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 .
This communication is in response to the application filed 11/20/2023.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
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 4-6 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 5-6 which depend on 4 are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 5-6, the phrase “the number of trays of said column can vary, depending on the quality of the waste oil to be regenerated” is unclear. As written, it is unclear if the tray number of the column is set, based on the waste oil, or varies with waste oil feed. The former is assumed for rejection below.
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.
Claim 1 recites “means of by-pass of the pipes which supply said main column” and claims 1 and 3 recite “liquid stopping means.” Both are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0276517), alternatively, further in view of Shinskey (US 4,030,986).
With respect to claim 1, Kim teaches a distillation apparatus comprising two distillation columns connected to a plant, wherein the connection to the plant (e.g. lines 12 and 22 in Figure 1) includes a valve stopping/allowing flow to each column (Figure; ). The column connection allows the distillation columns to operate in parallel or in series (abstract). Where in parallel, one column may be bypassed. Kim teaches valves for stopping and allowing flow to the columns to “switch between the serial connection mode and the parallel connection mode continuously without shutting the serial connection mode and the parallel connection mode down, thereby reducing the economic loss that may occur upon the shutdown” (0013).
Kim is silent regarding wherein the valve is acted upon when the pressure drops downstream of the main column exceed a preset threshold value. However, the claims are directed to an apparatus, Kim teaches the apparatus which is capable of operating in response to pressure drop as claimed.
Alternatively, Shinskey teaches a process and apparatus for control of a distillation column. Column pressure or differential pressure is utilized to control the column (figure; col. 3-4). Considerations include at least safe maximum pressure, pressure as an indication of column flooding, minimum effective pressure, and maintaining product purity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to control the columns of Kim utilizing pressure, as known in the art and shown by Shinskey.
With respect to claim 2 and the relative size of the two columns, Kim teaches in one example wherein the two columns are simultaneously operated and the second at a lower capacity than the first (0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a smaller second column to reduce cost. Only a smaller column is required in each of the operation modes because a smaller column would add capacity as desired for increased feed scenario (see abstract) and smaller column would be required in serial mode given only a portion of the first flow rate is passed to the second column, and a different sized column would provide additional flexibility in minimum flow situations.
With respect to claim 3, Kim teaches using valves for stopping or allowing the flow of fluid (0021, 0009, 0032), i.e. shut off valves.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Blasny (US 4,071,738) in view of Kim; alternatviey, over O’Blasny in view of Kim and Shinskey.
With respect to claim 4, O'Blasny teaches an apparatus for regeneration of waste oil comprising a first and separate fractionation column, the second under vacuum, working in series (abstract; figure; col. 2, lines 25+). O'Blasny is silent regarding wherein the columns are connected so that one column may be bypassed. Kim teaches a distillation apparatus comprising two distillation columns connected to a plant, wherein the two columns are connected such that they may be connected in parallel, with flow directly to either column, or connected in series, as in O'Blasny. O'Blasny teaches wherein the connection to the plant (e.g. lines 12 and 22 in Figure 1) includes a valve stopping/allowing flow to each column (Figure). The column connection allows the distillation columns to operate in parallel or in series (abstract). Where in parallel, it is known that one may be bypassed.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, O'Blasny teaches using distillation column of “conventional construction and includes a plurality of vertically spaced trays 44, which facilitate distillation of the oil fed to the tower. For purposes of illustration three such trays have been depicted, but it is to be understood that essentially any number thereof could be provided, depending upon the degree of refinement desired.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3,420,748 teaches parallel distillation columns with controlled feedstock division.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771