DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of elects Invention I (Claims 1-16) in the reply filed on March 12th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that “Applicant respectfully traverses the requirement for restriction between Invention I (Claims 1- 16) and Invention II (Claims 17-20). The Office Action's assertion that Invention II is distinct because it "does not require a first rectification column" has been rendered moot by the current amendments”. The Examiner agrees these amendments render the restriction requirement between Inventions I and Invention II moot and hereby withdraws the restriction requirement of March 12th, 2026.
Further, Applicant's election with traverse of Species 6 (represented by Figure 3) in the reply filed on March 12th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action incorrectly identified only Claims 1, 5, and 17 as generic. The following claims are also generic to the disclosed species: • Claims 2-4 and 6-11: These concern fundamental conduit arrangements and process parameters (e.g., mixing valves, pressure differences of ≤10 bars) that are shared across all six species. • Claims 12-15: These define contingency logic for pump failures or reduced rates, which is a core function of the parallel pump architecture shown in every figure. • Claims 18 and 20: These detail the control logic based on liquid level data (F1/F2), which the specification identifies as optional but applicable to the invention as a whole. Applicant traverses the species restriction because Species 6 (Figure 3) is an additive and comprehensive embodiment. It incorporates: 1. The base distillation architecture of Species 1. 2. The high-pressure expansion logic of Species 5. 3. The additional structural complexity of an argon rectification column (5). An examination of Species 6 cannot be performed without first evaluating the underlying distillation, pumping, and expansion architecture common to the "simpler" species. Therefore, no "serious search burden" exists because a search for the elected species inherently encompasses the prior art search required for the non-elected species.” This is not found persuasive because claims 2-3, 18 and 20 are not generic claims as claim 2 requires a common conduit which is not an aspect of non-elected species 4, claim 3 requires separate conduit means which are only directed to non-elected species 4, claim 18 includes a liquid measurement unit and a flow rate measurement unit which are only directed to non-elected Species 3-4, and claim 20 includes an option for a first low-pressure liquid feed line running from the first liquid feed pump to the low-pressure supply destination and a second low-pressure liquid feed line running from the second liquid feed pump to the low-pressure supply destination do not merge which is only directed to non-elected species 4. Therefore, the generic claims are 1, 4-17, and 19. Further, Species 6 does not include the Claude expansion to second rectification column of Species 1, the first and second return pipes L16, L17 from liquefied gas supply system to second rectification column of Species 2, liquid level measurements in bottom portion of second rectification column and on oxygen product stream of Species 3, or the two reflux lines to the nitrogen condenser of the first rectification column of Species 4 and therefore the species require a different field of search as where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search (MPEP 808.02).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3, 18, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species 3-4, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 12th, 2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 13, line 4: “main heat exchanger 1” should read “main heat exchanger 101”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 12: “rectification columns” should read “rectification column”
Claim 1, line 18: “each pump having” should read “the first liquid feed pump and the second liquid feed pump each having”
Claim 5, line 10: “using a first liquid feed pump and a second liquid feed pump” should read “using the first liquid feed pump and the second liquid feed pump”
Claim 7, lines 3-4: “3 and 100%, or to between 3 and 50% or even between 3 and 15%, preferably between 5 and 10%” should read “3% and 100%, or to between 3% and 50% or even between 3% and 15%, preferably between 5% and 10%”
Claim 10, lines 1-2: “the first and second liquid pressures” should read “the first liquid pressure and the second liquid pressure”
Claim 13, line 2: “normal operation” should read “the normal operation”
Claim 16, line 3: “the heat exchanger” should read “the heat exchanger.”
Claim 17, line 4: “a first liquid feed pump” should read “the first liquid feed pump”
Claim 17, line 8: “a second liquid feed pump” should read “the second liquid feed pump”
Claims 2, 4-5, and 17 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 6-12, 14, and 16 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 13 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 12.
Claim 15 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 14.
Claim 19 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 17, lines 16-17: “means of the first liquid feed pump”
Claim 17, line 19: “means of the second liquid feed pump”
Claim 17, lines 22-23: “means of the first liquid feed pump”
Claim 17, line 25: “means of the second liquid feed pump”
Claim 17, lines 27-28: “means of the second liquid feed pump”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
The following limitations invoke 112(f) using the phase “means” and associated function without additional structure defined by the claim:
Claim 1, line 9: “means for sending feed air” draws corresponding structure to the following recitation of the specification, “a first feed air pipe L21 (Pg. 13, line 14)”, or equivalents thereof.
Claim 1, line 11: “means for sending a gas” draws corresponding structure to the following recitation of the specification, “a low-pressure oxygen pipe L32 (Pg. 14, line 8)”, or equivalents thereof.
Claim 2, line 1-2: “means for mixing liquid” does not draw any corresponding structure from the specification, see 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Lines 1-2 recite, “means for mixing liquid” which invokes 112(f), however there is no corresponding structure provided in the specification to define the means for mixing liquid. The closest structure provided in the specification is as follows: “In this processing, a first gate valve V1 and a third gate valve V3 provided in the first branch pipe L11 are controlled to an open state by means of the control unit 15. Furthermore, a circulation branch pipe L14 branching from the second branch pipe L12 merges with the first branch pipe L11. A second gate valve V2 provided upstream from a merging position thereof and downstream of a second removal point of pipe L12 is controlled to a closed state by means of the control unit 1 (Pg. 15, lines 12-17)” and “The control unit 15 feeds the first liquefied oxygen to the nitrogen condenser 3 using the first liquid feed pump 11 which is in the low-pressure operating mode, and at the same time feeds a portion (W1) of the second liquefied oxygen to the nitrogen condenser 3 also using the second liquid feed pump 12 which is in the high-pressure operating mode (second circulation liquid in-feed processing). The control unit 15 opens the second gate valve V2 to cause the portion (W1) of the second liquefied oxygen to merge into the first branch pipe L11 through the circulation branch pipe L14. Furthermore, the control unit 15 feeds the remainder (W2) of the second liquefied oxygen to the main heat exchanger 101, after which it is extracted as product oxygen gas (second product liquid in-feed processing) (Pg. 16, lines 4-12)”, however, neither of these recitations tie any structural components directly to the “means for mixing liquid”. See 112(b) rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2, 4, 7, 10, and 13 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 limitation “means for mixing liquid” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure is provided in the specification to define the means for mixing liquid. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the “means for mixing liquid” to include connective piping and a controller for controlling opening and closing of the valves and equivalents thereof. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the mixed liquid" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the mixed liquid” in line 3 of claim 2 to “a mixed liquid”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the condenser" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the condenser” in line 3 of claim 2 to “the condenser section” which is given proper antecedent basis in claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the third removal point" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the third removal point” in line 2 of claim 4 to “a third removal point”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the fourth removal point" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the fourth removal point” in line 2-3 of claim 4 to “a fourth removal point”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “a flowrate corresponding to between 3 and 100%”, and the claim also recites “or to between 3 and 50% or even between 3 and 15%, preferably between 5 and 10%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “differ by no more than 10 bars”, and the claim also recites “preferably by no more than 7 bars” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 13, lines 1-3 recite, “wherein during normal operation liquid at the second liquid pressure is not sent from the second liquid feed pump to the condenser section” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 5 from which claims 12-13 depend require “using the second liquid feed pump to send liquid at the second liquid pressure to the heat exchanger, wherein liquid at the second liquid pressure is at least sometimes sent from the second liquid feed pump to the condenser section”. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to address this contradiction.
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.
Claims 1-2, and 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner et al. (US Patent No. 10,401,083), hereinafter Lochner in view of Fukase et al. (WO 2013013914), hereinafter Fukase.
Regarding claim 1, Lochner discloses an air separation unit (Fig. 6; Abstract, The plant is used for producing oxygen by cryogenic air separation) comprising:
a first rectification column having an operating pressure, which is a first pressure (Fig. 6, high-pressure column 1);
a second rectification column having an operating pressure, which is a second pressure, less than the first pressure, wherein the first rectification column comprises a top condenser enclosed within a condenser section having an operating pressure which is the second pressure (Fig. 6, low-pressure column 2; See annotated Fig. 6 of Lochner below, main condenser 3 is disposed in condenser section A of the high-pressure column 1; Col. 11, lines 13-15 and 40-43, In the main condenser 3 a portion 10 of the gaseous tops nitrogen 9 from the high-pressure column 1 is at least partly condensed… A first portion 22 of the liquid oxygen 20 from the bottom of the low-pressure column 2 is conveyed using a pump 21 into the evaporation space of the main condenser 3 and at least partially evaporated therein; Further, Lochner teaches the claimed invention except for the condenser section having an operating pressure which is the second pressure. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the condenser section having an operating pressure which is the second pressure, 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 [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the condenser section having an operating pressure which is the second pressure, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05);
a supply source, which is a lower region of the second rectification column, wherein the first rectification column and the second rectification column are disposed side by side (See annotated Fig. 6 of Lochner below, supply source B is disposed in a lower region of the low-pressure column 2 and the high-pressure column 1 and the low-pressure column 2 are disposed side by side);
a heat exchanger (Fig. 6, main heat exchanger 308);
means for sending feed air to the heat exchanger to be cooled and from the heat exchanger to the first rectification column (Col 10-11, lines 65-67 and 1-6, The plant depicted in FIG. 6 comprises an entry filter 302 for atmospheric air (AIR), a main air compressor 303, an air pre-cooling unit 304, and air purification unit 305 (typically formed by a pair of molecular sieve adsorbers), a three stage, intermediately cooled and post-cooled booster air compressor 306 (BAC) and a main heat exchanger 308. A first sub stream 4 of the feed air flows in gaseous form into the high-pressure column 1 immediately above the column bottom);
means for sending a gas from the condenser section to a bottom section of the second rectification columns (Fig. 6, gas 23; Col. 11, lines 43-45, Gas thus formed 23 is recycled into the bottom of the low-pressure column 2 and serves therein as ascending gas);
a conduit configured to send a top gas removed from a top section of the second rectification column to the heat exchanger to be warmed (Fig. 6, first stream of gaseous impure nitrogen 138a; Col. 11, lines 34-39, A first stream of gaseous impure nitrogen 138a is withdrawn from the top of the low-pressure column 2 and after heating in the countercurrent subcooler 7 via conduit 39. After heating main heat exchanger (308), this stream is blown off to the atmosphere (ATM));
a first liquid feed pump and a second liquid feed pump connected in parallel, the first liquid feed pump being configured to produce liquid at a first liquid pressure and the second liquid feed pump being configured to produce liquid at a second liquid pressure, higher than the first pressure, each pump having an inlet connected to the supply source (See annotated Fig. 6 of Lochner below which depicts pump 21 and pump 321 to be connected in parallel and each having an inlet C and D, respectively, connected to the supply source B; Col. 11, lines 40-43 and 48-53, A first portion 22 of the liquid oxygen 20 from the bottom of the low-pressure column 2 is conveyed using a pump 21 into the evaporation space of the main condenser 3 and at least partially evaporated therein… A third portion 26 of the liquid oxygen 20 is internally compressed, i.e. brought to the desired product pressure by means of a pump 321, heated in the main heat exchanger 308 and finally obtained as gaseous pressurized oxygen product (EOXIC) which is the primary product of the plant; Further, the teachings of the use of two separate pumps one of which is used to bring liquid oxygen to a desired product pressure at least imply the pumps to be operated at different liquid pressures since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); Further, the pumps 21 and 321 of Lochner have the same structure as the claimed first liquid feed pump and second liquid feed pump and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed);
a first outlet of the first liquid feed pump being connected to a first outlet conduit (See annotated Fig. 6 of Lochner below which depicts pump 21 with outlet E connected to first portion 22); and
a second outlet of the second liquid feed pump being connected to a second outlet conduit (See annotated Fig. 6 of Lochner below which depicts pump 321 with outlet F connected to second outlet conduit G).
However, Lochner does not disclose the first outlet conduit being connected at a first removal point via a first valve to the condenser section and the second outlet conduit being connected at a second removal point via a second valve to the condenser section.
Fukase teaches the first outlet conduit being connected at a first removal point via a first valve to the condenser section and the second outlet conduit being connected at a second removal point via a second valve to the condenser section (Fig. 1, control section 3; See annotated Fig. 4 of Fukase below, pumps 2a, 2b, bypass flowpaths Ba, Bb, regulators Ra, Rb, rectifying tower 5, upper tower section 5a, liquefied oxygen from bottom 5b, lower tower section 5c, heat exchanger 6, flow path L1, flow path, La, flow path Lb, flow path L2, flow path L4, first removal point H, second removal point I, third removal point J, fourth removal point K; Pg. 20-21, lines 30-34 and 1-6, The liquefied oxygen from bottom 5b is transferred to feeding pumps (transfer means) 2a and 2b via flow path and then transferred to heat exchanger 6 via L1, collective flow path Lc to which supply-out flow paths La and Lb merge, and flow path L2. Air that is the material is introduced to heat exchanger 6 to perform heat exchange with liquefied oxygen. Heated liquefied oxygen is discharged as product oxygen. Liquefied air is introduced to the lower part of lower tower section 5c of rectifying tower 5 via flow path L3. Moreover, part of the liquefied oxygen being transferred is also introduced to the upper part of upper tower section 5a of rectifying tower 5 via bypass flow paths Ba and Bb that diverges from supply-out flow paths La and Lb, and via flow path L4 to which bypass flow paths Ba and Bb merge, to form reflux of rectifying tower 5 and produce high-purity liquefied oxygen; Pg 21, lines 16-32, Operation of the inventive apparatus in normal mode and Operation of the inventive apparatus in abnormal mode described above regarding the inventive apparatus 10 can also be applied to system configuration example 1. More specifically, feeding pumps 2a and 2b are operated at 50% of their rated output in low-output mode, and when either one of feeding pumps 2a or 2b fall into abnormal mode, said one feeding pump 2a or 2b is put into shutdown mode, and the other pump 2b or 2a is operated at 100% of its rated output. In particular with system configuration example 1, since not only rectifying tower 5, but also the functions of the entire system and its product quality are assured by the reflux of high-purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, it is possible to assure stable transfer rate of the product oxygen in abnormal mode, and promptly secure transfer rate by adopting these control operations. At this time, in the stages of switching to the rated mode, drop in reflux flow rate of high purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, described in (ii) above, influences not only the purity of the product oxygen but also the product nitrogen. In the case of switching to rated mode, whether to switch with or without changing the reflux condition at normal mode is determined by the operational conditions of rectifying tower 5).
Lochner fails to teach the first outlet conduit being connected at a first removal point via a first valve to the condenser section and the second outlet conduit being connected at a second removal point via a second valve to the condenser section, however Fukase teaches that it is a known method in the art of air separation units to include the first outlet conduit being connected at a first removal point via a first valve to the condenser section and the second outlet conduit being connected at a second removal point via a second valve to the condenser section. This is strong evidence that modifying Lochner as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. assuring stable transfer rate of the product oxygen in abnormal mode, and promptly securing transfer rate by adopting these control operations (Fukase, Pg. 21, lines 25-27)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lochner by Fukase and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of assuring stable transfer rate of the product oxygen in abnormal mode, and promptly securing transfer rate by adopting these control operations (Fukase, Pg. 21, lines 25-27).
PNG
media_image1.png
573
899
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Lochner
PNG
media_image2.png
448
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Fukase
Regarding claim 2, Lochner as modified discloses the air separation unit according to Claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising means for mixing liquid removed via the first valve with liquid removed via the second valve and sending the mixed liquid in a common conduit to the condenser (Fukase, Fig. 1, control section 3; See annotated Fig. 4 of Fukase below, pumps 2a, 2b, bypass flowpaths Ba, Bb, regulators Ra, Rb, rectifying tower 5, upper tower section 5a, liquefied oxygen from bottom 5b, lower tower section 5c, flow path L1, flow path, La, flow path Lb, flow path L2, flow path L4, first removal point H, second removal point I, third removal point J, fourth removal point K; Pg. 20-21, lines 30-34 and 1-6, The liquefied oxygen from bottom 5b is transferred to feeding pumps (transfer means) 2a and 2b via flow path and then transferred to heat exchanger 6 via L1, collective flow path Lc to which supply-out flow paths La and Lb merge, and flow path L2. Air that is the material is introduced to heat exchanger 6 to perform heat exchange with liquefied oxygen. Heated liquefied oxygen is discharged as product oxygen. Liquefied air is introduced to the lower part of lower tower section 5c of rectifying tower 5 via flow path L3. Moreover, part of the liquefied oxygen being transferred is also introduced to the upper part of upper tower section 5a of rectifying tower 5 via bypass flow paths Ba and Bb that diverges from supply-out flow paths La and Lb, and via flow path L4 to which bypass flow paths Ba and Bb merge, to form reflux of rectifying tower 5 and produce high-purity liquefied oxygen). The limitations of claim 2 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image2.png
448
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Fukase
Regarding claim 4, Lochner as modified discloses the air separation unit according to Claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first removal point is upstream of the third removal point and/or the second removal point is upstream of the fourth removal point (See annotated Fig. 4 of Fukase below, first removal point H is upstream of the third removal point J and the second removal point I is upstream of the fourth removal point K). The limitations of claim 4 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image2.png
448
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Fukase
Regarding claim 5, Lochner as modified discloses an air separation process (Lochner, Fig. 6; Abstract, The plant is used for producing oxygen by cryogenic air separation) comprising the steps of:
providing the air separation unit according to Claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above);
sending feed air to the heat exchanger to be cooled and then from the heat exchanger to the first rectification column (Lochner, Col 10-11, lines 65-67 and 1-6, The plant depicted in FIG. 6 comprises an entry filter 302 for atmospheric air (AIR), a main air compressor 303, an air pre-cooling unit 304, and air purification unit 305 (typically formed by a pair of molecular sieve adsorbers), a three stage, intermediately cooled and post-cooled booster air compressor 306 (BAC) and a main heat exchanger 308. A first sub stream 4 of the feed air flows in gaseous form into the high-pressure column 1 immediately above the column bottom);
sending the gas from the condenser section to the bottom section of the second rectification column (Lochner, Fig. 6, gas 23; Col. 11, lines 43-45, Gas thus formed 23 is recycled into the bottom of the low-pressure column 2 and serves therein as ascending gas);
removing the top gas from the top section of the second rectification column, and then sending the top gas from the top section to the heat exchanger to be warmed (Lochner, Fig. 6, first stream of gaseous impure nitrogen 138a; Col. 11, lines 34-39, A first stream of gaseous impure nitrogen 138a is withdrawn from the top of the low-pressure column 2 and after heating in the countercurrent subcooler 7 via conduit 39. After heating main heat exchanger (308), this stream is blown off to the atmosphere (ATM)),
wherein in normal operation, the process further comprises the steps of:
using a first liquid feed pump and a second liquid feed pump that are connected in parallel to pressurize liquid from the bottom section of the second rectification column, the first liquid feed pump producing liquid at the first liquid pressure and the second liquid feed pump producing liquid at the second liquid pressure, higher than the first liquid pressure (Lochner, See annotated Fig. 6 of Lochner below which depicts pump 21 and pump 321 to be connected in parallel and each having an inlet C and D, respectively, connected to the supply source B; Col. 11, lines 40-43 and 48-53, A first portion 22 of the liquid oxygen 20 from the bottom of the low-pressure column 2 is conveyed using a pump 21 into the evaporation space of the main condenser 3 and at least partially evaporated therein… A third portion 26 of the liquid oxygen 20 is internally compressed, i.e. brought to the desired product pressure by means of a pump 321, heated in the main heat exchanger 308 and finally obtained as gaseous pressurized oxygen product (EOXIC) which is the primary product of the plant; Further, the teachings of the use of two separate pumps one of which is used to bring liquid oxygen to a desired product pressure at least imply the pumps to be operated at different liquid pressures since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); Further, the pumps 21 and 321 of Lochner have the same structure as the claimed first liquid feed pump and second liquid feed pump and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed), and
using the first liquid feed pump to send liquid at the first liquid pressure to the condenser section (Fukase, Pg. 21, lines 2-6, Moreover, part of the liquefied oxygen being transferred is also introduced to the upper part of upper tower section 5a of rectifying tower 5 via bypass flow paths Ba and Bb that diverges from supply-out flow paths La and Lb, and 5 via flow path L4 to which bypass flow paths Ba and Bb merge, to form reflux of rectifying tower 5 and produce high-purity liquefied oxygen) and
using the second liquid feed pump to send liquid at the second liquid pressure to the heat exchanger, wherein liquid at the second liquid pressure is at least sometimes sent from the second liquid feed pump to the condenser section (Fukase, Pg. 20, lines 30-33,The liquefied oxygen from bottom 5b is transferred to feeding pumps (transfer means) 2a and 2b via flow path L 1, and then transferred to heat exchanger 6 via collective flow path Le to which supply-out flow paths La and Lb merge, and flow path L2). Further, the limitations of claim 5 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Lochner as modified discloses the process according to Claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the liquid at the second liquid pressure sent from the second liquid feed pump to the condenser section has a flowrate corresponding to between 3 and 100%, or to between 3 and 50% or even between 3 and 15%, preferably between 5 and 10% of the flowrate of the liquid at the first liquid pressure sent from the first liquid feed pump to the condenser section in normal operation (Fukase, Pg 21, lines 16-32, Operation of the inventive apparatus in normal mode and Operation of the inventive apparatus in abnormal mode described above regarding the inventive apparatus 10 can also be applied to system configuration example 1. More specifically, feeding pumps 2a and 2b are operated at 50% of their rated output in low-output mode, and when either one of feeding pumps 2a or 2b fall into abnormal mode, said one feeding pump 2a or 2b is put into shutdown mode, and the other pump 2b or 2a is operated at 100% of its rated output. In particular with system configuration example 1, since not only rectifying tower 5, but also the functions of the entire system and its product quality are assured by the reflux of high-purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, it is possible to assure stable transfer rate of the product oxygen in abnormal mode, and promptly secure transfer rate by adopting these control operations. At this time, in the stages of switching to the rated mode, drop in reflux flow rate of high purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, described in (ii) above, influences not only the purity of the product oxygen but also the product nitrogen. In the case of switching to rated mode, whether to switch with or without changing the reflux condition at normal mode is determined by the operational conditions of rectifying tower 5). Further, the limitations of claim 7 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 8, Lochner as modified discloses the process according to Claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the liquid at the second pressure is not expanded between the second removal point and the condenser section (The combination of Lochner as modified does not result in any expansion of the liquid at the second pressure between the second removal point and the condenser section as no expansion valves are disclosed between the removal points and the condenser in neither Lochner nor Fukase and therefore would not suggest any expansion between the removal points and the condenser to a PHOSITA). Further, the limitations of claim 8 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 9, Lochner as modified discloses the process according to Claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the liquid at the first liquid pressure and the liquid at the second liquid pressure are mixed upstream of the condenser section (Fukase, Pg. 21, lines 2-6, Moreover, part of the liquefied oxygen being transferred is also introduced to the upper part of upper tower section 5a of rectifying tower 5 via bypass flow paths Ba and Bb that diverges from supply-out flow paths La and Lb, and 5 via flow path L4 to which bypass flow paths Ba and Bb merge, to form reflux of rectifying tower 5 and produce high-purity liquefied oxygen). Further, the limitations of claim 9 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 10, Lochner as modified discloses the process according to Claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the first and second liquid pressures differ by no more than 10 bars, preferably by no more than 7 bars (Lochner, Col. 11, lines 40-43 and 48-53, A first portion 22 of the liquid oxygen 20 from the bottom of the low-pressure column 2 is conveyed using a pump 21 into the evaporation space of the main condenser 3 and at least partially evaporated therein… A third portion 26 of the liquid oxygen 20 is internally compressed, i.e. brought to the desired product pressure by means of a pump 321, heated in the main heat exchanger 308 and finally obtained as gaseous pressurized oxygen product (EOXIC) which is the primary product of the plant; Further, Lochner as modified teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the first and second liquid pressures differ by no more than 10 bars, preferably by no more than 7 bars. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first and second liquid pressures differ by no more than 10 bars, preferably by no more than 7 bars, 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 [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Moreover, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of wherein the first and second liquid pressures differ by no more than 10 bars, preferably by no more than 7 bars, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Lochner as modified discloses the process according to Claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein liquid at the second liquid pressure is sent from the second liquid feed pump to the condenser section if the first liquid feed pump is not operating (Fuakse, Pg 21, lines 16-27, Operation of the inventive apparatus in normal mode and Operation of the inventive apparatus in abnormal mode described above regarding the inventive apparatus 10 can also be applied to system configuration example 1. More specifically, feeding pumps 2a and 2b are operated at 50% of their rated output in low-output mode, and when either one of feeding pumps 2a or 2b fall into abnormal mode, said one feeding pump 2a or 2b is put into shutdown mode, and the other pump 2b or 2a is operated at 100% of its rated output. In particular with system configuration example 1, since not only rectifying tower 5, but also the functions of the entire system and its product quality are assured by the reflux of high-purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, it is possible to assure stable transfer rate of the product oxygen in abnormal mode, and promptly secure transfer rate by adopting these control operations). Further, the limitations of claim 12 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 14, Lochner as modified discloses the process according to Claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein liquid at the second liquid pressure is sent from the second liquid feed pump to the condenser section if the first liquid feed pump is operating at a reduced rate as compared to the rate during normal operation (Fuakse, Pg 21, lines 16-27, Operation of the inventive apparatus in normal mode and Operation of the inventive apparatus in abnormal mode described above regarding the inventive apparatus 10 can also be applied to system configuration example 1. More specifically, feeding pumps 2a and 2b are operated at 50% of their rated output in low-output mode, and when either one of feeding pumps 2a or 2b fall into abnormal mode, said one feeding pump 2a or 2b is put into shutdown mode, and the other pump 2b or 2a is operated at 100% of its rated output. In particular with system configuration example 1, since not only rectifying tower 5, but also the functions of the entire system and its product quality are assured by the reflux of high-purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, it is possible to assure stable transfer rate of the product oxygen in abnormal mode, and promptly secure transfer rate by adopting these control operations). Further, the limitations of claim 14 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 17, Lochner as modified discloses the air separation unit according to Claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a liquefied gas supply system (Lochner, Fig. 6; Abstract, The plant is used for producing oxygen by cryogenic air separation), the liquefied gas supply system comprising:
a first liquid feed pump which is used to feed a first liquefied gas from the supply source to a low-pressure supply destination for low-pressure purposes, wherein the low-pressure supply destination comprises the condenser section (Lochner, Fig. 6, pump 21, Col. 11, lines 40-43, A first portion 22 of the liquid oxygen 20 from the bottom of the low-pressure column 2 is conveyed using a pump 21 into the evaporation space of the main condenser 3 and at least partially evaporated therein):
a second liquid feed pump which is used to feed a second liquefied gas from the supply source to a high-pressure supply destination for high-pressure purposes, wherein the high-pressure supply destination comprises one or more of the heat exchanger and a demand destination (Lochner, Fig. 6, pump 321, Col. 11, lines 48-53, A third portion 26 of the liquid oxygen 20 is internally compressed, i.e. brought to the desired product pressure by means of a pump 321, heated in the main heat exchanger 308 and finally obtained as gaseous pressurized oxygen product (EOXIC) which is the primary product of the plant); and
a control unit for controlling the first liquid feed pump and the second liquid feed pump (Fukase, Fig. 1, control section 3), wherein
the control unit is configured to:
implement first circulation liquid in-feed processing for feeding in the first liquefied gas from the supply source to the low-pressure supply destination by means of the first liquid feed pump which is in a low-pressure operating mode; and first product liquid infeed processing for feeding in the second liquefied gas from the supply source to the high-pressure supply destination by means of the second liquid feed pump which is in a high-pressure operating mode (Fukase, Pg 21, lines 16-32, Operation of the inventive apparatus in normal mode and Operation of the inventive apparatus in abnormal mode described above regarding the inventive apparatus 10 can also be applied to system configuration example 1. More specifically, feeding pumps 2a and 2b are operated at 50% of their rated output in low-output mode, and when either one of feeding pumps 2a or 2b fall into abnormal mode, said one feeding pump 2a or 2b is put into shutdown mode, and the other pump 2b or 2a is operated at 100% of its rated output. In particular with system configuration example 1, since not only rectifying tower 5, but also the functions of the entire system and its product quality are assured by the reflux of high-purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, it is possible to assure stable transfer rate of the product oxygen in abnormal mode, and promptly secure transfer rate by adopting these control operations. At this time, in the stages of switching to the rated mode, drop in reflux flow rate of high purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, described in (ii) above, influences not only the purity of the product oxygen but also the product nitrogen. In the case of switching to rated mode, whether to switch with or without changing the reflux condition at normal mode is determined by the operational conditions of rectifying tower 5); and/or
implement second circulation liquid in-feed processing for feeding in the first liquefied gas from the supply source to the low-pressure supply destination by means of the first liquid feed pump which is in the low-pressure operating mode, and also for feeding in a portion of the second liquefied gas from the supply source to the low-pressure supply destination by means of the second liquid feed pump which is in the high-pressure operating mode; and second product liquid in-feed processing for feeding in the remainder of the second liquefied gas from the supply source to the high-pressure supply destination by means of the second liquid feed pump which is in the high-pressure operating mode (Fukase, Pg 21, lines 16-32, Operation of the inventive apparatus in normal mode and Operation of the inventive apparatus in abnormal mode described above regarding the inventive apparatus 10 can also be applied to system configuration example 1. More specifically, feeding pumps 2a and 2b are operated at 50% of their rated output in low-output mode, and when either one of feeding pumps 2a or 2b fall into abnormal mode, said one feeding pump 2a or 2b is put into shutdown mode, and the other pump 2b or 2a is operated at 100% of its rated output. In particular with system configuration example 1, since not only rectifying tower 5, but also the functions of the entire system and its product quality are assured by the reflux of high-purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, it is possible to assure stable transfer rate of the product oxygen in abnormal mode, and promptly secure transfer rate by adopting these control operations. At this time, in the stages of switching to the rated mode, drop in reflux flow rate of high purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, described in (ii) above, influences not only the purity of the product oxygen but also the product nitrogen. In the case of switching to rated mode, whether to switch with or without changing the reflux condition at normal mode is determined by the operational conditions of rectifying tower 5). Further, the limitations of claim 17 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, Lochner as modified discloses the air separation unit according to Claim 17 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the control unit is configured to:
when the first liquid feed pump is in a stopped state, implement, first liquid feed pump stoppage processing for feeding in a portion of the second liquefied gas from the supply source to the high-pressure supply destination and for feeding in the remainder of the second liquefied gas to the low-pressure supply destination by means of the second liquid feed pump (Fukase, Pg 21, lines 16-32, Operation of the inventive apparatus in normal mode and Operation of the inventive apparatus in abnormal mode described above regarding the inventive apparatus 10 can also be applied to system configuration example 1. More specifically, feeding pumps 2a and 2b are operated at 50% of their rated output in low-output mode, and when either one of feeding pumps 2a or 2b fall into abnormal mode, said one feeding pump 2a or 2b is put into shutdown mode, and the other pump 2b or 2a is operated at 100% of its rated output. In particular with system configuration example 1, since not only rectifying tower 5, but also the functions of the entire system and its product quality are assured by the reflux of high-purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, it is possible to assure stable transfer rate of the product oxygen in abnormal mode, and promptly secure transfer rate by adopting these control operations. At this time, in the stages of switching to the rated mode, drop in reflux flow rate of high purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, described in (ii) above, influences not only the purity of the product oxygen but also the product nitrogen. In the case of switching to rated mode, whether to switch with or without changing the reflux condition at normal mode is determined by the operational conditions of rectifying tower 5); and
when the second liquid feed pump is in a stopped state, implement, second liquid feed pump stoppage processing for feeding in a portion of the first liquefied gas from the supply source to the low-pressure supply destination and for feeding in the remainder of the first liquefied gas to the high-pressure supply destination by means of the first liquid feed pump (Fukase, Pg 21, lines 16-32, Operation of the inventive apparatus in normal mode and Operation of the inventive apparatus in abnormal mode described above regarding the inventive apparatus 10 can also be applied to system configuration example 1. More specifically, feeding pumps 2a and 2b are operated at 50% of their rated output in low-output mode, and when either one of feeding pumps 2a or 2b fall into abnormal mode, said one feeding pump 2a or 2b is put into shutdown mode, and the other pump 2b or 2a is operated at 100% of its rated output. In particular with system configuration example 1, since not only rectifying tower 5, but also the functions of the entire system and its product quality are assured by the reflux of high-purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, it is possible to assure stable transfer rate of the product oxygen in abnormal mode, and promptly secure transfer rate by adopting these control operations. At this time, in the stages of switching to the rated mode, drop in reflux flow rate of high purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, described in (ii) above, influences not only the purity of the product oxygen but also the product nitrogen. In the case of switching to rated mode, whether to switch with or without changing the reflux condition at normal mode is determined by the operational conditions of rectifying tower 5). Further, the limitations of claim 19 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Fukase as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kromer et al. (WO 2021230911), hereinafter Kromer.
Regarding claim 11, Lochner as modified discloses the process according to Claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose wherein part of the refrigeration for the process is provided by liquid nitrogen from an external source.
Kromer teaches wherein part of the refrigeration for the process is provided by liquid nitrogen from an external source (Fig. 1, cryogenic air separation unit 10; Pg. 12, paragraph 32, Although not shown, a stream of liquid nitrogen 400 taken from the nitrogen liquefier 500 described in more detail with reference to Fig. 2 or from an external source (not shown) may be combined with the second oxygen enriched liquid stream 90 and the combined stream used to condense the argon-rich stream 126 in the argon condenser 78, to enhance the argon recovery).
Lochner as modified fails to teach wherein part of the refrigeration for the process is provided by liquid nitrogen from an external source, however Kromer teaches that it is a known method in the art of air separation units to include wherein part of the refrigeration for the process is provided by liquid nitrogen from an external source. This is strong evidence that modifying Lochner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. ensuring sufficient refrigeration capacity is provided to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lochner as modified by Kromer and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of ensuring sufficient refrigeration capacity is provided to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Fukase as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of S. Shaievitz et al. (US 3,214,926), hereinafter Shaievitz.
Regarding claim 15, Lochner as modified discloses the process according to Claim 14 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose wherein the liquid at the second liquid pressure is reduced in pressure upstream of the condenser section.
Shaievitz teaches wherein the liquid stream is expanded upstream of the condenser section of a high-pressure column in an ASU (Fig. 1, valve 50; Col. 3, lines 20-26; The other fraction of the air that was split downstream of the hydrocarbon adsorbers 44 flows to the reboiler 62 of the low pressure column 54 where it is liquefied and supplies the necessary reboil energy for operation of this column. This stream is then expanded through valve 50 into the condenser 64 of the high pressure column 40).
Lochner as modified fails to teach wherein the liquid at the second liquid pressure is reduced in pressure upstream of the condenser section, however Shaievitz teaches that it is a known method in the art of air separation units to include wherein the liquid stream is expanded upstream of the condenser section of a high-pressure column in an ASU. This is strong evidence that modifying Lochner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. matching system pressures to ensure overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lochner as modified by Shaievitz and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of matching system pressures to ensure overall system efficiencies.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Fukase as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Pompl (DE 10213212), hereinafter Pompl.
Regarding claim 16, Lochner as modified discloses the process according to Claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the first outlet conduit is connected at a third removal point to the heat exchanger and the second outlet conduit is connected at a fourth removal point to the heat exchanger (See annotated Fig. 4 of Fukase below, pumps 2a, 2b, bypass flowpaths Ba, Bb, regulators Ra, Rb, heat exchanger 6, flow path, La, flow path Lb, flow path L2, flow path L4, first removal point H, second removal point I, third removal point J, fourth removal point K).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose valves connecting the third and fourth removal points to the heat exchanger.
Pompl teaches disclose valves connecting the third and fourth removal points to the heat exchanger (Fig. 1 of Pompl depicts the each of the pumps 11, 11’, 16, and 16’ to have valves disposed between the pump outlets and the destination components).
Lochner as modified fails to teach valves connecting the third and fourth removal points to the heat exchanger, however Pompl teaches that it is a known method in the art of air separation units to include valves connecting the third and fourth removal points to the heat exchanger. This is strong evidence that modifying Lochner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. improving flow control between the pumps and the destination components to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lochner as modified by Pompl and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of improving flow control between the pumps and the destination components to improve overall system efficiencies.
PNG
media_image2.png
448
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Fukase
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 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.
Specifically, Lochner as modified disclose pumps that can operate at different pressures (Lochner, Fig. 6, pumps 21 and 321) and piping and valve configuration and control method for pump redundancy which can send flow via one pump when the other is stopped to both the heat exchanger and to the top condenser of the high-pressure column for reflux (Fig. 1, control section 3; See annotated Fig. 4 of Fukase below, pumps 2a, 2b, bypass flowpaths Ba, Bb, regulators Ra, Rb, rectifying tower 5, upper tower section 5a, liquefied oxygen from bottom 5b, lower tower section 5c, heat exchanger 6, flow path L1, flow path, La, flow path Lb, flow path L2, flow path L4, first removal point H, second removal point I, third removal point J, fourth removal point K). However, the combination of these references suggests to a PHOSITA that flow must be sent to both the heat exchange and the condenser using both of the pumps or using one of the pumps when the other is stopped (Fukase, Pg 21, lines 16-32, Operation of the inventive apparatus in normal mode and Operation of the inventive apparatus in abnormal mode described above regarding the inventive apparatus 10 can also be applied to system configuration example 1. More specifically, feeding pumps 2a and 2b are operated at 50% of their rated output in low-output mode, and when either one of feeding pumps 2a or 2b fall into abnormal mode, said one feeding pump 2a or 2b is put into shutdown mode, and the other pump 2b or 2a is operated at 100% of its rated output. In particular with system configuration example 1, since not only rectifying tower 5, but also the functions of the entire system and its product quality are assured by the reflux of high-purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, it is possible to assure stable transfer rate of the product oxygen in abnormal mode, and promptly secure transfer rate by adopting these control operations. At this time, in the stages of switching to the rated mode, drop in reflux flow rate of high purity oxygen to rectifying tower 5, described in (ii) above, influences not only the purity of the product oxygen but also the product nitrogen. In the case of switching to rated mode, whether to switch with or without changing the reflux condition at normal mode is determined by the operational conditions of rectifying tower 5).
However, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art to provide wherein no liquid is sent in normal operation from the first liquid feed pump to the heat exchanger (as required by claim 6) nor wherein during normal operation liquid at the second liquid pressure is not sent from the second liquid feed pump to the condenser section (as required by claim 13), in combination with all other claimed features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schwenk (US Patent No. 6,612,129) discloses a similar ASU with two liquid feed pumps connected to a supply source of a bottom section of a low-pressure column.
Zapp et al. (US Patent No. 6,598,424) discloses a similar ASU with two liquid feed pumps connected to a supply source of a bottom section of a low-pressure column.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
April 30th, 2026
Prosecution Insights