DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 10 is/are rejoined as it appears that the claim alternatively claims elected subject matter (see the first fluid). It is noted that while claim 10 is presently rejoined, it is noted that the subject matter of the second fluid is non-elected subject matter and will not be permitted to be rejoined alone. It is noted that claim 13 is not rejoined since claim 1 explicitly requires that the gas phase is cooled in the heat exchanger (see the step (a)) and the elected invention, species, and subspecies does not exclude the gas phase being cooled in the heat exchanger but explicitly cools the gas phase in the heat exchanger upstream of the membrane separation unit (M).
Drawings
The drawings dated 6/03/2026 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings have been amended to show non-elected species features. Therefore, the inclusion of the non-elected variant providing stream (20) to the separator vessel must be removed from the drawings and further the splitting of the residue stream to form stream (30) does not appear to have sufficient support and must be removed. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings dated 1/12/2024 remain objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the permeate stream must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/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.
In regard to claim 10, the recitation, “a second part of the residue…is returned to a hydrogen production unit” is new matter as there is no support in the original disclosure for splitting the residue stream as claimed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-12 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “the expanded residue.” (line 27, page 3) is unclear why the recitation has a period.
In regard to claim 10, the recitation, “the distillation” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claim limitation “membrane separation unit” 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 disclosure never defines what structure the recited membrane separation unit must have. 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. For present examination, it is interpreted as at least a separation membrane.
In regard to claim 10, it is noted that the second fluid recitation and the wherein clause are not required but are alternative due to the recitation of “or” (line 12).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao (CN 106931722). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Liao teaches a process (Fig. 1) for separating a mixture (raw material gas, page 6, para. 2) containing hydrogen and carbon dioxide (page 6, para. 2) and a compound (see nitrogen at least) lighter than carbon dioxide (page 6, para. 2), the process comprising:
a) cooling of the mixture (raw material gas) from a first temperature (entering HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2) in a heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2) by sending the mixture (raw material gas) to the heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2), resulting in partial condensation (page 6, para. 6) of the mixture (raw material gas) into a liquid phase (liquid to bottom of SEPA) enriched in carbon dioxide (page 6, para. 6) and a gas phase (at least to 23) depleted in carbon dioxide (column 5, line 35-38), the mixture (raw material gas) exiting the heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2) at a second temperature lower than the first temperature (per cooling by HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2; page 6, para. 6), said heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2) being at least partially cooled by a gaseous fluid (after TURB; page 6, para. 6) which is heated in the heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2) by indirect heat exchange (therein);
b) separating the liquid phase (liquid to bottom of SEPA) from the gas phase (from top of SEPA) in a separator vessel (SEPA);
c) heating of at least one part of the gas phase (from top of SEPA) originating from the separator vessel (SEPA) in the heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2) by indirect heat exchange to form at least one heated part (toward MEMB) of the gas phase (from top of SEPA), wherein a membrane feed (into MEMB) comprises the at least one heated part (toward MEMB) of the gas phase (from top of SEPA);
d) sending the membrane feed (into MEMB) to a membrane separation unit (MEMB, page 56, para. 4; page 7, para. 1) as a sole feed flow (entering MEMB) of the membrane separation unit (MEMB), and generating a permeate (permeate, page 6, para. 3) enriched in hydrogen and/or carbon dioxide (page 5, para. 4; page 7, para. 7) and depleted in the at least one component lighter than carbon dioxide with respect to the membrane feed (into MEMB), and at least one residue (retentate, page 7, para. 4) depleted in hydrogen and carbon dioxide (page 7, para. 4; see that the residue is depleted in a combination of hydrogen and carbon dioxide) and enriched in the at least one component lighter than carbon dioxide with respect to the membrane feed (into MEMB);
e) expanding (via TURB) the at least one residue (from MEMB to TURB) from a first pressure (before TURB) to a second pressure (pressure after TURB) in one or more turbines (TURB) thereby producing an expanded residue (after TURB), wherein the expanded residue (after TURB) is at a third temperature lower than the first temperature (per expansion cooling); and
wherein the gaseous fluid (after TURB; page 6, para. 6) of the step (a) comprises the expanded residue (after TURB),
wherein the at least one residue (from MEMB to TURB) is sent from the membrane separation unit (MEMB) to the one or more turbines (TURB) without passing through the heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2).
In regard to claim 2, Liao teaches that the first temperature is greater than 0°C (page 6, para. 5).
In regard to claim 3, Liao teaches that the second temperature is less than 0°C (page 6, para. 6).
In regard to claim 9, Liao teaches that the liquid produced in the step b) (liquid from SEPA) contains at least 60 mol% carbon dioxide (page 6, para. 6).
In regard to claim 11, Liao teaches that no part of the permeate (permeate FP) is sent to the separation of the step b) (see that FP does not go directly to SEPA).
In regard to claim 12, Liao teaches that the residue (retentate) is sent to the one or more turbines (TURB) without being passed through a combustion chamber (no combustor).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 6, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (CN 106931722) in view of Granados (US 2019/0118134) or LeClerc (US 2023/0027743). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 6, Liao teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach that the membrane feed (into MEMB) further comprises a second part of the gas phase produced in the separator vessel that bypasses the heat exchanger and is therefore not heated in the heat exchanger , the at least one heated part of the gas phase and the second part of the gas phase being mixed downstream of the heat exchanger to form a mixed flow, a ratio between flow rates of the at least one heated part of the gas phase and the second part of the gas phase being regulated in order to reach a target temperature of the mixed flow.
However, Granados teaches that such provides precise temperature control during transient phases of operation (para. 65). Granados teaches at least part (24) of a gas phase (to 23) produced in a separator vessel (PS1, PS2) is heated in a heat exchanger (H) and a second part (26) of the gas phase (to 23) produced in the separator vessel (PS1, PS2) that bypasses the heat exchanger (H) and is therefore not heated in the heat exchanger (H), the at least one part (24) of the gas phase and the second part (26) of the gas phase being mixed downstream of the heat exchanger (H) to form a mixed flow (toward V4 or V6 upstream of M), a ratio between flow rates of the at least one part (24) of the gas phase and the another part (26) of the gas phase being regulated in order to reach a target temperature (para. 67-68) of the mixed flow (toward V4 or V6 upstream of M).
Alternatively, LeClerc teaches that such provides temperature control. LeClerc teaches at least part (1 to E) of a gas phase produced in a separator vessel (para. 68 distillation) is heated in a heat exchanger (E) and a second part (1A) of the gas phase produced in the separator vessel (para. 68 distillation) that bypasses the heat exchanger (E) and is therefore not heated in the heat exchanger (E), the at least one part (1 to E) and the second part (1A) being mixed downstream of the heat exchanger (E) to form a mixed flow (to M1), a ratio between flow rates of the at least one part (1 to E) and the second part (1A) being regulated in order to reach a target temperature (para. 79) of the mixed flow (to M1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Liao with the temperature control steps of Granados or LeClerc for the purpose of providing improved temperature control of the process during transients periods (para. 65).
In regard to claim 8, Liao teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not appear to explicitly teach that the mixture (raw material gas) is a waste gas from an adsorption process. However, Granados teaches that the mixture (11) is a waste gas from an adsorption process (A, para. 55-56). Alternatively, LeClerc teaches the mixture (1) is a waste gas of an adsorption process (para. 68 “adsorption unit”). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Liao to process such a waste gas for the purpose of profiting from the separation and purification thereof and expanding the applicability of Liao.
In regard to claim 10, Liao teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not appear to explicitly teach that a first fluid is recycled to the adsorption process, as claimed. However, Granados teaches that the permeate (para. 82) is recycled to the adsorption process (A, para. 55-56). Alternatively, LeClerc teaches the permeate (7) is recycled (para. 74 providing regeneration) to the adsorption process (para. 68 “adsorption unit”). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Liao to recycle a first fluid to the adsorption process as taught by Grandos for the purpose of extracting hydrogen therefrom thus increasing the hydrogen production or to recycle a first fluid to the adsorption process as taught by LeClerc for the purpose of renewing the adsorption process so that more hydrogen can be appropriately processed than if the adsorption process fails to properly function.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrien (US 2012/0292574) in view of Liao (CN 106931722). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Terrien teaches a process (see whole disclosure) for separating a mixture (1, para. 21) containing hydrogen and carbon dioxide (para. 21) and a compound (see nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide at least para. 49) lighter than carbon dioxide, the process comprising:
a) cooling of the mixture (1) from a first temperature in a heat exchanger (para. 37, heat exchanger) by sending the mixture (1) to the heat exchanger (heat exchanger), resulting in partial condensation (para. 38 “partial liquefaction”) of the mixture (1) into a liquid phase (liquid carbon dioxide, para. 39) enriched in carbon dioxide (para. 39) and a gas phase (10) depleted in carbon dioxide (para. 39-40), the mixture (1) exiting the heat exchanger (heat exchanger) at a second temperature lower than the first temperature (per cooling);
b) separating the liquid phase (9) from the gas phase (gas from top) in a separator vessel (distillation column);
c) heating of at least one part of the gas phase (gas from top) originating from the separator vessel (distillation column) in the heat exchanger (heat exchanger; see para. 38) by indirect heat exchange to form at least one heated part (toward 11, 14) of the gas phase (from top of distillation column), wherein a membrane feed (10) comprises the at least one heated part (toward 11, 14) of the gas phase (from top of distillation column);
d) sending the membrane feed (10) to a membrane separation unit (11, 14) as a sole feed flow (only feed) of the membrane separation unit (11, 14), and generating a permeate (permeate, 12, para. 41) enriched in hydrogen (para. 41) and depleted in the at least one component lighter than carbon dioxide (para. 49) with respect to the membrane feed (10), and at least one residue (16) depleted in hydrogen and carbon dioxide (para. 50) and enriched in the at least one component lighter than carbon dioxide (para. 49) with respect to the membrane feed (10).
Terrien teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach expanding the residue stream with a turbine as claimed and cooling the heat exchanger with the expanded residue stream, as claimed. However, employing turbines to provide refrigeration is routine and well-known as taught at least by Liao. Liao teaches a process (Fig. 1) for separating a mixture (raw material gas, page 6, para. 2) containing hydrogen and carbon dioxide (page 6, para. 2) and a compound (see nitrogen at least) lighter than carbon dioxide (page 6, para. 2), the process comprising:
a) cooling of the mixture (raw material gas) from a first temperature (entering HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2) in a heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2) by sending the mixture (raw material gas) to the heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2), resulting in partial condensation (page 6, para. 6) of the mixture (raw material gas) into a liquid phase (liquid to bottom of SEPA) enriched in carbon dioxide (page 6, para. 6) and a gas phase (at least to 23) depleted in carbon dioxide (column 5, line 35-38), the mixture (raw material gas) exiting the heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2) at a second temperature lower than the first temperature (per cooling by HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2; page 6, para. 6), said heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2) being at least partially cooled by a gaseous fluid (after TURB; page 6, para. 6) which is heated in the heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2) by indirect heat exchange (therein);
b) separating the liquid phase (liquid to bottom of SEPA) from the gas phase (from top of SEPA) in a separator vessel (SEPA);
c) heating of at least one part of the gas phase (from top of SEPA) originating from the separator vessel (SEPA) in the heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2) by indirect heat exchange to form at least one heated part (toward MEMB) of the gas phase (from top of SEPA), wherein a membrane feed (into MEMB) comprises the at least one heated part (toward MEMB) of the gas phase (from top of SEPA);
d) sending the membrane feed (into MEMB) to a membrane separation unit (MEMB, page 56, para. 4; page 7, para. 1) and generating a permeate (permeate, page 6, para. 3) and at least one residue (retentate, page 7, para. 4);
e) expanding (via TURB) the at least one residue (from MEMB to TURB) from a first pressure (before TURB) to a second pressure (pressure after TURB) in one or more turbines (TURB) thereby producing an expanded residue (after TURB), wherein the expanded residue (after TURB) is at a third temperature lower than the first temperature (per expansion cooling); and
wherein the gaseous fluid (after TURB; page 6, para. 6) of the step (a) comprises the expanded residue (after TURB),
wherein the at least one residue (from MEMB to TURB) is sent from the membrane separation unit (MEMB) to the one or more turbines (TURB) without passing through the heat exchanger (HEAT1, MHEX, HEAT2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Terrien with the turbine and cooling as taught by Liao for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the process and reducing external power and cooling demands and taking advantage of high pressure fluids of Terrien (para. 40).
In regard to claim 2, Terrien teaches that the first temperature is greater than 0°C (para. 25).
In regard to claim 3, Terrien teaches that the second temperature is less than 0°C (para. 37).
In regard to claim 8, Terrien teaches that the mixture (1) is a waste gas from an adsorption process (para. 20).
In regard to claim 9, Terrien teaches that the liquid produced in the step b) (liquid from distillation vessel) contains at least 60 mol% carbon dioxide (para. 39).
In regard to claim 10, Liao teaches a first fluid (12) is recycled to the adsorption process (para. 45).
In regard to claim 11, Terrien teaches that no part of the permeate (12) is sent to the separation of the step b) (see that 12 does not go directly to distillation vessel).
In regard to claim 12, Terrien teaches that the residue (16) is sent to the one or more turbines (Liao - TURB) without being passed through a combustion chamber (no combustor taught in Liao).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrien (US 2012/0292574) in view of Liao (CN 106931722) and further in view of Granados (US 2019/0118134) or LeClerc (US 2023/0027743). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 6, Terrien teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach that the membrane feed (10) further comprises a second part of the gas phase produced in the separator vessel that bypasses the heat exchanger and is therefore not heated in the heat exchanger, the at least one heated part of the gas phase and the second part of the gas phase being mixed downstream of the heat exchanger to form a mixed flow, a ratio between flow rates of the at least one heated part of the gas phase and the second part of the gas phase being regulated in order to reach a target temperature of the mixed flow.
However, Granados teaches that such provides precise temperature control during transient phases of operation (para. 65). Granados teaches at least part (24) of a gas phase (to 23) produced in a separator vessel (PS1, PS2) is heated in a heat exchanger (H) and a second part (26) of the gas phase (to 23) produced in the separator vessel (PS1, PS2) that bypasses the heat exchanger (H) and is therefore not heated in the heat exchanger (H), the at least one part (24) of the gas phase and the second part (26) of the gas phase being mixed downstream of the heat exchanger (H) to form a mixed flow (toward V4 or V6 upstream of M), a ratio between flow rates of the at least one part (24) of the gas phase and the another part (26) of the gas phase being regulated in order to reach a target temperature (para. 67-68) of the mixed flow (toward V4 or V6 upstream of M).
Alternatively, LeClerc teaches that such provides temperature control. LeClerc teaches at least part (1 to E) of a gas phase produced in a separator vessel (para. 68 distillation) is heated in a heat exchanger (E) and a second part (1A) of the gas phase produced in the separator vessel (para. 68 distillation) that bypasses the heat exchanger (E) and is therefore not heated in the heat exchanger (E), the at least one part (1 to E) and the second part (1A) being mixed downstream of the heat exchanger (E) to form a mixed flow (to M1), a ratio between flow rates of the at least one part (1 to E) and the second part (1A) being regulated in order to reach a target temperature (para. 79) of the mixed flow (to M1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Terrien with the temperature control steps of Granados or LeClerc for the purpose of providing improved temperature control of the process during transients periods (para. 65).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 14, para. 2) are an allegation that merely because the recitation does not use the term “means” is reason enough for the recitation not qualify as a 112(f) recitation. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since the recitation meets the three-prong test (see page 6 above).
Applicant's arguments (page 14, para. 3) are an allegation that membrane separation unit does not contain a generic placeholder.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since “unit” is a nonce term.
Applicant's arguments (page 14) are an allegation that the term membrane separation unit imparts definite structure: a physical housing containing semi-permeable materials (such as polymer membranes, hollow fibers, or spiral-wound modules) specifically selected for their differential permeability to gases like hydrogen and carbon dioxide”. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since it is entirely unsupported and there is nothing supporting the applicant vacant allegation.
Applicant's arguments (page 14-15) are an allegation that the specification “explicitly details” that the membrane separation process can occur in “two membrane units”. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as there is nothing in the specification that details what structure the membrane separation unit must have. The cited excerpt never even references a “membrane separation unit” much less provide a clear definition of such.
Applicant's arguments (page 15) are an allegation that the specification “anchors the unit structurally”. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since the specification provides no definition or physical description and merely the fact that there are output streams does not define the structure to be two membranes or have a housing as falsely alleged.
Applicant's arguments (page 16) are an allegation that the membrane of Liao is deficient. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since the claim only requires the permeate be “enriched in hydrogen and/or carbon dioxide” and therefore as Liao explicitly teaches that the permeate is enriched in carbon dioxide (page 7), Liao meets the claim. Further, as the residue is depleted of the combination of hydrogen and Carbon dioxide, the residue of Liao is within the scope of the recitation, and the allegation is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571) 272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
