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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “separator conduit” 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 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:
“internal means” (or “internal separation means”) produce a spiral flow in a liquid and gas mixture flowing vertically through the conduit in claims 1 and 17.
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.
Fig. 1 discloses that the structure that correspond to “internal means” may be a spiral insert 50 in paragraph [0027].
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5, 11, and 14 recite the limitation "the same".
Claims 5-6, and 10-11 recite the limitation "the top".
Claims 4, 8, and 13 recite the limitation "the range".
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the cross-sectional area and dimensions" in line 2.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "internal spiral flow means" in line 1.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As regarding claims 4-5, 8, 11, 13, and 17, the word "substantially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the word "substantially" is a required by the Applicant as part of the claimed invention or not.
Claims 18-20 depend on claim 17; and hence are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites “the vortex separation section comprising internal separation means” in line 9. It is unclear whether the “internal separation means” in line 9 is intended to be the same as the “internal means” in line 6 of claim 1, or whether these terms refer to different elements.
A similar rejection applies to claim 17.
Claims 2-16 and 18-20 depend on claims 1, 17; and hence are also rejected.
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, 6-7, 9-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gauthier et al (US 20110036752; hereinafter Gauthier).
As regarding claim 1, Gauthier discloses the claimed invention for a gas-liquid separator (figs. 2-3), adapted for separating liquid and gas in an ebullated bed reactor (1 of fig. 3) under operating conditions, the separation device comprising: a transfer conduit (31) for transferring a gas-liquid mixture stream from a lower section of an ebullated bed reactor to an upper section of the reactor, wherein the conduit is oriented vertically during operation in the reactor, the conduit having a lower opening and an upper opening, and comprising internal means to produce a spiral flow in a liquid and gas mixture flowing vertically through the conduit; a vortex separation section, located on top of and adjacent to the upper opening of the transfer conduit, the vortex separation section comprising internal separation means for separating the gas-liquid mixture stream into a liquid-rich stream and a gas-rich stream, a top plate, an outlet for the liquid-rich stream, and an outlet for the gas-rich stream; and a gas-rich stream outlet conduit located on top of and adjacent to the vortex separation section and in fluid communication with the gas-rich stream outlet of the vortex separation section (annotated fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As regarding claim 2, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention for wherein the transfer conduit comprises lower and upper sections, the lower and upper sections being open on both ends and configured to fit together at corresponding ends to form the conduit, the upper section comprising the internal means to produce a spiral flow in a gas-liquid mixture flowing through the conduit and the lower section being configured to allow a gas-liquid mixture to flow into the lower opening and pass through the lower section into the lower end of the conduit upper section (annotated fig. 3).
As regarding claim 3, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention for wherein the transfer conduit lower section is adapted to fit in corresponding openings in a flow-through pan (200) of an ebullated bed reactor (1) so that a gas-liquid mixture can be passed from the lower section of the reactor into the separation device.
As regarding claim 6, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention for wherein the vortex separation section is open on the bottom, has a cross-sectional area and dimensions that are larger than the transfer conduit, is positioned over the top of the transfer conduit and extends below the top of the transfer conduit (annotated fig. 3).
As regarding claim 7, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention for wherein the vortex separation section is sized to provide a liquid flow pathway between the exterior of the conduit and the interior of the vortex separation section (annotated fig. 3).
As regarding claim 9, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention for wherein the liquid-rich stream outlet comprises the liquid flow pathway (annotated fig. 3).
As regarding claim 10, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention for wherein the gas-rich stream outlet is located at the top of the vortex separation section (annotated fig. 3).
As regarding claim 11, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention for wherein the internal separation means comprises a separator conduit extending from the top of the vortex separation section to the transfer conduit upper opening, the separator conduit being aligned with and having substantially the same cross-sectional dimensions as the gas-rich stream outlet (annotated fig. 3).
As regarding claim 12, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention for wherein the internal separation means comprises a separator conduit having a smaller cross-sectional area and dimensions than the cross-sectional area and dimensions of the transfer conduit (annotated fig. 3).
As regarding claim 14, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention for wherein the transfer conduit, the internal spiral flow means, the vortex separation section, the internal separation means, the gas-rich stream outlet, and the gas-rich stream outlet conduit are centrally aligned about the same vertical axis (annotated fig. 3).
As regarding claim 15, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention for a flow through pan gas-liquid separator (200) for an ebullated bed reactor comprising a plurality of separators (fig. 3).
As regarding claim 16, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention for an ebullated bed reactor (1) comprising the flow through pan gas-liquid separator (200).
Claims 17-20 are likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth for claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-12, 14-16 above.
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 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) 4-5, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier et al (US 20110036752; hereinafter Gauthier).
As regarding claim 4, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the upper and lower sections of the transfer conduit are substantially round or pipe sections having diameters in the range of about 2 to 8 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the upper and lower sections of the transfer conduit are substantially round or pipe sections having diameters in the range of about 2 to 8 inches in order to enhance vortex separator performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As regarding claim 5, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the internal means to produce a spiral flow in a liquid and gas mixture is a spiral or helical insert having a length substantially the same as the length of the transfer conduit upper section, wherein the insert is positioned within the transfer conduit upper section from the top to the bottom of the upper section and has substantially the same dimensions as the interior cross-section of the transfer conduit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the internal means to produce a spiral flow in a liquid and gas mixture is a spiral or helical insert having a length substantially the same as the length of the transfer conduit upper section, wherein the insert is positioned within the transfer conduit upper section from the top to the bottom of the upper section and has substantially the same dimensions as the interior cross-section of the transfer conduit in order to enhance vortex separator performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Amblard et al (US 20190321753; hereinafter Amblard; helicoidal spiral 42 is positioned about upper section showed in fig. 2).
As regarding claim 8, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the vortex separation section is substantially round or a pipe section having a diameter in the range of about 4 to 12 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the vortex separation section is substantially round or a pipe section having a diameter in the range of about 4 to 12 inches in order to enhance vortex separator performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As regarding claim 13, Gauthier discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Gauthier discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the internal separation means is substantially round or a pipe section having a diameter in the range of about 1 to 6 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the internal separation means is substantially round or a pipe section having a diameter in the range of about 1 to 6 inches in order to enhance vortex separator performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at (571) 270-3960. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773