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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2010105266 (to Zmierczak et al.) in view of WO 9303318 A1 (to Albert) in view of Guerra (US 5,800,680).
With respect to claim 1, Zmierczak teaches a method comprising:
replacing a first cooling coil (72) (Figure 3B) in a pressure vessel (70) (Figure 3A) with a second cooling coil (page 17, line 18 to page 18 lines 1-9); and teaches wherein the pressure vessel comprises multiple flanges (as illustrated). Therefore, it would have been obvious that in order to replace the cooling coils it would be necessary that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention would need to start with depressurizing the pressure vessel (70) (Figure 3A) in order to enable accessing the inside of the pressure vessel. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the teachings in Zmierczak would apply to a syngas pressure vessel since both are pressure vessels.
Zmierczak fails to teach providing a bolted flange and a raised seal.
Albert teaches a heat exchanger capable of operating at a pressure of 150-200 bar (page 17, lines 1-17), which is greater than that instantly claimed, wherein the heat exchanger comprises two sections joined by two flanges that include bolts (29) and a seal (24) in order to tightly secure the separable sections of the heat exchanger (page 12, last 2 lines, page 13, lines 1-15) (as illustrated in Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to provide a bolted flange and a seal in the pressure vessel of Zmierczak, as taught by Albert, in order to tightly secure the separable sections of the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention that in order to replace the cooling coil in Zmierczak, it would be necessary to unbolt the first flange attached to a first portion of a body of the pressure vessel (70) from a second flange attached to a second portion of the body of the pressure vessel. Furthermore, it would have been obvious that separating the first portion of the body of the pressure vessel from the second portion of the body of the pressure vessel would be necessary in order to be able to remove the helical insert (76) (page 17, line 18 to page 18 lines 1-9).
Zmierczak in view of Albert fail to teach wherein the seal is a raised ring extending from a face of the first flange from a groove defined in a face of the second flange. Guerra teaches a flange (Figure 1) comprising a tongue-and-groove flange assembly comprising: a first flange (1) with a raised ring extending from a face of the first flange, the first flange (1) attached to the first portion of the body (upper wall) (as illustrated); a second flange (2) with a groove defined in a face of the second flange (2), the second flange (2) attached to the second portion (lower wall) of the body wherein the raised ring extending from the face of the first flange (1) is positioned in the groove defined in the face of the second flange (2) (as illustrated) in order to place a compression gasket between the flanges to help secure a tight seal between the first and the second seal in the system (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the flange of Zmierczak in view of Albert, comprise a raised ring extending from a face of the first flange from a groove defined in a face of the second flange, as taught by Guerra, in order to place a compression gasket between the flanges to help secure a tight seal between the first and the second seal in the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to release the raised ring extending from a face of the first flange from a groove defined in a face of the second flange in order to access the inside of the pressure vessel of Zmierczak in view of Guerra.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention that depressurizing the pressure vessel of Zmierczak would comprise adjusting an internal pressure of the pressure vessel from the existing pressure, which can be as high as 300 bar (page 16, lines 13-14), which encompasses the instantly claimed pressure of 123 and 130 barg, to an atmospheric pressure.
With respect to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention that in order to access the inside of the pressure vessel of Zmierczak one would need to separate the first portion of the body of the pressure vessel from the second portion of the body of the pressure vessel moving the first portion along an axis in a first direction; furthermore, Guerra teaches separating flange (13) by raising it (see Guerra: col. 5, lines 47-58).
With respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention that in order to operate the pressure vessel of Zmierczak in view of Guerra after replacing the helical insert, one would need to rebolt the first flange to the second flange to engage the raised ring of the first flange with the groove of the second flange (Guerra: (col. 3, lines 41-49).
With respect to claim 5, Zmierczak fails to explicitly teach wherein rebolting does not require torque measurements; however, Albert teaches fastening and closing of the flanges and does not state that torque measurement is required.
With respect to claim 6, Guerra further teaches wherein the engagement of the first flange and the second flange is a sealing engagement (Abstract).
With respect to claim 7, Zmierczak teaches pressurizing the pressure vessel containing the second coil to a pressure as high as 300 bar (page 16, lines 13-14), which encompasses the instantly claimed range of between 60 and 84 barg.
With respect to claim 8, Zmierczak teaches pressurizing the pressure vessel containing the second coil to a pressure as high as 300 bar (page 16, lines 13-14), which encompasses the instantly claimed pressure of 133 bar, which reads on the instant claim language of “wherein the pressure vessel is rated to contain pressure up to 133 bar”.
With respect to claim 9, Guerra further teaches wherein the pressure vessel comprises:
a gas/fluid inlet (60) arranged in the second portion of the pressure vessel, and a gas outlet (62) arranged in the second portion of the pressure vessel, wherein the gas outlet (62) is fluidly connected to the gas inlet (60) (as illustrated).
With respect to claim 12, Guerra further teaches wherein separating the first portion of the body of the pressure vessel from the second portion of the body of the pressure vessel comprises lifting the first portion from the second portion using a crane/(hydraulic winch) (col. 5, lines 47-55).
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2010105266 (to Zmierczak et al.) in view of WO 9303318 A1 (to Albert) in view of Guerra (US 5,800,680), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of EA 001857 B1 (to Fetzer) – translation attached and relied upon below.
With respect to claim 10, modified Zmierczak discloses all claim limitations as set forth above but fails to teach wherein the pressure vessel has a diameter between 2.5 meters and 3.1 meters. Fetzer teaches steps for remotely operating a pressure vessel, wherein the vessel comprises flanges that are tightened by bolts (page 4, last paragraph, page 7, last paragraph), and teaches depressurizing the pressure vessel for maintenance purposes (claim 1), (page 7, lines 15-21, page 23, last full paragraph). Fetzer also teaches wherein the pressure vessel has a diameter of 24 feet (7.32 meters) (page 23, 3rd full paragraph), which is greater than the instantly claimed diameter of between 2.5 meters and 3.1 meters. However, change in size/proportion or shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 IV A (size/proportion) MPEP 2144.04 IV B (Shape).
With respect to claim 11, the apparatus of Zmierczak comprises a cooling coil (72) (Figure 3B) which is capable of functioning as an evaporator (page 17, line 18 to page 18 lines 1-9).
With respect to claim 13, modified Zmierczak discloses all claim limitations as set forth above but fails to teach wherein depressurizing the pressure vessel of the pressure vessel comprises depressurizing the pressure vessel at an uncontrolled depressurization rate. Fetzer teaches steps for remotely operating a pressure vessel, wherein the vessel comprises flanges that are tightened by bolts (page 4, last paragraph, page 7, last paragraph), and teaches depressurizing the pressure vessel for maintenance purposes (claim 1), (page 7, lines 15-21, page 23, last full paragraph), Fetzer further teaches depressurizing the pressure vessel at an uncontrolled depressurization rate (page 37, 1st paragraph) in order to rapidly release the gases trapped therein.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to depressurizing the pressure vessel in modified Zmierczak at an uncontrolled depressurization rate, as taught by Fetzer, in order to rapidly release the gases trapped therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 1-2 of the remarks, Applicant mainly argues the following:
Claim 1 has been amended to also recite: “wherein depressurizing the pressure vessel comprises adjusting an internal pressure of the pressure vessel from a range between 123 and 130 barg to an atmospheric pressure.” This feature was originally recited in cancelled claim 2.
The office action acknowledges that neither Zmierczak nor Albert discloses this feature. Guerra does not remedy this deficiency because the proposed combination of references is inappropriate because obviousness requires a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143.02).
Guerra discloses “a system for fastening and sealing the flanges of the inlets of pressure vessels operating under extreme temperature conditions and with frequent opening/closing cycles, as is the case of coking vessels[.]” (Abstract, emphasis added). Guerra is silent on any operating pressure range of the vessel. Common coke drums contain pressures between 15 psi and 90 psi (1.0 bar and 6.2 bar). (See e.g., btips.//www sciencedirect. com/topics/engineering/coking-drum, 5.3.2.1 Delayed Coking). In contrast, Zmierczak discloses a system that operates at pressures up to about 300 bar (Zmierczak, page 16, line 14) and Albert’s bayonet heat exchanger operates at a pressure between 150-200 bar (Albert, page 17, lines 1-17). There is no indication that that the tongue and groove flange described in Guerra would be capable of withstanding the pressures present at Zmierczak and Albert’s system are operated. The effectiveness of closure for use in pressure vessels containing pressures between 1.0 bar and 6.2 bar would not provide a person of ordinary skill in the art a reasonable expectation that the closure would be successfully used in pressure vessels containing pressures of 300 bar (Zmierczak) or between 150-200 bar (Albert). For at least this reason, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the Zmierczak / Albert combination to include the tongue and groove flange fastener as described in Guerra.
Fetzer has not been asserted to disclose any of the features discussed above with respect to claim 1.
For at least this reason, cited references do not support the legal conclusion that claim 1 is obvious. Accordingly, the applicant requests that the rejection of claim 1 and associated dependent claims as unpatentable over Albert and Guerra be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Guerra was not relied upon to teach the operating pressure of a pressure vessel, or to teach incorporating a tongue-and-groove flange, but rather to teach the missing feature in Zmierczak in view of Albert, i.e. wherein the seal is a raised ring extending from a face of the first flange from a groove defined in a face of the second flange. As set forth above, Guerra teaches a flange (Figure 1) comprising a tongue-and-groove flange assembly comprising: a first flange (1) with a raised ring extending from a face of the first flange, the first flange (1) attached to the first portion of the body (upper wall) (as illustrated); a second flange (2) with a groove defined in a face of the second flange (2), the second flange (2) attached to the second portion (lower wall) of the body wherein the raised ring extending from the face of the first flange (1) is positioned in the groove defined in the face of the second flange (2) (as illustrated) in order to place a compression gasket between the flanges to help secure a tight seal between the first and the second seal in the system (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the flange of Zmierczak in view of Albert, comprise a raised ring extending from a face of the first flange from a groove defined in a face of the second flange, as taught by Guerra, in order to place a compression gasket between the flanges to help secure a tight seal between the first and the second seal in the system.
Regarding, the limitations added to instant claim1 (previously claim 2), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention that depressurizing the pressure vessel of Zmierczak would comprise, and in fact require, adjusting an internal pressure of the pressure vessel from the existing pressure, which can be as high as 300 bar (page 16, lines 13-14), which encompasses the instantly claimed pressure of 123 and 130 barg, to an atmospheric pressure for safety reason, similar to depressurizing a pressure cooker.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached on 571-272-1453. 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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 12/15/2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725