictably function distillation tray.
Alternatively, if it were argued that a valve oriented in the second direction must be visually distinguishable from a valve in the oriented in the first direction, then the orientation of said valves is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely a matter concerning the shapes of the first and second valves. To elaborate, if arguendo a valve oriented in the second direction must be visually distinguishable from a valve in the oriented in the first direction, then the claimed orientations of the first and second valves could be achieved merely by changing the shapes of the first and second valves, e.g. by merely making the first and second valves slightly ovoidal in shape, wherein the first and second valves are identical in shape, except that the second valves are rotated 90 degrees relative to the first valves. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not expect such a change to substantially alter the function of Chave’s distillation tray. Mere changes in shape are considered to be matters of obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave by changing the shapes of the first and second valves, so as to make the first and second valves slightly ovoidal in shape, wherein the first and second valves are identical in shape, except that the second valves are rotated 90 degrees relative to the first valves, thereby obtaining a distillation tray wherein the first valves are oriented in the first direction and the second valves are oriented in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, in order to obtain a predictably functional distillation tray.
With regard to claim 20: Chave teaches a method comprising:
Performing fractional distillation using the dual flow trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Chave does not explicitly teach further processing at least one fraction from the fractional distillation to make, as a direct product of the method, a commercial product.
However, it is notoriously well-known and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to market and/or sell a fractional distillation product as a commercial product. For example, it is notoriously well-known in the art to sell various fractions of petroleum distillation as commercial products, e.g. as gasoline, diesel, etc.
Regarding the requirement that the at least one fraction from the fractional distillation be subjected to “further processing” to be made into a commercial product, said requirement is not particularly limiting. Processes as simple as transporting (via pipeline or otherwise) and packaging (e.g. filling into a bottle, barrel, or other container) constitute further processing “further processing”. It is virtually impossible to market or sell a fractional distillation product as a commercial product without subjecting said product to some type of packaging and/or transportation. Accordingly, if any product of the fractional distillation is to be made into a commercial product, it is necessary, or at least obvious, for said product to be subjected to some degree of “further processing” to be formed into a commercial product.
Regarding the requirement that that the at least one fraction from the fractional distillation be made into a commercial product “as a direct product of the method”, the scope of the claimed method is completely open ended as to what steps are involved in forming the at least one fraction from the fractional distillation into a commercial product. Therefore, any steps which are necessary to form a fraction from the fractional distillation into a commercial product can be fairly considered to be part of the method. Thus, any commercial product formed from the at least one fraction can be fairly considered to have been formed “as a direct product of the method”, regardless of what is involved in formation of said commercial product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave by further processing at least one fraction from the fractional distillation to make, as a direct product of the method, a commercial product, in order to obtain a product which can be marked and sold for financial gain.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chave in view of Tower-Packing.org as applied to claims 1, 11, and 14 above, and in further view of Hutchinson (US 2,767,967).
With regard to claim 9: Modified Chave does not explicitly teach that the higher-relief portions, the lower-relief portions, and the interconnecting portions form a trapezoidal wave.
However, trapezoidal wave-form dual flow trays are known in the art. For example, Hutchinson teaches a distillation column having dual flow sieve trays similar to the column and trays of Chave (Figures 1-4, columns 3-6), wherein said dual flow trays may comprise higher-relief portions 69, lower-relief portions 70, and interconnecting portions 71 which form flat portions of a trapezoidal wave, wherein the trapezoidal wave is an isosceles trapezoidal wave (Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above). Hutchinson’s teaching would, to one of ordinary skill, at least suggest that a trapezoidal wave-form dual flow tray is a workable alternative to the rectangular wave-form dual flow sieve trays of Chave.
Furthermore, Mere changes in shape are considered to be matters of obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave in view of Hutchinson by reshaping the trays of Chave such that the higher-relief portions, the lower-relief portions, and the interconnecting portions form flat portions of an isosceles trapezoidal wave, in order to obtain a predictably functional dual-flow sieve tray.
With regard to claims 2, 9, 15 and 16: In modified Chave, the first valves 47 and the second valves 46 are static valves (Chave: Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Modified Chave is silent to the dual flow tray comprising open apertures in the interconnecting portions, wherein each of the interconnecting portions comprises at least two rows of the open apertures. Modified Chave does not explicitly teach that the higher-relief portions, the lower-relief portions, and the interconnecting portions form a trapezoidal wave.
Hutchinson teaches a distillation column having dual flow sieve trays similar to the column and trays of Chave (Figures 1-4, columns 3-6), wherein said dual flow trays may comprise higher-relief portions 69, lower-relief portions 70, and interconnecting portions 71 which form flat portions of a trapezoidal wave, wherein the trapezoidal wave is an isosceles trapezoidal wave, and wherein the interconnecting portions comprise a plurality of open apertures (Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above). Hutchinson’s teachings at least suggest (e.g. when one considers the embodiment of Figure 7 in the context of the teachings to the distillation column illustrated in Figures 1 and 2) that the that the interconnecting portions all comprise at least two rows of the open apertures.
Hutchinson’s teaching would, to one of ordinary skill, at least suggest that a trapezoidal wave-form dual flow tray is a workable alternative to the rectangular wave-form dual flow sieve trays of Chave.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave in view of Hutchinson by reconfiguring the trays such that the higher-relief portions, the lower-relief portions, and the interconnecting portions form flat portions of an isosceles trapezoidal wave, wherein each of the interconnecting portions comprise a plurality of open apertures disposed in two rows, in order to obtain a predictably functional dual-flow sieve tray.
With regard to claims 17-19: Chave teaches a vapor-liquid column for vapor-liquid contacting comprising the plurality of dual-flow trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Wherein each of the dual-flow trays is connected to a single periphery rim, i.e. the cylindrical sidewall of the distillation column (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Modified Chave does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein vertically adjacent trays of the dual flow trays are rotated 90 degrees to each other.
Hutchinson teaches a distillation column having dual flow sieve trays similar to the column and trays of Chave (Figures 1-4, columns 3-6). Hutchinson teaches an embodiment wherein vertically adjacent trays of the dual flow trays are rotated 90 degrees to each other (Figures 1 and 2, columns 3-6). Hutchinson also teaches an embodiment wherein vertically adjacent trays of the dual flow trays are arranged as they are in Chave (Figures 3 and 4, columns 3-6; compare Hutchinson Figure 3 to Chave Figure 1). Hutchinson thereby at least suggests that an arrangement wherein vertically adjacent trays of the dual flow trays are rotated 90 degrees to each other is a suitable alternative to the arrangement taught by Chave. Furthermore, Hutchinson teaches that an arrangement wherein vertically adjacent trays are rotated 90 degrees to each other yields “best distribution onto each tray” (Column 4 Lines 34-51, especially Lines 41-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chave in view of Hutchinson by configuring the dual flow trays of Chave such that vertically adjacent trays of the dual flow trays are rotated 90 degrees to each other, in order to achieve a predictably functional column which attains best distribution onto each tray.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hutchinson in view of Chave and Tower-Packing.org.
With regard to claims 1, 11, and 14: Hutchinson teaches a dual-flow tray for vapor-liquid contacting (Figures 1 and 7, Column 1 Lines 15-21, Column 4 Line 50-Column 5 Line 50, Column 5 Lines 53-65), the dual flow tray comprising:
Higher-relief portions (high flat areas) 69 having first valves (openings) 68 disposed therein (Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 below). Note: The first valves are comprised of a subset of the openings 68 which are disposed in the higher-relief portions (high flat areas) 69 (see annotated Figure 7 below).
Lower-relief portions (low flat areas) 70 having second valves (openings) 68 disposed therein (Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 below). Note: The second valves are comprised of a subset of the openings 68 which are disposed in the lower-relief portions (low flat areas) 70 (see annotated Figure 7 below).
Interconnecting portions (inclined areas) 71 that interconnect the higher-relief portions 69 and the lower-relief portions 70 (Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hutchinson does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the higher-relief poritions have a lower total slot area than the lower-relief portions.
Chave teaches a distillation column comprising a plurality of dual-flow trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 similar to those of Hutchinson (Figures 1 and 2, Column 2 Line 58-Column 4 Line 65).
Chave teaches that “The size and number of the holes 46 and 47 is determined by the relative rates of liquid and vapor flow desired for given circumstances and to enable the maintenance of the requisite height of liquid above the surface of the undepressed parts 44 of the tray,” (Column 3 Lines 55-60). By this teaching, Chave clearly indicates that the relative slot areas of the lower and higher relief portions are result effective variables which should be optimized to for particular relative liquid and vapor flow rates in the columns. Furthermore, from said teaching, a person having ordinary skill in the art would easily infer that a lower total slot area in the higher relief portions (relative to the lower relief portions) supports a column operating with a relatively low gas flow rate and a relatively high liquid flow rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art optimize Hutchinson in view of Chave by configuring the higher-relief portions to have a lower total slot area than the lower-relief portions, in order to obtain distillation trays and a distillation column suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
Modified Hutchinson is silent to each of the first valves comprising a first aperture and a fixed partial obstruction to the first aperture and each of the second valves comprising an aperture and a fixed partial obstruction to the aperture. Hutchinson is also silent to each first valve being configured to create two opposing flow paths that combine and each second valve being configured to create two opposing flow paths that combine.
However, such valves for distillation trays are well known in the art. For example, Tower-Packing.org teaches fixed valves for distillation trays, wherein each valve comprises an aperture and fixed partial obstruction to the aperture, wherein each valve (the fixed partial obstruction thereof) is configured such that it will create two opposing flow paths that will combine on either side of the fixed partial obstruction (see Figures). These valves are known to confer numerous advantages, including high efficiency & capacity, low pressure drop, broader regulation range, anti-clogging, reduced entrainment, and reduced liquid back-mixing (see section titled “features”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Hutchinson in view of Tower-Packing.org by configuring each of the first valves to comprise a first aperture and a fixed partial obstruction to the first aperture, wherein the fixed partial obstruction creates two opposing flow paths that combine, and by configuring each of the second valves to comprise an aperture and a fixed partial obstruction to the aperture, wherein the fixed partial obstruction creates two opposing flow paths that combine, in order to obtain the known advantages associated with tray valves having such configurations.
With regard to claim 2: The first and second valves are static valves, i.e. they have no moving parts (Hutchinson: Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above). Note: It is evident that the first and second valves have no moving parts from the fact that they are mere openings.
The dual-flow tray further comprises open apertures (openings) 68 in the interconnected portions 71 (Hutchinson: Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above).
With regard to claim 3: The higher-relief portions 69 and the lower relief portions 70 are both planar (Hutchinson: Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above).
With regard to claim 4: Modified Hutchinson does not explicitly teach that the planar higher relief portions and the planar lower-relief portions have different areas.
However, Chave teaches that “The relative area of depressed and companion "raised" portions of the tray may be adjusted by design to take care of the relative amounts of gas and liquid flowing through the apparatus,” (Column 3 Lines 22-26), thereby clearly indicating that the relative areas are result effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Hutchinson in view of Chave by optimizing the areas of the higher-relief portions and the lower relief portions such that said portions have different areas, in order to obtain distillation trays and a distillation column suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
With regard to claim 5: In the embodiment of Figure 7, the higher-relief portions 69 are formed as parallel strips (flat areas) and the lower-relief 70 portions are formed as parallel strips (flat areas) (Hutchinson: Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above).
Hutchinson does not explicitly disclose that the higher-relief portions 69 and lower-relief portions 70 in the embodiment of Figure 7 are elongate parallel strips.
However, with respect to Figure 7, Hutchinson teaches that “Instead of the pattern of tray unevenness being one of straight, parallel, and regular waves of sinusoidal or substantially sinusoidal form as shown in Figs. 1-4 inclusive, it may take other forms, if desired, such, for example, as:… the pattern shown in Fig. 7 wherein the tray 67 having openings 68 is characterized by adjacent high and low flat areas 69 and 70, respectively, joined by straight and inclined areas 71,” (Column 5 Lines 53-65). Accordingly, it is understood that Hutchinson implicitly discloses embodiments which are otherwise identical to the embodiment Illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, except that the dual flow trays have the geometry shown in Figure 7.
In the embodiment of Figures 1 and 2, the higher relief portions (elevated areas) 48 and lower relief portions (depressed areas) 50 are parallel and elongate strips (Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 Line 30-Column 4 Line 51). Accordingly, Hutchinson implicitly discloses an embodiment wherein the higher-relief portions 69 are formed as parallel elongate strips and the lower-relief portions 70 are formed as parallel elongate strips (Figures 1, 2, and 7, Column 3 Line 30-Column 4 Line 51, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above).
In the alternative, Hutchinson’s disclosure in Column 5 Lines 53-65 (reproduced above), when taken in combination with Hutchinson’s teachings to the embodiment illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, at least suggests embodiments which are otherwise identical to the embodiment Illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, except that the dual flow trays have the profile shown in Figure 7. Thus, if it were not an implicit disclosure of Hutchinson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutchinson in view of Hutchinson’s own suggestions by forming an apparatus which is otherwise identical to that of Figures 1 and 2, except that the dual flow trays have the geometry shown in Figure 7, thereby obtaining a predictably functional apparatus congruent with Hutchinson’s own suggestions, wherein the higher-relief portions 69 are formed as parallel elongate strips (flat areas) and the lower-relief portions 70 are formed as parallel elongate strips (flat areas).
With regard to claims 6 and 7: In the embodiment of Figure 7, the lower-relief portions 70 form channels and the higher-relief portions 69 form ridges between the elongate channels, wherein the channels and the ridges are lengthwise parallel and alternate (Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above).
However, with respect to Figure 7, Hutchinson teaches that “Instead of the pattern of tray unevenness being one of straight, parallel, and regular waves of sinusoidal or substantially sinusoidal form as shown in Figs. 1-4 inclusive, it may take other forms, if desired, such, for example, as:… the pattern shown in Fig. 7 wherein the tray 67 having openings 68 is characterized by adjacent high and low flat areas 69 and 70, respectively, joined by straight and inclined areas 71,” (Column 5 Lines 53-65). Accordingly, it is understood that Hutchinson implicitly discloses embodiments which are otherwise identical to the embodiment Illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, except that the dual flow trays have the geometry shown in Figure 7.
In the embodiment of Figures 1 and 2, the lower-relief portions (depressed areas) 50 form elongate channels and the higher-relief portions (elevated areas) 48 form elongates ridges between the elongate channels, wherein the elongate channels and the elongate ridges are lengthwise parallel and alternate (Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 Line 30-Column 4 Line 51). Accordingly, Hutchinson implicitly discloses an embodiment wherein the lower-relief portions 70 form elongate channels and the higher-relief portions 69 form elongates ridges between the elongate channels, wherein the elongate channels and the elongate ridges are lengthwise parallel and alternate (Figures 1, 2, and 7, Column 3 Line 30-Column 4 Line 51, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above).
In the alternative, Hutchinson’s disclosure in Column 5 Lines 53-65 (reproduced above), when taken in combination with Hutchinson’s teachings to the embodiment illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, at least suggests embodiments which are otherwise identical to the embodiment Illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, except that the dual flow trays have the geometry shown in Figure 7. Thus, if it were not an implicit disclosure of Hutchinson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutchinson in view of Hutchinson’s own suggestions by forming an apparatus which is otherwise identical to that of Figures 1 and 2, except that the dual flow trays have the geometry shown in Figure 7, thereby obtaining a predictably functional apparatus congruent with Hutchinson’s own suggestions, wherein the lower-relief portions 70 form elongate channels and the higher-relief portions 69 form elongates ridges between the elongate channels, and wherein the elongate channels and the elongate ridges are lengthwise parallel and alternate.
With regard to claim 8: The interconnecting portions 71 each comprise one or more planar portions (Hutchinson: Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above).
With regard to claim 9: The higher-relief portions 69, the lower-relief portions 70 and interconnecting portions 71 form flat portions of a trapezoidal wave, wherein the trapezoidal wave is an isosceles trapezoidal wave (Hutchinson: Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above).
With regard to claim 10: The first valves are associated with fluid paths having at least a first direction, wherein said first direction is orthogonal to the higher relief portions 69, i.e. when fluid passes through the first valves, it will do so in at least one direction which is perpendicular to the higher relief portions 69 of the tray (Hutchinson: Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above).
The second valves are associated with fluid paths having at least a second direction, wherein said second direction is orthogonal to the lower relief portions 70, i.e. when fluid passes through the second valves, it will do so in at least one direction which is perpendicular to the lower relief portions 70 of the tray (Hutchinson: Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above).
With regard to claim 12: The first and second valves are necessarily provided at first and second surface area densities respectively.
Modified Hutchinson is silent to the first and second surface area densities being different.
However, Chave teaches that “The size and number of the holes 46 and 47 is determined by the relative rates of liquid and vapor flow desired for given circumstances and to enable the maintenance of the requisite height of liquid above the surface of the undepressed parts 44 of the tray,” (Column 3 Lines 55-60). Chave also teaches that “The relative area of depressed and companion "raised" portions of the tray may be adjusted by design to take care of the relative amounts of gas and liquid flowing through the apparatus,” (Column 3 Lines 22-26). Because Chave indicates that the number and size of the first and second valves are result effective variables, and that the area of the higher and lower relief portions are also result effective variables, a person having ordinary skill would recognize that the surface area density of the first and second valves, i.e. the number of valves per unit area, is also a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Hutchinson in view of Chave by optimizing the surface area densities of the first and second valves, such that said surface area densities are different, in order to obtain distillation trays and a distillation column suited for operation at relatively low gas flow rates and relatively high liquid flow rates.
With regard to claim 13: Hutchinson does not explicitly disclose that each higher-relief portion provides one or more first rows of the first valves wherein the first rows extend in a first direction; and each lower-relief portion provides one or more second rows of the second valves wherein the second rows extend in the first direction.
However, Figure 7 depicts a pair of open apertures 68 in each of the higher relief portions 71 and each of the lower relief portions 70 (Hutchinson: Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above).
Furthermore, with respect to Figure 7, Hutchinson teaches that “Instead of the pattern of tray unevenness being one of straight, parallel, and regular waves of sinusoidal or substantially sinusoidal form as shown in Figs. 1-4 inclusive, it may take other forms, if desired, such, for example, as:… the pattern shown in Fig. 7 wherein the tray 67 having openings 68 is characterized by adjacent high and low flat areas 69 and 70, respectively, joined by straight and inclined areas 71,” (Column 5 Lines 53-65). Accordingly, it is understood that Hutchinson implicitly discloses embodiments which are otherwise identical to the embodiment Illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, except that the dual flow trays have the geometry shown in Figure 7.
A review of Figures 1 and 2 of Hutchinson shows that apertures (openings/perforations) 36 arranged in the trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 are arranged in elongate rows, wherein each of said rows extend in the same direction, as can be seen from the top-down view of the trays in Figure 2. When taken in combination with Figure 7, the disclosure of Figures 1 and 2 at least suggest that each and every opening 68 shown in Figure 7 is arranged in a respective elongate row, wherein each of said respective elongate rows extend in a first direction, i.e. in the same direction. Thus, the disclosure of Figure 7, when taken in combination with the disclosures of Figures 1 and 2, at least suggests that the open apertures 68 in the higher relief portions 69 and lower relief portions 70 are arranged in respective elongate rows, wherein each of said respective elongate rows extends in a first direction, i.e. the same direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Hutchinson by configuring each of the higher relief portions 69 to comprise open apertures 68 arranged in at least two first rows, wherein said at least two first rows extend in a first direction, and by configuring each of the lower relief portions 70 to comprise open apertures 68 arranged in at least two second rows, wherein said at least two second rows extend in a first direction, in order to obtain a predictably functional tray that is congruent with what is suggested by Hutchinson.
Modified Hutchinson does not explicitly teach that the first valves are oriented in a first direction and that the second valves are oriented in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction.
However, the drawings of Hutchinson, e.g. Figures 2 and 4, at least suggest that the valves (openings) 68 in the embodiment of Figure 7 should be formed with a circular cross section, and thus, that each of said valves should be radially symmetrical, such that said valves would appear structurally identical regardless of which way they are rotated. Given the circular valve shape suggested by Hutchinson, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize (or at least reasonably expect) that the relative orientations of particular valves are of no consequence with respect to the form and function of the distillation tray in Hutchinson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Hutchinson by forming the first and second valves with a circular cross section, such that that each of said valves is radially symmetrical such that said valves would appear structurally identical regardless of which way they are rotated, in order to obtain a predictably functional distillation tray that is congruent with the suggestions of Hutchinson. In making said modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Hutchinson by orienting the first valves in the first direction and orienting the second valves in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, in order to obtain a predictably function distillation tray.
Alternatively, if it were argued that a valve oriented in the second direction must be visually distinguishable from a valve in the oriented in the first direction, then the orientation of said valves is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely a matter concerning the shapes of the first and second valves. To elaborate, if arguendo a valve oriented in the second direction must be visually distinguishable from a valve in the oriented in the first direction, then the claimed orientations of the first and second valves could be achieved merely by changing the shapes of the first and second valves, e.g. by merely making the first and second valves slightly ovoidal in shape, wherein the first and second valves are identical in shape, except that the second valves are rotated 90 degrees relative to the first valves. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not expect such a change to substantially alter the function of Hutchinson’s distillation tray. Mere changes in shape are considered to be matters of obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Hutchinson by changing the shapes of the first and second valves, so as to make the first and second valves slightly ovoidal in shape, wherein the first and second valves are identical in shape, except that the second valves are rotated 90 degrees relative to the first valves, thereby obtaining a distillation tray wherein the first valves are oriented in the first direction and the second valves are oriented in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, in order to obtain a predictably functional distillation tray.
With regard to claim 15: The dual-flow tray further comprises open apertures (openings) 68 in the interconnected portions 71 (Hutchinson: Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above).
With regard to claim 16: Modified Hutchinson does not explicitly disclose that there are at least two rows of open apertures in each of the interconnecting portions 71.
However, Figure 7 depicts a pair of open apertures 68 in each of the interconnecting portions 71 (Hutchinson: Figure 7, Column 5 Lines 53-65; see annotated Figure 7 above).
Furthermore, with respect to Figure 7, Hutchinson teaches that “Instead of the pattern of tray unevenness being one of straight, parallel, and regular waves of sinusoidal or substantially sinusoidal form as shown in Figs. 1-4 inclusive, it may take other forms, if desired, such, for example, as:… the pattern shown in Fig. 7 wherein the tray 67 having openings 68 is characterized by adjacent high and low flat areas 69 and 70, respectively, joined by straight and inclined areas 71,” (Column 5 Lines 53-65). Accordingly, it is understood that Hutchinson implicitly discloses embodiments which are otherwise identical to the embodiment Illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, except that the dual flow trays have the geometry shown in Figure 7.
A review of Figures 1 and 2 of Hutchinson shows that apertures (openings/perforations) 36 arranged in the trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 are arranged in elongate rows, as can be seen from the top-down view of the trays in Figure 2. When taken in combination with Figure 7, the disclosure of Figures 1 and 2 at least suggest that each and every opening 68 shown in Figure 7 is arranged in a respective elongate row. Thus, the disclosure of Figure 7, when taken in combination with the disclosures of Figures 1 and 2, at least suggests that the open apertures 68 in the interconnecting portions 71 are arranged in at least two rows.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Hutchinson by configuring each of the interconnecting portions 71 to comprise open apertures 68 arranged in at least two rows, in order to obtain a predictably functional tray that is congruent with what is suggested by Hutchinson.
With regard to claims 17-19: Hutchinson does not explicitly disclose a vapor liquid contacting column comprising multiple of the dual flow tray illustrated in Figure 7, wherein vertically adjacent trays of the dual flow trays are rotated at 90 degrees to each other, and wherein each of the multiple dual-flow trays are connected to a single periphery rim.
However, with respect to Figure 7, Hutchinson teaches that “Instead of the pattern of tray unevenness being one of straight, parallel, and regular waves of sinusoidal or substantially sinusoidal form as shown in Figs. 1-4 inclusive, it may take other forms, if desired, such, for example, as:… the pattern shown in Fig. 7 wherein the tray 67 having openings 68 is characterized by adjacent high and low flat areas 69 and 70, respectively, joined by straight and inclined areas 71,” (Column 5 Lines 53-65). Accordingly, it is understood that Hutchinson implicitly discloses embodiments which are otherwise identical to the embodiment Illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, except that the dual flow trays have the geometry shown in Figure 7.
In the embodiment of Figures 1 and 2, Hutchinson teaches:
A vapor-liquid column for vapor-liquid contacting comprising a plurality of dual-flow trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 for vapor-liquid contacting (Figures 1 and 2, Column 1 Lines 15-21, Column 3 Line 30-Column 5 Line 50), each of the dual flow trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 comprising:
Higher-relief portions (elevated areas) 48 having first valves (openings/perforations) 36 disposed therein (Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 Line 30-Column 5 Line 50; see annotated Figure 1 below). Note: The first valves are comprised of a subset of the openings/perforations 36 which are disposed in the higher-relief portions 48 (see annotated Figure 1 below).
Lower-relief portions (depressed areas) 50 having second valves (openings/perforations) 36 disposed therein (Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 Line 30-Column 5 Line 50; see annotated Figure 1 below). Note: The second valves are comprised of a subset of the openings/perforations 36 which are disposed in the lower-relief portions 50 (see annotated Figure 1 below).
And interconnecting portions that interconnect the higher-relief portions and the lower-relief portions (Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 Line 30-Column 5 Line 50; see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
366
1018
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein vertically adjacent trays of the of the dual-flow trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 are rotated at 90 degrees to each other (Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 Line 30-Column 5 Line 50).
And wherein each of the dual-flow trays 12, 14, 16, and 18 are connected to a single periphery rim (surrounding wall or shell) 20 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 Line 30-Column 5 Line 50).
Accordingly, Hutchinson implicitly discloses an embodiment comprising a column having a multiple dual flow trays like that illustrated in Figure 7, wherein vertically adjacent trays of the dual flow trays are rotated at 90 degrees to each other, and wherein each of the multiple dual-flow trays are connected to a single periphery rim.
In the alternative, Hutchinson’s disclosure in Column 5 Lines 53-65 (reproduced above), when taken in combination with Hutchinson’s teachings to the embodiment illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, at least suggests embodiments which are otherwise identical to the embodiment Illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, except that the dual flow trays have the geometry shown in Figure 7. Thus, if it were not an implicit disclosure of Hutchinson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutchinson in view of Hutchinson’s own suggestions by forming an apparatus which is otherwise identical to that of Figures 1 and 2, except that the dual flow trays have the geometry shown in Figure 7, thereby obtaining a predictably functional apparatus congruent with Hutchinson’s own suggestions, said apparatus comprising a column having a multiple dual flow trays like that illustrated in Figure 7, wherein vertically adjacent trays of the dual flow trays are rotated at 90 degrees to each other, and wherein each of the multiple dual-flow trays are connected to a single periphery rim.
With regard to claim 20: Hutchinson does not explicitly teach using the one or more of the trays as disclosed in the embodiment of Figure 7 to perform fractional distillation. However, considering that said tray is a distillation tray, it is at least obvious to use one or more of said trays to perform fractional distillation.
Assuming that it is not implicit in Hutchinson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutchinson so as to use one or more of the trays as disclosed in the embodiment of Figure 7 to perform fractional distillation, in order to obtain a predictably functional distillation method wherein said one or more trays are used in accordance with their intended purpose.
Hutchinson does not explicitly teach further processing at least one fraction from the fractional distillation to make, as a direct product of the method, a commercial product.
However, it is notoriously well-known and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to market and/or sell a fractional distillation product as a commercial product. For example, it is notoriously well-known in the art to sell various fractions of petroleum distillation as commercial products, e.g. as gasoline, diesel, etc.
Regarding the requirement that the at least one fraction from the fractional distillation be subjected to “further processing” to be made into a commercial product, said requirement is not particularly limiting. Processes as simple as transporting (via pipeline or otherwise) and packaging (e.g. filling into a bottle, barrel, or other container) constitute further processing “further processing”. It is virtually impossible to market or sell a fractional distillation product as a commercial product without subjecting said product to some type of packaging and/or transportation. Accordingly, if any product of the fractional distillation is to be made into a commercial product, it is necessary, or at least obvious, for said product to be subjected to some degree of “further processing” to be formed into a commercial product.
Regarding the requirement that that the at least one fraction from the fractional distillation be made into a commercial product “as a direct product of the method”, the scope of the claimed method is completely open ended as to what steps are involved in forming the at least one fraction from the fractional distillation into a commercial product. Therefore, any steps which are necessary to form a fraction from the fractional distillation into a commercial product can be fairly considered to be part of the method. Thus, any commercial product formed from the at least one fraction can be fairly considered to have been formed “as a direct product of the method”, regardless of what is involved in formation of said commercial product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutchinson by further processing at least one fraction from the fractional distillation to make, as a direct product of the method, a commercial product, in order to obtain a product which can be marked and sold for financial gain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights