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 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 1 recites “the expanded nitrogen-enriched vapor stream” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be the stream that was expanded in the expander.
The term “crude ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “crude” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, as long as the stream comes from the bottom of one of the columns where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize there is a crude stream produced, the limitation is met.
Claim 3 recites “the reboiler-condenser of the fourth column” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. The fourth column has no previously recited reboiler-condenser and a reboiler-condenser is not an inherent component of a column. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the fourth column has a reboiler-condenser.
Claim 3 recites “a portion of the crude oxygen stream output from the first column and/or a portion of the crude oxygen stream output form the second column” which is considered indefinite. The claims previous there is “at least a portion” of the respective streams so it is unclear if the portion is referring to a portion of those streams such that the original portion is different. For the purpose of examination, as long as crude oxygen is fed to the fourth column reboiler-condenser the limitation is met.
Claim 4 recites “a reboiler-condenser of the fourth column” which is considered indefinite as claim 3 has already positively required the presence of a reboiler-condenser. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be the same reboiler-condenser.
Claim 5 recites “the reboiler-condenser of the fourth column” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. The fourth column has no previously recited reboiler-condenser and a reboiler-condenser is not an inherent component of a column. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the fourth column has a reboiler-condenser.
Claim 6 recites pressure ranges for the first and second pressure range which overlap; however, claim 1 requires the first pressure range be above the second pressure range, which renders claim 6 indefinite. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the possible pressure ranges can overlap but that as positively claimed, if the first pressure range includes the overlapping area, then the second pressure must be below that.
Claim 7 recites “the first reboiler-condenser positioned between the second column and the third column within a vessel shell” which is considered indefinite. For the first reboiler-condenser to be positioned within a vessel shell and be between the columns it is unclear what the configuration would be and this is also inconsistent with what is shown in the specification. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the reboiler-condenser is in the sump of the third column within the overall vessel shell that has the third column as although is described as being between the two columns as shown in the figure, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the location is provided at would also be considered the bottom of the low pressure column and that it is providing boiling to the sump of the column (stream 835 is output form the third column but is located below the condenser 112, paragraph 82).
Claim 9 recites “to vaporize a portion of the oxygen product” which is considered indefinite. The claims have not previously recited that the oxygen product contains liquid so it is unclear how it could be vaporized when the product does not have to be a liquid. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the oxygen product contains at least some liquid that is vaporized in the heat exchanger.
Claim 10 recites “the first reboiler-condenser positioned between the second column and the third column within a vessel shell” which is considered indefinite. For the first reboiler-condenser to be positioned within a vessel shell and be between the columns it is unclear what the configuration would be and this is also inconsistent with what is shown in the specification. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the reboiler-condenser is in the sump of the third column within the overall vessel shell that has the third column as although is described as being between the two columns as shown in the figure, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the location is provided at would also be considered the bottom of the low pressure column and that it is providing boiling to the sump of the column (stream 835 is output form the third column but is located below the condenser 112, paragraph 82).
Claim 11 recites “at least a portion of the crude oxygen stream” twice with respect to streams from the first and second column but is unclear if these are the same streams referred to in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood to be the same streams.
The term “crude ” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “crude” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, as long as the stream comes from the bottom of one of the columns where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize there is a crude stream produced, the limitation is met.
Claim 12 recites “the expanded nitrogen-enriched vapor stream” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be the stream that was expanded in the expander.
Claim 14 recites “a first reboiler-condenser positioned between the second column and the third column within a vessel shell” which is considered indefinite. For the first reboiler-condenser to be positioned within a vessel shell and be between the columns it is unclear what the configuration would be and this is also inconsistent with what is shown in the specification. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the reboiler-condenser is in the sump of the third column within the overall vessel shell that has the third column as although is described as being between the two columns as shown in the figure, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the location is provided at would also be considered the bottom of the low pressure column and that it is providing boiling to the sump of the column (stream 835 is output form the third column but is located below the condenser 112, paragraph 82).
Claim 16 recites “a first reboiler-condenser positioned between the second column and the third column within a vessel shell” which is considered indefinite. For the first reboiler-condenser to be positioned within a vessel shell and be between the columns it is unclear what the configuration would be and this is also inconsistent with what is shown in the specification. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the reboiler-condenser is in the sump of the third column within the overall vessel shell that has the third column as although is described as being between the two columns as shown in the figure, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the location is provided at would also be considered the bottom of the low pressure column and that it is providing boiling to the sump of the column (stream 835 is output form the third column but is located below the condenser 112, paragraph 82).
Claim 17 recites “a reboiler-condenser of the fourth column” which is considered indefinite as the fourth column has no previously recited reboiler-condenser and a reboiler-condenser is not an inherent component of a column. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the fourth column has a reboiler-condenser.
Claim 18 recites “the heat exchanger, the heat exchanger” in line 1 which is considered indefinite as claims already positively require the heat exchanger. For the purpose of examination, the first recitation of “the heat exchanger” is considered to be repetitive.
Claim 19 recites “a first reboiler-condenser positioned between the second column and the third column within a vessel shell” which is considered indefinite. For the first reboiler-condenser to be positioned within a vessel shell and be between the columns it is unclear what the configuration would be and this is also inconsistent with what is shown in the specification. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the reboiler-condenser is in the sump of the third column within the overall vessel shell that has the third column as although is described as being between the two columns as shown in the figure, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the location is provided at would also be considered the bottom of the low pressure column and that it is providing boiling to the sump of the column (stream 835 is output form the third column but is located below the condenser 112, paragraph 82).
Claim 19 recites “to receive at least one of the streams of crude oxygen output form the bottom portion of the first column and/or the stream of crude oxygen output from the bottom portion of the second column” which is considered indefinite has not required receiving streams but a portion of a stream. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are considered the same as in claim 12.
Claim 20 recites pressure ranges for the first and second pressure range which overlap; however, claim 1 requires the first pressure range be above the second pressure range, which renders claim 6 indefinite. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the possible pressure ranges can overlap but that as positively claimed, if the first pressure range includes the overlapping area, then the second pressure must be below that.
Claims 2, 8, 13, and 15 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
Condensed nitrogen-enriched vapor used in multiple claims is understood to be a liquid nitrogen stream.
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.
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.
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: compression system in claim 12 is understood to be a compressor.
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) 1-2, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubev (WO2020169257A1), hereinafter referred to as Golubev and further in view of Golubev (US PG Pub 20180017322), hereinafter referred to as Dimitri.
With respect to claim 1, Golubev teaches (Figure 1) a process for providing nitrogen and oxygen comprising:
splitting a feed of air (feed air is split into streams b and c, paragraph 177) for feeding some of the air to a first column and some of the air to a second column (stream b is fed into first column 11 and stream c is fed into second column 12, paragraph 179), the first column operating at a first pressure range and the second column operating at a second pressure range, the first pressure range being a higher-pressure range than the second pressure range (column 11 operates at a pressure higher than column 12, Paragraphs 170-171);
feeding a stream of crude oxygen to a third column, the crude oxygen being comprised of at least or at least a portion of a crude oxygen stream output from the second column (bottom liquid stream from column 12, which would be recognized as a crude oxygen stream as it would as that is what the stream at the bottom of double column would be is fed as stream h into 111 and a liquid portion of that is withdrawn at k from 111 which is fed to the third column 13, paragraphs 184-185, which is a sump liquid which has an increased oxygen content, paragraph 171 which would make it a crude oxygen stream being withdrawn), the third column operating at a third pressure range, the third pressure range being a lower pressure range than the second pressure range (the pressure of the third column is below the pressure of the second column, paragraph 171);
outputting a nitrogen-enriched vapor stream form the second column and feeding the nitrogen-enriched vapor stream to a heat exchanger (stream n removed form column 12 which is heated in the main exchanger 4, paragraph 187).
and outputting a nitrogen-rich stream from the first column (stream g is a gaseous nitrogen removed from 11, paragraph 182) and outputting an oxygen product stream from the third column (p is removed from column 13 as a gaseous oxygen product, paragraph 206).
Golubev does not teach outputting a nitrogen-enriched vapor stream from the second column and feeding the nitrogen-enriched vapor stream output from the second column to an expander to be expanded therein; feeding the expanded nitrogen-enriched vapor stream to a heat exchanger as a refrigerant for pre-cooling the air being fed to the first column and the second column.
Dimitri teaches that the overhead nitrogen stream from a high-pressure column of a double column is removed from the column, warmed in the heat exchanger, removed, expanded in a generator turbine, and then passed back into the heat exchanger where it is warmed again and then recovered as a product (paragraph 54).
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 Dimitri to have in Golubev when heating the stream n of head gas which has nitrogen to have partially heated it in the heat exchanger, expanded it in an expander turbine and then heated it further in the heat exchanger since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing heating in this way would provide what is common knowledge in the art of the predictable result of being able to generate energy for use within the system through the expansion while also being able to increase the cold energy recovered from the nitrogen stream by lowering its temperature through the expansion. This would result in the nitrogen enriched vapor after expansion being used for pre-cooling the air as it is cooling at least part of the beginning of the heat exchanger.
With respect to claim 2, Golubev as modified does not teach wherein the nitrogen-rich stream is output from the first column and comprises between 98.5 mole percent (mol%) nitrogen and 100 mol% nitrogen.
Golubev teaches that for air separation systems there is an increasing demand for high purity nitrogen based on the application of use (paragraph 33).
As such, the purity of the nitrogen produced is a result effective variable, dependent upon the use of the produced nitrogen. Further it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Golubev as modified to have had the nitrogen-rich stream form the first column in the purity range as claimed as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to required adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Golubev as modified by making the nitrogen-rich stream output from the first column and comprises between 98.5 mole percent (mol%) nitrogen and 100 mol% 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).
With respect to claim 12, Golubev as modified teaches an apparatus (Figure 1) for providing nitrogen and oxygen, comprising:
a first column configured to operate at a first pressure range (column 11 in a first pressure area, paragraph 171), the first column positioned to receive a first column feed of air output from a compression system (compressor 11 provides air via b to 11, paragraphs 176-177, 179);
a second column configured to operate at a second pressure range, the second pressure range being a lower pressure range than the first pressure range (column 12 which operates in a pressure range below the first pressure range, paragraph 171), the second column positioned to receive a second column feed of air output from the compression system (partial stream c also formed from compression system 1 is passed to column 12, paragraphs 176-177, 179, the second column configured to output a stream of nitrogen-enriched vapor (head gas I of column 12 is a gaseous nitrogen stream, paragraphs 186-187);
a third column (13) positioned to receive at least one stream of crude oxygen via a portion of a stream of crude oxygen output from a bottom portion of from a bottom portion of the second column (bottom liquid stream from column 12, which would be recognized as a crude oxygen stream as it would as that is what the stream at the bottom of double column would be is fed as stream h into 111 and a liquid portion of that is withdrawn at k from 111 which is fed to the third column 13, paragraphs 184-185, which is a sump liquid which has an increased oxygen content, paragraph 171 which would make it a crude oxygen stream being withdrawn) and output an oxygen product stream (p is removed from column 13 as a gaseous oxygen product, paragraph 206);
Golubev does not teach an expander positioned to receive the nitrogen-enriched vapor output from the second column to expand the nitrogen-enriched vapor and feed the expanded nitrogen-enriched vapor to a heat exchanger as a refrigerant, the heat exchanger positioned to pre-cool the air upstream of the first column and the second column.
Dimitri teaches that the overhead nitrogen stream from a high-pressure column of a double column is removed from the column, warmed in the heat exchanger, removed, expanded in a generator turbine, and then passed back into the heat exchanger where it is warmed again and then recovered as a product (paragraph 54).
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 Dimitri to have in Golubev when heating the stream n of head gas which has nitrogen to have partially heated it in the heat exchanger, expanded it in an expander turbine and then heated it further in the heat exchanger since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing heating in this way would provide what is common knowledge in the art of the predictable result of being able to generate energy for use within the system through the expansion while also being able to increase the cold energy recovered from the nitrogen stream by lowering its temperature through the expansion. This would result in the nitrogen enriched vapor after expansion being used for pre-cooling the air as it is cooling at least part of the beginning of the heat exchanger.
With respect to claim 18, Golubev teaches the heat exchanger, the heat exchanger positioned to receive the nitrogen-enriched vapor output from the second column to warm the nitrogen-enriched vapor via cooling of the air fed to the heat exchanger and feed the warmed nitrogen-enriched vapor to the expander to expand the nitrogen-enriched vapor, the heat exchanger also configured and positioned to receive the expanded nitrogen-enriched vapor out puttable from the expander to pre-cool the air (as modified this is the configuration, where the stream is heated, expands, then is heated again which after expansion would be being used for pre-cooling the air as it is cooling at least part of the beginning of the heat exchanger.
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubev/Dimitri and further in view of Kunz (20210381761), hereinafter referred to as Kunz.
With respect to claim 6, Golubev as modified does not teach wherein: the first pressure range is between 0.42 MPa and 0.7 MPa, the second pressure range is between 0.22 MPa and 0.45 MPa, and the third pressure range is between 0.10 MPa and 0.18 MPa.
Kunz teaches three columns operating in the same configuration as Golubev where the top column 12 of the double column operates at 1.1 to 1.65 bar (paragraph 88), the bottom column 11 of the double column operates at 4 to 7 bar (paragraph 54), the first column 11 is operated at 7 to 12 bar (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 for the columns of Golubev as modified based on the teaching of Kunz to have operated such that the first pressure range is between 0.42 MPa and 0.7 MPa, the second pressure range is between 0.22 MPa and 0.45 MPa, and the third pressure range is between 0.10 MPa and 0.18 MPa as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 21 where it is stated the ranges can have other numerical range values) 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 20, Golubev as modified does not teach wherein: the first pressure range is between 0.42 MPa and 0.7 MPa, the second pressure range is between 0.22 MPa and 0.45 MPa, and the third pressure range is between 0.10 MPa and 0.18 MPa.
Kunz teaches three columns operating in the same configuration as Golubev where the top column 12 of the double column operates at 1.1 to 1.65 bar (paragraph 88), the bottom column 11 of the double column operates at 4 to 7 bar (paragraph 54), the first column 11 is operated at 7 to 12 bar (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 for the columns of Golubev as modified based on the teaching of Kunz to have operated such that the first pressure range is between 0.42 MPa and 0.7 MPa, the second pressure range is between 0.22 MPa and 0.45 MPa, and the third pressure range is between 0.10 MPa and 0.18 MPa as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 21 where it is stated the ranges can have other numerical range values) 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).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubev/Dimitri and further in view of Tachibana (US PG Pub 20160003537), hereinafter referred to as Tachibana.
With respect to claim 7, Golubev as modified teaches at least a portion of a nitrogen-enriched vapor output from the first column to a first reboiler-condenser to condense the nitrogen-enriched vapor (top gas seen as the portion not removed as g is condensed in the top of the first column condenser, paragraph 158 and as seen in the figure passed back as reflux to 11),
Golubev does not teach the first reboiler-condenser positioned between the second column and the third column within a vessel shell so that liquid at a bottom portion of the third column is vaporizable via the first reboiler-condenser; and passing a first portion of the condensed nitrogen-enriched vapor output from the first reboiler-condenser to the first column as a reflux stream for the first column; and splitting a second portion of the condensed nitrogen-enriched vapor output from the first reboiler-condenser from the first portion of the condensed nitrogen-enriched vapor output from the first reboiler-condenser as a liquid nitrogen (LIN) product stream.
Tachibana teaches a low-pressure column (31) can have two reboilers (33 and 34) such that two different overhead streams (L7 and L9) are both condensed in it, where one of the streams (L7) passes the overhead to that stream where it is cooled and liquefied (L8) with part of the stream withdrawn as a product (paragraphs 121-124, 129).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of using the overhead condenser (111) of Golubev as modified (or in addition to) based on the teaching of Tachibana to have sent part of an overhead nitrogen stream from the first column (column 11) to a reboiler-condenser that is in the sump of the third column (alongside 121) and withdrawn a stream that is split into a liquid nitrogen product stream and a reflux stream back since it has been shown combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the reboiler for the first column that produces the reflux in the low pressure column sump would provide the predictable result of being able to provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a known way to produce the required reflux to the first column and providing the product line would also allow liquid nitrogen product to be removed for use (Golubev Paragraph 197 does consider liquid nitrogen can be created but doesn’t show how.
With respect to claim 8, Golubev does not teach wherein the outputting of the oxygen product stream from the third column comprises outputting a product stream comprising oxygen from a bottom portion of the third column (the oxygen stream p removed is from a bottom part of the column).
Golubev as modified does not teach the oxygen product stream comprising at least 90 mole percent oxygen.
Tachibana teaches that the stream of oxygen removed from a low-pressure column to form a product gas stream (C1) can be 99.6% oxygen (paragraph 324).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to for the columns of Golubev as modified based on the teaching of Tachibana to have operated such that oxygen product stream comprises at least 90 mole percent oxygen as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 24 where it states it only has to be at least 90 mole percent) 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).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubev/Dimitri/Tachibana and further in view of Xu et al. (US PG pub 20230052938), hereinafter referred to a Xu.
With respect to claim 9, Golubev teaches passing at least a portion of the oxygen product stream through a heat exchanger (p passes through the heat exchanger as part of stream q, paragraph 188).
Golubev as modified does not teach the heat exchanger vaporizing the portion of the oxygen product stream passed through the heat exchanger.
Xu teaches that an oxygen product is withdrawn as a liquid (90) from the low-pressure column with a portion optionally removed as a liquid product and is then vaporized in the main heat exchanger (paragraph 23).
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 Xu to have provided the oxygen stream that is removed as a product in Golubev as a liquid oxygen stream that is pumped and then vaporized in the main heat exchanger to provide the oxygen product since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby removing it as a liquid could provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a higher purity oxygen with respect to nitrogen as it is removed form a lower point in the column as well as increasing the amount of refrigeration provided by the product stream by vaporizing it the heat exchanger and the ability to remove part of the stream as a liquid product. This would not change the obviousness provided in claim 8 of the product stream, only change where the stream is provided from.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubev/Dimitri/Tachibana and further in view of Howard (US PG Pub 20130086941), hereinafter referred to as Howard.
With respect to claim 11, Golubev as modified does not teach wherein the feeding of the stream of crude oxygen to the third column comprises: feeding at least a portion of the crude oxygen stream output from the second column to a second reboiler-condenser for vaporization to form at least one at least partially vaporized crude oxygen stream (an evaporated stream formed from the sump liquid is formed as stream i in head condenser 111, paragraph 185, which as it boils and condenses is a reboiler-condenser).).
Golubev as modified does not teach the vaporized crude stream is for passing to the third column as the stream of crude oxygen.
Howard teaches that when an oxygen containing condensing medium (68) is used to provide cooling to an overhead condenser (118) the gaseous stream can also be fed to the lower pressure column (paragraph 38) as part of the crude oxygen fed into the lower pressure column (Paragraph 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Howard to have when providing crude oxygen from the column (12) to the column (13) via the condenser (111) to have provided the crude oxygen as both the liquid and vapor streams formed in the condenser to the lower pressure column (13) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing multiple feeds to the lower pressure column would provide the ability to provide additional control the overall separation and the quantities of oxygen fed into the column which could provide what would be common knowledge in the art of being able to increase the amount of oxygen recovered or the efficiency of the separation.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubev/Dimitri and further in view of Lochner (US PG Pub 20210325108), hereinafter referred to as Lochner and Tachibana.
With respect to claim 13, Golubev teaches wherein the second column and the third column are vertically aligned (as seen in the figure they are in the form of a double column).
Golubev does not teach the second and third column have a substantially similar diameter and are with a vessel shell.
Lochner teaches that if two separating parts have the same cross section such as a high-pressure column and a low pressure column they can be advantageously provided in a common column jacket or they can be different diameters in separate jackets (paragraph 49).
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 Lochner to have had the second and third column having the same cross section (and thus the same diameter) in a single common column jacket (vessel shell) since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby as the two different possibilities have been identified (common jacket and not common jacket as well as common diameter and not common diameter) it would have been obvious to have them have the same vessel and same diameter for the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of providing the columns integrated well together for heat exchange and fluid communication.
With respect to claim 14, Golubev teaches a first reboiler-condenser positioned within the vessel shell between the second column and the third column (internal condenser evaporator 121, paragraph 149, which can be considered between the columns as it is below the separation sages of column 11 and above the separation stages of column 12, which would be within the vessel shell as well as it is internal), the reboiler-condenser configured to also boil liquid from a bottom portion of the third column (the condenser evaporator boils the sump of 13, paragraph 160).
Golubev does not teach the first reboiler-condenser configured to receive a nitrogen-enriched vapor from the first column to condense the vapor and output the condensed nitrogen-enriched vapor to the first column as a stream of reflux.
Tachibana teaches a low-pressure column (31) can have two reboilers (33 and 34) such that two different overhead streams (L7 and L9) are both condensed in it, where one of the streams (L7) passes the overhead to that stream where it is cooled and liquefied (L8) with part of the stream withdrawn as a product (paragraphs 121-124, 129).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of using the overhead condenser (111) of Golubev as modified (or in addition to) based on the teaching of Tachibana to have sent part of an overhead nitrogen stream from the first column (column 11) to a reboiler-condenser that is in the sump of the third column (alongside 121) and withdrawn a stream that is split into a liquid nitrogen product stream and a reflux stream back since it has been shown combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the reboiler for the first column that produces the reflux in the low pressure column sump would provide the predictable result of being able to provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a known way to produce the required reflux to the first column and providing the product line would also allow liquid nitrogen product to be removed for use (Golubev Paragraph 197 does consider liquid nitrogen can be created but doesn’t show how). Thus, the first reboiler would be considered the additional reboiler.
With respect to claim 15, Golubev teaches wherein the first column is configured to output a nitrogen-rich stream as a product stream (stream g is a gaseous nitrogen removed from 11 recovered as a product, paragraphs 182-183).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubev/Dimitri and further in view of Tachibana and further in view of Rottmann et al. (DE19806576A1), hereinafter referred to as Rottman.
With respect to claims 16-17, Golubev teaches a first reboiler-condenser positioned within the vessel shell between the second column and the third column (internal condenser evaporator 121, paragraph 149, which can be considered between the columns as it is below the separation sages of column 11 and above the separation stages of column 12, which being an internal condenser would have it within a shell configured to boil liquid from a bottom portion of the third column (the condenser evaporator boils the sump of 13, paragraph 160).
a second reboiler-condenser positioned to receive at least one of the streams of crude oxygen output the stream of crude oxygen output from the bottom portion of the second column for vaporization to form at least one at least partially vaporized crude oxygen stream (an evaporated stream formed from the sump liquid is formed as stream i in head condenser 111, paragraph 185, which as it boils and condenses is a reboiler-condenser).
Golubev does not teach the first reboiler-condenser configured to receive a first portion of a nitrogen-enriched vapor from the first column to condense the vapor and output the condensed nitrogen-enriched vapor to the first column as a stream of reflux.
Tachibana teaches a low-pressure column (31) can have two reboilers (33 and 34) such that two different overhead streams (L7 and L9) are both condensed in it, where one of the streams (L7) passes the overhead to that stream where it is cooled and liquefied (L8) with part of the stream withdrawn as a product (paragraphs 121-124, 129).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of using the overhead condenser (111) of Golubev as modified (or in addition to) based on the teaching of Tachibana to have sent part of an overhead nitrogen stream from the first column (column 11) to a reboiler-condenser that is in the sump of the third column (alongside 121) and withdrawn a stream that is split into a liquid nitrogen product stream and a reflux stream back since it has been shown combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the reboiler for the first column that produces the reflux in the low pressure column sump would provide the predictable result of being able to provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a known way to produce the required reflux to the first column and providing the product line would also allow liquid nitrogen product to be removed for use (Golubev Paragraph 197 does consider liquid nitrogen can be created but doesn’t show how). Thus, the first reboiler would be considered the additional reboiler.
Golubev does not teach a fourth column positioned to receive a second portion of the nitrogen-enriched vapor output from the first column; the fourth column configured to output a nitrogen-rich stream as a product stream, wherein a reboiler-condenser of the fourth column is configured to output a liquid nitrogen reflux stream, a portion of the liquid nitrogen reflux stream being splitable from the liquid nitrogen reflux stream outputtable from the reboiler-condenser of the fourth column to form a liquid nitrogen product stream.
Rottman (Figure 1) teaches forming an ultrapure nitrogen product, where part of an overhead nitrogen vapor is passed to an overhead condenser (6 to 7, paragraph 17) and a second part (12) passed to the condenser at the bottom of an additional column (13 in 15, paragraph 18) which produces a liquid stream (14) which becomes a reflux stream into the column (where 14 enters would provide reflux), and part of this stream is removed at the bottom of the column (16) which can be use to form an ultrapure liquid nitrogen fraction (paragraph 20) and another part as nitrogen rich gas (paragraph 72), which ultra-pure nitrogen would be suitable for processes in microchip production (paragraph 12).
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 Rottman to have taken the nitrogen stream (g of Golubev which is a nitrogen enriched vapor) and passed it to the condenser of an additional column (passing nitrogen enriched vapor to a fourth column) where it is condensed and then passed it into the top area of that column (which would be as a reflux stream) such that part of that stream would be removed as the vapor stream originally in Golubev and the rest split from the reflux stream removed at the bottom of the additional column an ultrapure liquid nitrogen stream would be removed as a product so that nitrogen can be produced which is suitable for use in ultra purity applications such as microchip production.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubev/Dimitri and further in view of Tachibana and Howard.
With respect to claim 19, Golubev teaches a first reboiler-condenser positioned within the vessel shell between the second column and the third column (internal condenser evaporator 121, paragraph 149, which can be considered between the columns as it is below the separation sages of column 11 and above the separation stages of column 12),
the first reboiler-condenser configured to also boil liquid from a bottom portion of the third column (the condenser evaporator boils the sump of 13, paragraph 160).
a second reboiler-condenser positioned to receive at least one of the streams of crude oxygen output the stream of crude oxygen output from the bottom portion of the second column for vaporization to form at least one at least partially vaporized crude oxygen stream (an evaporated stream formed from the sump liquid is formed as stream i in head condenser 111, paragraph 185, which as it boils and condenses is a reboiler-condenser).
Golubev does not teach the first reboiler-condenser configured to receive a nitrogen-enriched vapor from the first column to condense the vapor and output the condensed nitrogen-enriched vapor for feeding to the first column as a stream of reflux.
Tachibana teaches a low-pressure column (31) can have two reboilers (33 and 34) such that two different overhead streams (L7 and L9) are both condensed in it, where one of the streams (L7) passes the overhead to that stream where it is cooled and liquefied (L8) with part of the stream withdrawn as a product (paragraphs 121-124, 129).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have passed some of the overhead of the first column of Golubev as modified based on the teaching of Tachibana to have sent part of an overhead nitrogen stream from the first column (column 11) to a reboiler-condenser that is in the sump of the third column (alongside 121) and withdrawn a stream that is split into a liquid nitrogen product stream and a reflux stream back since it has been shown combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the reboiler for the first column that produces the reflux in the low pressure column sump would provide the predictable result of being able to provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a known way to produce the required reflux to the first column and providing the product line would also allow liquid nitrogen product to be removed for use (Golubev Paragraph 197 does consider liquid nitrogen can be created but doesn’t show how). This would now be considered the first reboiler-condenser and would be in the sump as well.
Golubev does not teach the vaporized crude oxygen stream for feeding to the third column; the third column being fluidly connected to the second reboiler-condenser to receive the at least one at least partially vaporized crude oxygen stream as the at least one stream of crude oxygen received via the portion of the stream of crude oxygen output from the bottom portion of the second column.
Howard teaches that when an oxygen containing condensing medium (68) is used to provide cooling to an overhead condenser (118) the gaseous stream can also be fed to the lower pressure column (paragraph 38) as part of the crude oxygen fed into the lower pressure column (Paragraph 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Howard to have when providing crude oxygen from the column (12) to the column (13) via the condenser (111) to have provided the crude oxygen as both the liquid and vapor streams formed in the condenser to the lower pressure column (13) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing multiple feeds to the lower pressure column would provide the ability to provide additional control the overall separation and the quantities of oxygen fed into the column which could provide what would be common knowledge in the art of being able to increase the amount of oxygen recovered or the efficiency of the separation.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubev and further in view of Dimitri and further in view of Ha et al. (US Patent No. 9103587), hereinafter referred to as Ha.
Claim 1, interpreted with respect to claims 3-4:
With respect to claim 1, Golubev teaches (Figure 1) a process for providing nitrogen and oxygen comprising:
splitting a feed of air (feed air is split into streams b and c, paragraph 177) for feeding some of the air to a first column and some of the air to a second column (stream b is fed into first column 11 and stream c is fed into second column 12, paragraph 179), the first column operating at a first pressure range and the second column operating at a second pressure range, the first pressure range being a higher-pressure range than the second pressure range (column 11 operates at a pressure higher than column 12, Paragraphs 170-171);
feeding a stream of crude oxygen to a third column, the crude oxygen being comprised of at least or at least a portion of a crude oxygen stream output from the second column (bottom liquid stream from column 12, which would be recognized as a crude oxygen stream as it would as that is what the stream at the bottom of double column would be is fed as stream h into 111 and a liquid portion of that is withdrawn at k from 111 which is fed to the third column 13, paragraphs 184-185, which is a sump liquid which has an increased oxygen content, paragraph 171 which would make it a crude oxygen stream being withdrawn), the third column operating at a third pressure range, the third pressure range being a lower pressure range than the second pressure range (the pressure of the third column is below the pressure of the second column, paragraph 171);
outputting a nitrogen-enriched vapor stream form the second column and feeding the nitrogen-enriched vapor stream to a heat exchanger (stream n removed form column 12 which is heated in the main exchanger 4, paragraph 187).
and outputting a nitrogen-rich stream from the first column (stream g is a gaseous nitrogen removed from 11, paragraph 182) and outputting an oxygen product stream from the third column (p is removed from column 13 as a gaseous oxygen product, paragraph 206).
Golubev as modified does not the nitrogen-rich stream is output from a fourth column that is fluidly connected to the first column.
Ha teaches a triple column pressure system (100, 101, 102, Column 4, lines 5-7) where overhead nitrogen (91) is removed from the first column (100, Column 4, lines 28-30) and cooled into a reflux stream and part of that reflux (11, Column 4, lines 25-35) is sent to an auxiliary column which can also receive air where it is separated into a nitrogen product stream (21) and a liquid stream (60) send to the third column (via 15, Column 4, lines 60-65).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Golubev as modified provided an additional column which receives a portion of overhead nitrogen from the first column in the form of a reflux stream and feed air and produces a vapor stream of nitrogen removed as a product based as well as an bottom stream fed back to the third column (13) as a liquid on the teaching of Ha to maintain distillation efficiency while being able to maximize high pressure nitrogen extraction by improving the top flow of the low pressure column without effecting the top flow of the high pressure column (Column 2, lines 15-35)
Golubev as modified does not teach the fourth column is at a pressure ranger that is greater than the second pressure range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have operated Golubev as modified such that the fourth column is at a pressure ranger that is greater than the second pressure range since it has been held that 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 instant case, the device of Golubev as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed pressure as the pressure is provided to adjust the equilibrium of the liquid and gas within the column and it would be known that different pressures can be used to achieve the desire configuration and thus Golubev as modified would function appropriately with the claimed pressure. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, as the pressures of the three columns can be in different ranges (paragraph 33) and indicating only that the fourth pressure is higher than the second (paragraph 14).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubev/Dimitri/Ha and further in view of Higginbotham (US Patent No. 6227005), hereinafter referred to as Higginbotham.
With respect to claim 3, Golubev as modified teaches wherein the nitrogen-rich stream is output from the fourth column (the overhead nitrogen product of the fourth column as modified), the process also comprising: the first column outputting a nitrogen-enriched vapor stream such that a first portion of the nitrogen-enriched vapor stream output from the first column is fed to the fourth column (as modified the nitrogen enriched vapor is fed in part as a reflux stream to the column).
Golubev as modified does not teach feeding a stream of crude oxygen to the reboiler-condenser of the fourth column, the crude oxygen fed to the fourth column being comprised of a portion of the crude oxygen stream output from the first column and/or a portion of the crude oxygen stream output from the second column.
Higginbotham (Figure 8) teaches that when a nitrogen stream is fed to an additional column (164) that reboil for that column (842 from 841) can be provided by crude oxygen (170) from the high-pressure column (Column 12, lines 48-58).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Golubev as modified to have when providing the additional column to have provided a reboiler associated with that column that receives crude oxygen from the second column based on the teaching of Higginbotham since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing reboil would provide what is common knowledge in the art of being able to increase the separation in the column by using the reboil to further drive the separation.
With respect to claim 4, Golubev as modified teaches feeding a liquid stream output from the bottom of the fourth column to the third column as a reflux stream (as modified there is a liquid stream 60 form the fourth column fed back to the third column 13 which as it is a liquid stream would act as a mid column reflux).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubev/Dimitri and further in view of Rottmann.
Claim 1 rejected in view of the interpretation of the claims in regards to claim 10.
With respect to claim 1, Golubev teaches (Figure 1) a process for providing nitrogen and oxygen comprising:
splitting a feed of air (feed air is split into streams b and c, paragraph 177) for feeding some of the air to a first column and some of the air to a second column (stream b is fed into first column 11 and stream c is fed into second column 12, paragraph 179), the first column operating at a first pressure range and the second column operating at a second pressure range, the first pressure range being a higher-pressure range than the second pressure range (column 11 operates at a pressure higher than column 12, Paragraphs 170-171);
feeding a stream of crude oxygen to a third column, the crude oxygen being comprised of at least or at least a portion of a crude oxygen stream output from the second column (bottom liquid stream from column 12, which would be recognized as a crude oxygen stream as it would as that is what the stream at the bottom of double column would be is fed as stream h into 111 and a liquid portion of that is withdrawn at k from 111 which is fed to the third column 13, paragraphs 184-185, which is a sump liquid which has an increased oxygen content, paragraph 171 which would make it a crude oxygen stream being withdrawn), the third column operating at a third pressure range, the third pressure range being a lower pressure range than the second pressure range (the pressure of the third column is below the pressure of the second column, paragraph 171);
outputting a nitrogen-enriched vapor stream form the second column and feeding the nitrogen-enriched vapor stream to a heat exchanger (stream n removed form column 12 which is heated in the main exchanger 4, paragraph 187).
and outputting a nitrogen-rich stream from the first column (stream g is a gaseous nitrogen removed from 11, paragraph 182) and outputting an oxygen product stream from the third column (p is removed from column 13 as a gaseous oxygen product, paragraph 206).
Golubev as modified does not the nitrogen-rich stream is output from a fourth column that is fluidly connected to the first column.
Rottman (Figure 1) teaches forming an ultrapure nitrogen product, where part of an overhead nitrogen vapor is passed to an overhead condenser (6 to 7, paragraph 17) and a second part (12) passed to the condenser at the bottom of an additional column (13 in 15, paragraph 18) which produces a liquid stream (14) which becomes a reflux stream into the column (where 14 enters would provide reflux), and part of this stream is removed at the bottom of the column (16) which can be used to form an ultrapure liquid nitrogen fraction (paragraph 20) and another part as nitrogen rich gas (paragraph 72), which ultra-pure nitrogen would be suitable for processes in microchip production (paragraph 12).
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 Rottman to have taken the nitrogen stream (g of Golubev which is a nitrogen enriched vapor) and passed it to the condenser of an additional column (passing nitrogen enriched vapor to a fourth column) where it is condensed and then passed it into the top area of that column (which would be as a reflux stream) such that part of that stream would be removed as the vapor stream originally in Golubev and the from the bottom an ultrapure liquid nitrogen stream would be removed as a product so that nitrogen can be produced which is suitable for use in ultra-purity applications such as microchip production.
Golubev as modified does not teach the fourth column is at a pressure ranger that is greater than the second pressure range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have operated Golubev as modified such that the fourth column is at a pressure ranger that is greater than the second pressure range since it has been held that 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 instant case, the device of Golubev as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed pressure as the pressure is provided to adjust the equilibrium of the liquid and gas within the column and it would be known that different pressures can be used to achieve the desire configuration and thus Golubev as modified would function appropriately with the claimed pressure. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, as the pressures of the three columns can be in different ranges (paragraph 33) and indicating only that the fourth pressure is higher than the second (paragraph 14).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubev/Dimitri/Rottman and further in view of Tachibana.
With respect to claim 10, With respect to claim 10, Golubev teaches process also comprising wherein the nitrogen-rich stream is output from the fourth column, the process also comprising the first column outputting a nitrogen-enriched vapor stream such that a first portion of the nitrogen-enriched vapor stream is fed to a first reboiler-condenser to condense the first portion of the nitrogen-enriched vapor and a second portion of the nitrogen-enriched vapor stream output from the first column is fed to the fourth column (top gas seen as the portion not removed as g is condensed in the top of the first column condenser, paragraph 158 and as seen in the figure passed back as reflux to 11, and additionally as modified in view of Rottman, a second portion of the nitrogen rich overhead is fed to the fourth column into the reboiler of the fourth column and then into the fourth column).
Golubev as modified does not teach the first reboiler-condenser positioned between the second column and the third column within a vessel shell so that liquid at a bottom portion of the third column is vaporizable via the first reboiler-condenser for condensing the first portion of the nitrogen-enriched vapor.
Tachibana teaches a low-pressure column (31) can have two reboilers (33 and 34) such that two different overhead streams (L7 and L9) are both condensed in it, where one of the streams (L7) passes the overhead to that stream where it is cooled and liquefied (L8) with part of the stream withdrawn as a product (paragraphs 121-124, 129).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of using the overhead condenser (111) of Golubev as modified (or in addition to) based on the teaching of Tachibana to have sent part of an overhead nitrogen stream from the first column (column 11) to a reboiler-condenser that is in the sump of the third column (alongside 121) and withdrawn a stream that is split into a liquid nitrogen product stream and a reflux stream back since it has been shown combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the reboiler for the first column that produces the reflux in the low pressure column sump would provide the predictable result of being able to provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a known way to produce the required reflux to the first column and providing the product line would also allow liquid nitrogen product to be removed for use (Golubev Paragraph 197 does consider liquid nitrogen can be created but doesn’t show how).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 is positively concerned with the presence of a fourth column. As shown in the rejection above,
Rottman (Figure 1) teaches forming an ultrapure nitrogen product, where part of an overhead nitrogen vapor is passed to an overhead condenser (6 to 7, paragraph 17) and a second part (12) passed to the condenser at the bottom of an additional column (13 in 15, paragraph 18) which produces a liquid stream (14) which becomes a reflux stream into the column (where 14 enters would provide reflux), and part of this stream is removed at the bottom of the column (16) which can be use to form an ultrapure liquid nitrogen fraction (paragraph 20) and another part as nitrogen rich gas (paragraph 72), which ultra-pure nitrogen would be suitable for processes in microchip production (paragraph 12). This provides a substantial teaching of the limitation of claim 5 in regards to “wherein the nitrogen-rich stream is output from the fourth column, the process also comprising: the first column outputting a nitrogen-enriched vapor stream such that a first portion of the nitrogen-enriched vapor stream output from the first column is fed to the fourth column” but does not teach “feeding a portion of the oxygen product stream output from the third column to the reboiler-condenser of the fourth column” in claim 5. Feeding any oxygen to the condenser of Rottman would be counter-productive as the column is meant to be used for nitrogen operations and oxygen would not be at the right temperature or would mix with the nitrogen depending on how it was used. Golubev teaches the use of multiple other columns (14, 15, 16) but none of these columns interact with an overhead stream from the first column and there would be no reason to send such a stream to these columns because they are for separating components within the oxygen stream and adding nitrogen to those columns would be counterproductive. Ha as shown above teaches the use of a fourth column (103) which receives a nitrogen stream (11) from a first column and passes a liquid stream back to the third column (102) (paragraphs 42-43) which teaches the limitation of claim 4, but does not teach any relationship between the crude oxygen stream or an oxygen product stream of the third column and a reboiler-condenser of the fourth column. Higginbotham also shown above teaches (Figure 8) the use of an additional column (164) which has an associated reboiler (841) which receives crude oxygen from the high-pressure column; however, there would be no reason to use the product stream of Golubev based on the teachings of the prior art to use the oxygen product stream to provide a cooling stream for the reboiler-condenser of the fourth column. Higginbotham (US PG Pub s) teaches passing an oxygen product to an oxygen product reboiler (1062, paragraph 17) but this is a reboiler that is independent of any column and it would have not been obvious to have sent the stream to a column for such reboil as it is used to provide feed cooling. Prosser (US Patent No. 6622520) teaches an oxygen stream (95) being passed to a side column (25) but not to the reboiler as required by the claims in conjunction with a nitrogen stream.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights