Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 recites “packing elements” which are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) but is considered to lack written description as the specification does not provide sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The specification discusses how the packing elements are made by additive manufacturing and shows some figures and discusses how they are made in a structure strut lattice which represent the packing elements but this is not sufficient structure.
Claim 11 recites “packing elements” which are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) but is considered to lack written description as the specification does not provide sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The specification discusses how the packing elements are made by additive manufacturing and shows some figures and discusses how they are made in a structure strut lattice which represent the packing elements but this is not sufficient structure.
Claim 14 recites “packing elements” which are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) but is considered to lack written description as the specification does not provide sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The specification discusses how the packing elements are made by additive manufacturing and shows some figures and discusses how they are made in a structure strut lattice which represent the packing elements but this is not sufficient structure.
Claims 2-10, 12-13, 15-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “packing elements” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discusses how the packing elements are made by additive manufacturing and shows some figures and discusses how they are made in a structure strut lattice which represent the packing elements but this is not sufficient structure. Further, while “plurality of packing elements” are used, even in view of the specification it appears that only one packing element is present made of multiple components together, as a structure lattice of said packing elements would only be a single packing element. For the purpose of examination, as long as a packing is present as claimed it will be understood to be meet the limitation of “plurality of packing elements”. This rejection applies to claims 1, 11 and 14 each.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1, line 22 recites “the one or more of the plurality of carbon dioxide molecules” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to refer to carbon dioxide present in the stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules.
Claim 1, line 25 recites “a stream of gas lean gaseous mixture”; however, the claims have not previously recited any other gas components present so it is unclear how this relates to the rest of the claimed limitations. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is some separation in the column which produces a gas lean gaseous mixture from the stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules that is lean with respect to one gas in the original stream.
Claim 2 recites “the GCC device is made of an alloy” which is considered indefinite as the scope of the limitation is unclear as it is unclear if this means that the entire GCC device is made of an alloy or only if part is required to be made of an alloy. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that at least some components of the GCC are an alloy.
Claim 7 recites “the passage direct the stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules from the working port towards the outlet” which is considered indefinite. Claim 1 requires the passage to be where the refrigerant flows, so it is unclear how the passage would direct the stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the stream of gashouse carbon dioxide molecules flows through the fins that form the passage.
Claim 11, line 23 recites “the one or more of the plurality of carbon dioxide molecules” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to refer to carbon dioxide present in the stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules.
Claim 11, line 25 recites “a stream of gas lean gaseous mixture”; however, the claims have not previously recited any other gas components present so it is unclear how this relates to the rest of the claimed limitations. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is some separation in the column which produces a gas lean gaseous mixture from the stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules that is lean with respect to one gas in the original stream.
Claim 11, lines 25-27 recites both “directing a stream of gas lean gaseous mixture to the working outlet” and “collecting one or more liquefied carbon dioxide molecules exiting the GCC device through the working outlet” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how two separate components are removed from the working outlet. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that one stream is removed from the working outlet, and the other from the working port.
Claim 13 recites “the one or more gaseous impurities exit the GCC device through the working port” but claim 11 has already required that the stream of a gas lean gaseous mixture exits through the working outlet, which limitation is also indefinite. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that wherever the gas lean gashouse mixture exits, the impurities also exit.
Claim 14, lines 9-10 recites “a second chamber… where the second chamber is a distillation column” which is considered indefinite. The overall invention as claimed is a hybrid gas condensing column; however, claim 14 (as well as the specification) show that the second chamber and distillation column as claimed is a separate column and thus not pat of the overall hybrid GCC which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the second chamber and second distillation column are separate from the hybrid GCC but connected as claimed.
Claim 14, line 24 recites “the GCC device” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. This limitation is understood to be “the hybrid GCC device”.
Claim 14, line 25 recites “the one or more of the plurality of carbon dioxide molecules” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to refer to carbon dioxide present in the stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules.
Claim 14, line 28 recites “a stream of gas lean gaseous mixture”; however, the claims have not previously recited any other gas components present so it is unclear how this relates to the rest of the claimed limitations. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is some separation in the column which produces a gas lean gaseous mixture from the stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules that is lean with respect to one gas in the original stream.
Claim 15 recites “the GCC device” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. This limitation is understood to be “the hybrid GCC device”.
Claim 15 recites “the GCC device is made of an alloy” which is considered indefinite as the scope of the limitation is unclear as it is unclear if this means that the entire GCC device is made of an alloy or only if part is required to be made of an alloy. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that at least some components of the GCC are an alloy.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12, 16-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: packing elements in claims 1, 11 and 14,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 1, 11 and 14 all use the term “inside wall” and “outside wall” in reference to locations with respect to the first partition wall; however, this is interpreted to be not referring to locations with respect to specific inside or outside of any component, only denoting the two sides of the partition wall.
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, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sapper (US Patent No. 4710213), hereinafter referred to as Sapper and further in view of Gallarda (US PG Pub 20020011077), hereinafter referred to as Gallarda and Chen et al. (CN113624047), hereinafter referred to as Chen and Lee et al. (US PG Pub 20200318511), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
With respect to claim 1, Sapper teaches a gas condensing column (Figure 1, 8) device for liquefying a stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules (a feed stream is passed into column 8, which produces column head 9 and liquid stream of CO2 from the bottom of the column, Column 6, lines 46-50) comprising:
(a) a first chamber comprising an introduction port (feed for the stream from 6), a working port (where the bottom stream that splits into 15, 21, 22 leaves the column), a working outlet (where 9 leaves the column), and a second volume (the internal volume of the column 8), a first refrigerant inlet and a first refrigerant outlet (a coolant stream is used in a heat exchange 10, Column 6, lines 30-33, which would have an inlet and an outlet), where the working port and the working outlet are located in V2 (the exit point of the two components can be considered the demarcation of the volume V2, and thus inside of it)
and (c) a refrigerant supply adapted to supply a refrigerant through the first refrigerant inlet (as coolant is coming in through 11, there would be a source of said coolant), where the refrigerant exits through the first refrigerant outlet (refrigerant would leave the heat exchanger through the outlet), where the GCC device is adapted to direct the stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules into V2 (gaseous stream from 6 enters into the internal volume of 8 as a gaseous mixture, Column 6, lines 16-20), where the one or more of the plurality of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules condense (carbon dioxide condenses within the column to produce bottoms stream of liquid, Column 6, lines 30-50, which as the top of the column is colder than the bottom condensation of some of the CO2 would happen against the heat exchangers), where liquefied carbon dioxide molecules collect at the bottom of the GCC device (as liquid stream of CO2 is removed from the column, Column 6, lines 47-50, liquid would collect at the bottom), where the GCC device is adapted to direct a stream of gas lean gaseous mixture to the working outlet (overhead stream is removed as a gaseous mixture in stream 9, Column 6, lines 23-26 via where the beginning of 9 would be the working outlet)
Sapper does not teach a plurality of fins located in V2, where the one or more of the plurality of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules condense on one or more of the plurality of fins.
Gallarda (Figure 2b) teaches that to provide cooling to a heat a column an external jacket (21) where refrigerant enters the jacket to cool the walls of the column and leaves via a refrigerant outlet (paragraphs 51-52) where fluid flows through a volume within the column against fins (20) where gas exchanges heat with the refrigerant via the wall where it condenses in part (paragraphs 39-40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Gallarda for when the fluid in the column flows against the heat exchanger for it to have been flowing against fins based on the teaching of Sapper since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results whereby one having common knowledge in the art would recognize that providing the fins would provide a highly efficient heat exchange through the use of the jacket to provide cooling along with the fins which increase the turbulence of the fluid (paragraph 41 of Gallarda) that is being cooled. As the condensing happens as it passes through the fins, carbon dioxide molecules would condense at least somewhere in contact with said fins.
Sapper does not teach a first volume, where a first partition wall at least partially separates V1 from V2, wherein the first partition wall comprises an inside wall and an outside wall, wherein the inside wall is in contact with V1, where the outside wall is in contact with V2, wherein at least one of the plurality of fins is in contact with the outside wall, where at least one of the plurality of fins comprises a passage, a passage entrance, and a passage exit, where the first partition wall extends to the passage, where the passage connects V1 to the passage entrance, where the passage connects the passage exit to V1, where V1 is in fluid contact with the first refrigerant inlet and the first refrigerant outlet such where the refrigerant is in physical contact with the inside wall, where the refrigerant supply is also adapted to supply the refrigerant through the passage entrance where the refrigerant exits the passage through the passage exit into V1, where in the absence of the refrigerant the outside wall is at a first temperature, where the refrigerant flowing through V1 reduces the first temperature of the outside wall.
Chen (Figures 1-3) teaches a heat exchange device where one fluid flows through the outside of fins (from 16 to 17 via 22) and another fluid flows into an inlet (13) to an annular cavity (12) in shell of a column (1) through the fins fixedly connected to the inner wall of the shell and into a second annular cavity (12) and then via an outlet (14) (paragraphs 37-41).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the heat exchanger of Sapper in the configuration of Chen where the refrigerant flows into an annular cavity of the column (which forms a volume V1 within an inner wall which is as seen in the overhead of Sapper is against an inner volume of the column such that the inner wall of the column would be the outer wall as claimed and the part of the cavity that does not open into the fins would be the inner wall, with the overall wall between them being a partition wall the outside wall being on the other side from the inside wall) where the refrigerant then flows through a series of fins which are fixed to the inner wall of the column from the annular cavity, and then out through a second annular cavity (which can also be considered part of the volume V1) with the stream of gaseous molecules flowing through the outside of the fins such that they cool (and in turn condense) against the fins in the configuration as shown by Chen since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the heat exchanger in this configuration (which is the configuration as claimed) would result in what is common knowledge in the art of an increase in the heat exchange efficiency by maximizing the contact on both sides of the heat exchanger by increasing the heat exchange contact area for both the refrigerant and the fluid being condensed. This combination results in the limitations as claimed. By the nature of the presence of the refrigerant, the refrigerant outside wall would be cooler than if the refrigerant was not present as the fins are in contact with the wall. The passageway from V1 to V1 is formed within the fins, where the inflowing refrigerant flows into the first part of V1, through the fins, and then into the second part of V1 as it flows between the entry and exit of the heat exchanger.
Sapper does not teach a plurality of packing elements located in V2, where at least one of the plurality of packing elements is in physical contact with one or both one or more fins of the plurality of fins and the outside wall.
Lee teaches that a tube through which a gas flows can be filled with a foamed metal with pores that allow the flow of fluid and increase the contact of the gas with the tube increasing the heat transfer and the cooling performance of the gas flowing through the tube (paragraphs 38-39).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Lee to have filled the space through which the carbon dioxide molecules of Sapper flow (volume V2) with foamed metal (packing elements) that is in contact with the fins (the heat exchange wall) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the foamed metal between the fins (which is the flow area and contact area equivalent to a tube) would increase the contact of the gas molecules with the tube increasing the heat transfer and the cooling performance of the heat exchanger.
With respect to claim 3, Sapper does not teach where the plurality of packing elements are generated using Additive Manufacturing.
However, this is a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 states that:
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claims is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.
Therefore the use of packing elements as claimed produced by additive manufacturing is obvious as the fact that the packing elements are produced by additive manufacturing does not change that the end process as claimed results in the packing elements which have been shown to be obvious and the use of additive manufacturing does not change the end product.
With respect to claim 4, Sapper as modified teaches wherein the plurality of packing elements are located throughout V2 (as modified there are packing elements along the length of the heat exchanger, which can be considered throughout V2).
With respect to claim 5, Sapper as modified teaches where one or more of the plurality of fins are in physical contact with one or both the outside wall and the plurality of packing elements (the fins are fixed to the wall as claimed and in contact with the packing elements which would have the fins in physical contact with both).
With respect to claim 6, Sapper as modified does not teach where a thermal conductivity coefficient between the one or more of the plurality of fins and one or both the outside wall and the plurality of packing elements is between: a lower limit of approximately 1x101 Wm-iK-1; and an upper limit of approximately 5x102 Wm-lK-1. However, Sapper teaches that they are connected which means there would be a thermal conductivity.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Sapper as modified so that a thermal conductivity coefficient between the one or more of the plurality of fins and one or both the outside wall and the plurality of packing elements is between: a lower limit of approximately 1x101 Wm-iK-1; and an upper limit of approximately 5x102 Wm-lK-1 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instance case, the device of Sapper as modified would not operate differently with the claimed thermal conductivity coefficient since the coefficient is only to determine the specific heat transfer and as heat transfer is occurring in the packing, having the heat transfer coefficient for the device would allow it to function appropriately with the claimed heat transfer coefficient. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed indicating that the end points of the ranges are only defined “approximately” (see claim 6).
With respect to claim 7, Sapper as modified teaches where the passage directs the stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules in a direction from the working port towards the working outlet (the gaseous carbon dioxide flowing into the system flows up the column and would pass between the passages formed by the heat exchanger as it rises which would result in it passing upward, which is a direction from the working port towards the working outlet).
With respect to claim 8, Sapper as modified does not teach where the plurality of fins is between: a lower limit of approximately 5; and an upper limit of approximately 2 x101.
It can be seen in Figure 3 of Chen that there are 20 fins.
It would therefore have been to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when using fins in Sapper as modified to have had 20 fins as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (indicating the range is between an approximate number of fins) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990
With respect to claim 11, Sapper teaches a method of using a GCC (Gas Condensing Column) device to liquefy a stream of gas containing a plurality of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules comprising (Figure 1, 8) introducing the stream of gas into the GCC device (gas stream is introduced into column 8, Column 6, lines 46-50),
where the GCC device comprises:
(a) a first chamber comprising an introduction port (feed for the stream from 6), a working port (where the bottom stream that splits into 15, 21, 22 leaves the column), a working outlet (where 9 leaves the column), and a second volume (the internal volume of the column 8), a first refrigerant inlet and a first refrigerant outlet (a coolant stream is used in a heat exchange 10, Column 6, lines 30-33, which would have an inlet and an outlet), where the working port and the working outlet are located in V2 (the exit point of the two components can be considered the demarcation of the volume V2, and thus inside of it)
and (c) a refrigerant supply adapted to supply a refrigerant through the first refrigerant inlet (as coolant is coming in through 11, there would be a source of said coolant), where the refrigerant exits through the first refrigerant outlet (refrigerant would leave the heat exchanger through the outlet), where the GCC device is adapted to direct the stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules into V2 (gaseous stream from 6 enters into the internal volume of 8 as a gaseous mixture, Column 6, lines 16-20), where the one or more of the plurality of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules condense (carbon dioxide condenses within the column to produce bottoms stream of liquid, Column 6, lines 30-50, which as the top of the column is colder than the bottom condensation of some of the CO2 would happen against the heat exchangers), where liquefied carbon dioxide molecules collect at the bottom of the GCC device (as liquid stream of CO2 is removed from the column, Column 6, lines 47-50, liquid would collect at the bottom), where the GCC device is adapted to direct a stream of gas lean gaseous mixture to the working outlet (overhead stream is removed as a gaseous mixture in stream 9, Column 6, lines 23-26 via where the beginning of 9 would be the working outlet),
and directing the stream of gas through the introduction port into V2 (the stream of gas from 6 enters the column through a port that would be into V2),
directing a stream of a gas lean gaseous mixture to the working outlet (overhead stream is removed as a gaseous mixture in stream 9, Column 6, lines 23-26 via where the beginning of 9 would be the working outlet),
collecting one or more liquefied carbon dioxide molecules exiting the GCC device through the working outlet (liquid carbon dioxide is removed from the bottom of the column, Column 6, lines 47-50).
Sapper does not teach a plurality of fins located in V2, condensing one or more of the plurality of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules on the fins.
Gallarda (Figure 2b) teaches that to provide cooling to a heat a column an external jacket (21) where refrigerant enters the jacket to cool the walls of the column and leaves via a refrigerant outlet (paragraphs 51-52) where fluid flows through a volume within the column against fins (20) where gas exchanges heat with the refrigerant via the wall where it condenses in part (paragraphs 39-40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Gallarda for when the fluid in the column flows against the heat exchanger for it to have been flowing against fins based on the teaching of Sapper since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results whereby one having common knowledge in the art would recognize that providing the fins would provide a highly efficient heat exchange through the use of the jacket to provide cooling along with the fins which increase the turbulence of the fluid (paragraph 41 of Gallarda) that is being cooled. As the condensing happens as it passes through the fins, carbon dioxide molecules would condense at least somewhere in contact with said fins.
Sapper does not teach a first volume, where a first partition wall at least partially separates V1 from V2, wherein the first partition wall comprises an inside wall and an outside wall, wherein the inside wall is in contact with V1, where the outside wall is in contact with V2, wherein at least one of the plurality of fins is in contact with the outside wall, where at least one of the plurality of fins comprises a passage, a passage entrance, and a passage exit, where the first partition wall extends to the passage, where the passage connects V1 to the passage entrance, where the passage connects the passage exit to V1, where V1 is in fluid contact with the first refrigerant inlet and the first refrigerant outlet such where the refrigerant is in physical contact with the inside wall, wherein in the absence of the refrigerant the outside wall is at a first temperature, where the refrigerant reduces the first temperature of the outside wall.
Chen (Figures 1-3) teaches a heat exchange device where one fluid flows through the outside of fins (from 16 to 17 via 22) and another fluid flows into an inlet (13) to an annular cavity (12) in shell of a column (1) through the fins fixedly connected to the inner wall of the shell and into a second annular cavity (12) and then via an outlet (14) (paragraphs 37-41).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the heat exchanger of Sapper in the configuration of Chen where the refrigerant flows into an annular cavity of the column (which forms a volume V1 within an inner wall which is as seen in the overhead of Sapper is against an inner volume of the column such that the inner wall of the column would be the outer wall as claimed and the part of the cavity that does not open into the fins would be the inner wall, with the overall wall between them being a partition wall) where the refrigerant then flows through a series of fins which are fixed to the inner wall of the column from the annular cavity, and then out through a second annular cavity (which can also be considered part of the volume V1) with the stream of gaseous molecules flowing through the outside of the fins such that they cool (and in turn condense) against the fins in the configuration as shown by Chen since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the heat exchanger in this configuration (which is the configuration as claimed) would result in what is common knowledge in the art of an increase in the heat exchange efficiency by maximizing the contact on both sides of the heat exchanger by increasing the heat exchange contact area for both the refrigerant and the fluid being condensed. This combination results in the limitations as claimed. By the nature of the presence of the refrigerant, the refrigerant outside wall would be cooler than if the refrigerant was not present as the fins are in contact with the wall. The passageway from V1 to V1 is formed within the fins, where the inflowing refrigerant flows into the first part of V1, through the fins, and then into the second part of V1 as it flows between the entry and exit of the heat exchanger.
Sapper does not teach a plurality of packing elements located in V2, where at least one of the plurality of packing elements is in physical contact with one or both one or more fins of the plurality of fins and the outside wall.
Lee teaches that a tube through which a gas flows can be filled with a foamed metal with pores that allow the flow of fluid and increase the contact of the gas with the tube increasing the heat transfer and the cooling performance of the gas flowing trough the tube (paragraphs 38-39).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Lee to have filled the space through which the carbon dioxide molecules of Sapper flow (volume V2) with foamed metal (packing elements) that is in contact with the fins (the heat exchange wall) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the foamed metal between the fins (which is the flow area and contact area equivalent to a tube) would increase the contact of the gas molecules with the tube increasing the heat transfer and the cooling performance of the heat exchanger.
With respect to claim 12, Sapper as modified teaches where the gas lean gaseous mixture comprises one or more gaseous impurities (overhead contains nitrogen, methane and ethane which can be considered impurities relative to the CO2).
With respect to claim 13, Sapper as modified teaches where the one or more gaseous impurities exit the GCC device through the working port (as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), the impurities leave as part of the gaseous stream through the working outlet).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sapper/Gallarda/Chen/Lee and further in view of Masliah et al. (US PG Pub 20220134304), hereinafter referred to as Masliah.
With respect to claim 2, Sapper as modified does not teach where the GCC device is made of an alloy.
Masliah teaches that column components can be made of alloys such as stainless steel (paragraphs 14-16)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention filed to have based on the teaching of Masliah had the GCC device of Sapper as modified made of stainless steel since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the device made from stainless steel would provide corrosion resistance.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sapper/Gallarda/Chen/Lee and further in view of Hoelzl et al. (US PG Pub 20200400392), hereinafter referred to as Hoelzl.
With respect to claim 9, Sapper as modified does not teach where one or more of the plurality of fins are generated with a corrugated wave.
Hoelzl teaches fins can be formed with a corrugated structure with a stepped shape (paragraph 62).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Hoelzl provided the fins of Sapper as modified to have a corrugated stepped structure (which can be considered a wave) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the fins as a corrugate stepped structure would provide what is predictable in the art of a increased total heat transfer area which would increase the efficiency of the heat exchanger and the heat transfer rate.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sapper/Gallarda/Chen/Lee and further in view of Beutler et al. (US PG Pub 20150247681), hereinafter referred to as Beutler.
Sapper does not teach where a roughness of one or more of the plurality of fins is between: a lower limit of approximately grade N1; and an upper limit of approximately grade N12.
Beutler teaches that increasing the roughness of a fin surface can increase the surface area (paragraph 43).
As such, the roughness is a result effective variable, chosen to provide a desired surface area (which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as heat transfer area). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the fins of Sapper as modified as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component disclose to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Beutler to have provided the fins of Sapper as modified with a surface roughness a lower limit of approximately grade N1 and an upper limit of approximately grade N12 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sapper and further in view of Gallarda, Chen, Lee and Stone et al. (US PG pub 20020029585), hereinafter referred to as Stone.
With respect to claim 14, Sapper teaches a gas condensing column (Figure 1, 8) device for liquefying a stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules (a feed stream is passed into column 8, which produces column head 9 and liquid stream of CO2 from the bottom of the column, Column 6, lines 46-50) comprising:
(a) a first chamber comprising a first introduction port (feed for the stream from 6), a first working port (where the bottom stream that splits into 15, 21, 22 leaves the column), a first working outlet (where 9 leaves the column), and a second volume (the internal volume of the column 8), a first refrigerant inlet and a first refrigerant outlet (a coolant stream is used in a heat exchange 10, Column 6, lines 30-33, which would have an inlet and an outlet), where the first introduction port, the first working port, the first working outlet are located in V2 (the entry or exit of three components can be considered the demarcation of the volume V2, and thus inside of it)
(b) a second chamber comprising a second introduction port (the distillation column 17, which has an introduction port where the stream from 23 enters, column 7, lines 1-8), a second working port (outlet at the top of the column that would produce stream 25 seen in the figure), a second working outlet (outlet at the bottom of the column that would produce streams 26/27 as seen in the figure), where the second chamber is a distillation column (17 is a distillation column), where the first chamber is adapted to be fluidly connected to the second chamber, where the second working port is adapted to be fluidly connected to the first introduction port (fluid ultimately flows into the first port to column 8, and some of that fluid is the same that flows as the bottom stream into 17, Column 6, line 23 – Column 7, line 7),
and (c) a refrigerant supply adapted to supply a refrigerant through the first refrigerant inlet (as coolant is coming in through 11, there would be a source of said coolant), where the refrigerant exits through the first refrigerant outlet (refrigerant would leave the heat exchanger through the outlet), where the GCC device is adapted to direct the stream of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules into V2 (gaseous stream from 6 enters into the internal volume of 8 as a gaseous mixture, Column 6, lines 16-20), where the one or more of the plurality of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules condense (carbon dioxide condenses within the column to produce bottoms stream of liquid, Column 6, lines 30-50, which as the top of the column is colder than the bottom condensation of some of the CO2 would happen against the heat exchangers), where liquefied carbon dioxide molecules collect at the bottom of the GCC device (as liquid stream of CO2 is removed from the column, Column 6, lines 47-50, liquid would collect at the bottom), where the GCC device is adapted to direct a stream of gas lean gaseous mixture to the working outlet (overhead stream is removed as a gaseous mixture in stream 9, Column 6, lines 23-26 via where the beginning of 9 would be the working outlet).
Sapper does not teach where the second chamber does not comprise a packing element.
Stone teaches that a fractionation column has either trays or packing (paragraph 10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the distillation column (second chamber) of Sapper as modified with trays and not packing based on the teaching since it has been shown that choosing between a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby as there are two identified methods of providing mass transfer in a column, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing the column with the necessary separation.
Sapper does not teach a plurality of fins located in V2, where the one or more of the plurality of gaseous carbon dioxide molecules condense on one or more of the plurality of fins.
Gallarda (Figure 2b) teaches that to provide cooling to a heat a column an external jacket (21) where refrigerant enters the jacket to cool the walls of the column and leaves via a refrigerant outlet (paragraphs 51-52) where fluid flows through a volume within the column against fins (20) where gas exchanges heat with the refrigerant via the wall where it condenses in part (paragraphs 39-40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Gallarda for when the fluid in the column flows against the heat exchanger for it to have been flowing against fins based on the teaching of Sapper since it has be