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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 08th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection, 112(a) rejection, and 112(b) rejection previously cited in the Non-Final rejection mailed January 08th, 2026. The amendments to the drawings have overcome the drawing objection of claim 4 previously cited in the Non-Final rejection mailed January 08th, 2026. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “wherein the top section of the low-pressure column has a feed point for a second transfer liquid, and the base section of the argon column has an extraction point for the second transfer liquid, wherein the base section of the argon column and the top section of the low-pressure column are arranged in such a way that the extraction point for the second transfer liquid is above the feed point for the second transfer liquid” of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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.
Claim 17 is 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 17, lines 1-3 recite, “wherein the base section of the argon column is arranged in the second cold box and the top section of the argon column is arranged in the first cold box” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 1 from which claim 17 depends recites, “the base section of the argon column is arranged in the first cold box, and the top section the argon column is arranged in the second cold box, or the base section of the argon column is arranged in the second cold box and the top section of the argon column is arranged in the first cold box” therefore, if the option of “the base section of the argon column is arranged in the first cold box, and the top section the argon column is arranged in the second cold box” is selected in claim 1, then the limitations of claim 17 contradict the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations of claim 17 only be required if the option of “the base section of the argon column is arranged in the second cold box and the top section of the argon column is arranged in the first cold box” is chosen in claim 1 from which 17 depends. The Examiner further notes that if the option of “the base section of the argon column is arranged in the second cold box and the top section of the argon column is arranged in the first cold box” is chosen in claim 1 then the limitations of claim 17 do not further limit the claims. The Examiner recommends amending the claims 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, 13-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner (US Patent No. 10,591,209), hereinafter Lochner in view of Lautenschlager (EP 2986924), hereinafter Lautenschlager.
Regarding claim 1, Lochner discloses a plant for low-temperature air separation, having a rectification column system comprising a high-pressure column, a low-pressure column and an argon column, and a cold box system having a first cold box and a second cold box (Fig. 1, air separation plant 100, high-pressure column 1, two-piece low-pressure column having a foot section 2 and a top section 3, two-piece crude argon column having a foot section 4 and a top section 5, first cold box A, second cold box B), wherein
the low-pressure column is divided into at least a base section and a top section (Fig. 1, two-piece low-pressure column having a foot section 2 and a top section 3),
the base section of the low-pressure column and the top section of the low-pressure column are arranged next to one another in such a manner that an orthogonal projection of the base section of the low-pressure column onto the horizontal plane does not intersect with an orthogonal projection of the top section of the low-pressure column onto the horizontal plane (Fig. 2 of Lochner depicts foot section 2 and top section 3 of the low-pressure column to be arranged next to one another in such a manner that an orthogonal projection of the base section of the low-pressure column onto the horizontal plane does not intersect with an orthogonal projection of the top section of the low-pressure column onto the horizontal plane),
the high-pressure column is arranged below the base section of the low-pressure column in such a manner that an orthogonal projection of the high-pressure column onto the horizontal plane intersects with the orthogonal projection of the base section of the low-pressure column onto the horizontal plane (Fig. 1 of Lochner depicts high-pressure column 1 to be arranged below the foot section 2 of the low-pressure column in such a manner that an orthogonal projection of the high-pressure column onto the horizontal plane intersects with the orthogonal projection of the base section of the low-pressure column onto the horizontal plane),
the high-pressure column together with the base section of the low-pressure column is located in the first cold box and the top section of the low-pressure column is arranged in the second cold box (Fig. 1; Col. 9, lines 57-61, A denotes a first cold box which is designed for receiving the high-pressure column 1 and the foot section 2 of the low-pressure column. A second cold box B can be designed for receiving the top section 3 of the low-pressure column),
wherein
the argon column is divided at least into a base section and a top section, wherein the base section of the argon column and the top section of the argon column are arranged next to one another in such a manner that an orthogonal projection of the base section of the argon column onto the horizontal plane does not intersect with an orthogonal projection of the top section of the argon column (Fig. 1, two-piece crude argon column having a foot section 4 and a top section 5; Fig. 1 of Lochner depicts foot section 4 and top section 5 of the crude argon column to be arranged next to one another in such a manner that an orthogonal projection of the base section of the argon column onto the horizontal plane does not intersect with an orthogonal projection of the top section of the argon column), wherein
the top section of the argon column is arranged in the second cold box (Col. 9, lines 63-66, As explained, the top section 3 of the low-pressure column and the top section 5 of the crude argon column (optionally together with the pure argon column 6) can also be arranged in a shared cold box).
However, Lochner does not disclose the base section of the argon column is arranged in the first cold box, and the top section of the argon column is arranged in the second cold box.
Lautenschlager teaches the base section of the argon column is arranged in the first cold box, and the top section of the argon column is arranged in the second cold box (Fig. 1, first cold box 1, second cold box 40, first crude argon column 6, second crude argon column 41; Further, Fig. 1 of Lautenschlager depicts the first crude argon column 6 to be arranged in first cold box 1 and second crude argon column 41 to be arranged in second cold box 40).
Lochner fails to teach the base section of the argon column is arranged in the first cold box, and the top section of the argon column is arranged in the second cold box, however Lautenschlager teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature air separation plants to include the base section of the argon column is arranged in the first cold box, and the top section of the argon column is arranged in the second cold box. This is strong evidence that modifying Lochner as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. simplifying component arrangement within the system to improve space utilization). 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 Lautenschlager 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 simplifying component arrangement within the system to improve space utilization.
Regarding claim 2, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the argon column is designed as a crude argon column and further a pure argon column is provided, wherein the pure argon column is arranged in the first cold box or the second cold box (Lochner, Fig. 1, two-piece crude argon column having a foot section 4 and a top section 5, pure argon column 6; Col. 9, lines 63-66, As explained, the top section 3 of the low-pressure column and the top section 5 of the crude argon column (optionally together with the pure argon column 6) can also be arranged in a shared cold box).
Regarding claim 13, Lochner as modified discloses a method for the low temperature separation of air comprising performing low temperature separation of air in the system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the top section of the argon column is designed as a crude argon column and further a pure argon column is provided, and wherein the pure argon column is arranged a cold box in which the top section of the argon column is arranged (Lochner, Fig. 1, two-piece crude argon column having a foot section 4 and a top section 5, pure argon column 6; Col. 9, lines 63-66, As explained, the top section 3 of the low-pressure column and the top section 5 of the crude argon column (optionally together with the pure argon column 6) can also be arranged in a shared cold box).
Regarding claim 17, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the base section of the argon column is arranged in the second cold box and the top section of the argon column is arranged in the first cold box (The limitations of claim 17 are not interpreted to be a required limitation of the claims as the option of “the base section of the argon column is arranged in the first cold box, and the top section the argon column is arranged in the second cold box” was chosen in the rejection of claim 1 above from which claim 17 depends; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 18, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the argon column is designed as a crude argon column and further a pure argon column is provided, wherein the pure argon column is arranged in the second cold box (Lochner, Fig. 1, two-piece crude argon column having a foot section 4 and a top section 5, pure argon column 6; Col. 9, lines 63-66, As explained, the top section 3 of the low-pressure column and the top section 5 of the crude argon column (optionally together with the pure argon column 6) can also be arranged in a shared cold box).
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Lautenschlager as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirose et al. (US 20200318898), hereinafter Hirose.
Regarding claim 3, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose wherein the rectification column system has a pure oxygen column.
Hirose teaches wherein the rectification column system has a pure oxygen column (Fig. 1, high-purity oxygen rectification column 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plant of Lochner as modified to include a pure oxygen column as taught by Hirose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a high-purity liquid oxygen stream for sale and other commercial usage.
Regarding claim 5, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose wherein the pure oxygen column and the base section of the argon column are arranged side by side in such a way that an orthogonal projection of at least one upper part of the pure oxygen column onto the horizontal plane does not overlap with the orthogonal projection of the base section of the argon column onto the horizontal plane.
Hirose teaches wherein the pure oxygen column and the base section of the argon column are arranged side by side in such a way that an orthogonal projection of at least one upper part of the pure oxygen column onto the horizontal plane does not overlap with the orthogonal projection of the base section of the argon column onto the horizontal plane (Fig. 1 of Hirose high-purity oxygen rectification column 8 and the third column bottom section 61 of crude argon column 6 to be arranged side by side in such a way that an orthogonal projection of at least one upper part of the pure oxygen column onto the horizontal plane does not overlap with the orthogonal projection of the base section of the argon column onto the horizontal plane).
Lochner as modified fails to teach wherein the pure oxygen column and the base section of the argon column are arranged side by side in such a way that an orthogonal projection of at least one upper part of the pure oxygen column onto the horizontal plane does not overlap with the orthogonal projection of the base section of the argon column onto the horizontal plane, however Hirose teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature air separation plants to include wherein the pure oxygen column and the base section of the argon column are arranged side by side in such a way that an orthogonal projection of at least one upper part of the pure oxygen column onto the horizontal plane does not overlap with the orthogonal projection of the base section of the argon column onto the horizontal plane. This is strong evidence that modifying Lochner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. simplifying component arrangement within the system to improve space utilization). 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 Hirose 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 simplifying component arrangement within the system to improve space utilization.
Regarding claim 6, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose wherein the pure oxygen column has a feed point for a first transfer liquid and the base section of the argon column has an extraction point for the first transfer liquid, wherein the pure oxygen column and the base section of the argon column are arranged such that the extraction point for the first transfer liquid is geodetically above the feed point for the first transfer liquid.
Hirose teaches wherein the pure oxygen column has a feed point for a first transfer liquid and the base section of the argon column has an extraction point for the first transfer liquid, wherein the pure oxygen column and the base section of the argon column are arranged such that the extraction point for the first transfer liquid is geodetically above the feed point for the first transfer liquid (Fig. 1, high-purity oxygen rectification column 8, intermediate portion drawing line L62, third column bottom section 61 of crude argon column 6; Pg. 4, paragraph 76, An intermediate portion drawing line L62 is a line for introducing, into an intermediate portion of the oxygen rectification portion 82 (preferably a lower stage than a central position of the oxygen rectification portion 82), an oxygen-rich liquid (intermediate-portion drawn liquid) drawn from the intermediate portion of the third rectification portion 62 (preferably a lower stage than a central position of the third rectification portion 62); Further, Fig. 1 of Hirose depicts the extraction point for the intermediate portion drawing line L62 to be arranged geodetically above the feed point for intermediate portion drawing line L62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plant of Lochner as modified wherein the pure oxygen column has a feed point for a first transfer liquid and the base section of the argon column has an extraction point for the first transfer liquid, wherein the pure oxygen column and the base section of the argon column are arranged such that the extraction point for the first transfer liquid is geodetically above the feed point for the first transfer liquid as taught by Hirose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce the number of pumps required to operate the system to reduce overall plant costs.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Lautenschlager and Hirose as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kunz et al. (WO 2020083528), hereinafter Kunz.
Regarding claim 4, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose wherein the pure oxygen column is arranged in the first cold box, the second cold box or an additionally provided third cold box.
Kunz teaches wherein the pure oxygen column is arranged in the first cold box, the second cold box or an additionally provided third cold box (Fig. 31, fifth rectification column 15, third prefabricated cold box 3130; Pg. 42, lines 18-19, a fifth rectification column 15 is used, which is set up as a rectification column for providing high-purity oxygen; Pg. 54, lines 30-32, Rectification column 13 can be arranged in a third prefabricated cold box 3130. The third cold box 3130 in the illustrated example also contains the fifth Rectification column 15 arranged).
Lochner as modified fails to teach wherein the pure oxygen column is arranged in the first cold box, the second cold box or an additionally provided third cold box, however Kunz teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature air separation plants to include wherein the pure oxygen column is arranged in the first cold box, the second cold box or an additionally provided third cold box. This is strong evidence that modifying Lochner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. simplifying component arrangement within the system to improve space utilization). 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 Kunz 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 simplifying component arrangement within the system to improve space utilization.
Regarding claim 19, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose wherein the pure oxygen column is arranged in the first cold box.
Kunz teaches wherein the pure oxygen column is arranged in a cold box (Fig. 31, fifth rectification column 15, third prefabricated cold box 3130; Pg. 42, lines 18-19, a fifth rectification column 15 is used, which is set up as a rectification column for providing high-purity oxygen; Pg. 54, lines 30-32, Rectification column 13 can be arranged in a third prefabricated cold box 3130. The third cold box 3130 in the illustrated example also contains the fifth Rectification column 15 arranged).
Lochner as modified fails to teach wherein the pure oxygen column is arranged in the first cold box, however Kunz teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature air separation plants to include wherein the pure oxygen column is arranged in a cold box. This is strong evidence that modifying Lochner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. simplifying component arrangement within the system to improve space utilization). 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 Kunz 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 simplifying component arrangement within the system to improve space utilization. Furthermore, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Lautenschlager and Hirose as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Rottmann et al. (US Patent No. 4,824,453), hereinafter Rottmann.
Regarding claim 7, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 6 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 6 above).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose wherein the extraction point for the first transfer liquid is 1 to 30 theoretical plates above a sump of the base section of the argon column.
Rottmann teaches wherein the extraction point for the first transfer liquid is 1 to 30 theoretical plates above a sump of the base section of the argon column (Fig. 1, raw argon column 10, high-purity oxygen column 23, liquid fraction 22; Col. 7, lines 64-67, A side liquid fraction is removed from the raw argon column at a point 3 to 5 plates above the bottom liquid by a pipe 22 and delivered to a high-purity oxygen column 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Plant of Lochner as modified wherein the extraction point for the first transfer liquid is 1 to 30 theoretical plates above a sump of the base section of the argon column as taught by Rottmann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the impurities (krypton, xenon and hydrocarbons) are held by the plates between the argon column bottom and the side fraction removal point in the argon column (Rottmann, Col. 9, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 15, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 6 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 6 above).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose wherein the extraction point for the first transfer liquid is 1 to 15 theoretical plates above a sump of the base section of the argon column.
Rottmann teaches wherein the extraction point for the first transfer liquid is 1 to 15 theoretical plates above a sump of the base section of the argon column (Fig. 1, raw argon column 10, high-purity oxygen column 23, liquid fraction 22; Col. 7, lines 64-67, A side liquid fraction is removed from the raw argon column at a point 3 to 5 plates above the bottom liquid by a pipe 22 and delivered to a high-purity oxygen column 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Plant of Lochner as modified wherein the extraction point for the first transfer liquid is preferably 1 to 15 theoretical plates above a sump of the base section of the argon column as taught by Rottmann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the impurities (krypton, xenon and hydrocarbons) are held by the plates between the argon column bottom and the side fraction removal point in the argon column (Rottmann, Col. 9, lines 2-4).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Lautenschlager as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lochner (US Patent No. 10,690,408), hereinafter Lochner ‘408.
Regarding claim 8, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the base section of the argon column has a feed point for a second transfer liquid, and the top section of the low-pressure column has an extraction point for the second transfer liquid (Lochner, Fig. 1, stream m; Col. 9, lines 2-3, an argon-rich stream mis taken off and fed into the foot section 4 of the crude argon column).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose wherein the top section of the low-pressure column and the base section of the argon column are arranged such that the extraction point for the second transfer liquid is above the feed point for the second transfer liquid.
Lochner ‘408 teaches wherein the top section of the low-pressure column and the base section of the argon column are arranged such that the extraction point for the second transfer liquid is above the feed point for the second transfer liquid (Fig. 1 of Lochner ‘408 depicts the low-pressure column 11 and the first section 81 of the argon column to be arranged such that the extraction point for the argon-enriched stream 80 is above the feed point for the argon-enriched stream 80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plant of Lochner as modified wherein the top section of the low-pressure column and the base section of the argon column are arranged such that the extraction point for the second transfer liquid is above the feed point for the second transfer liquid as taught by Lochner ‘408. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce the number of pumps required to operate the system to reduce overall plant costs.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Lautenschlager as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cavagne et al. (US 20200132368), hereinafter Cavagne.
Regarding claim 9, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a subcooling heat exchanger (Lochner, Fig. 1, subcooling counterflow heat exchanger 13).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose the subcooling heat exchanger which is arranged in the first cold box or the second cold box.
Cavagne teaches the subcooling heat exchanger which is arranged in the first cold box or the second cold box (Fig. 1 of Cavagne depicts subcooling heat exchanger 12 to be disposed in the cold box 10 below the first column 2 and the second column 4; Fig. 2 of Cavagne depicts subcooling heat exchanger 12 to be disposed in the cold box 10 below the argon column 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plant of Lochner as modified to arrange the subcooling heat exchanger in the first cold box or the second cold box as taught by Cavagne. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to make the cold box more compact (Cavagne, Pg. 2, paragraph 31). Furthermore, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Regarding claim 16, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), comprising a subcooling heat exchanger (Lochner, Fig. 1, subcooling counterflow heat exchanger 13).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose the subcooling heat exchanger is arranged in the second cold box below the top section of the low-pressure column.
Cavagne teaches the subcooling heat exchanger which is arranged in a cold box below a low pressure column (Fig. 1 of Cavagne depicts subcooling heat exchanger 12 to be disposed in the cold box 10 below the first column 2 and the second column 4).
Lochner as modified fails to teach the subcooling heat exchanger is arranged in the second cold box below the top section of the low-pressure column, however Cavagne teaches that it is a known method in the art of air separation units to include the subcooling heat exchanger which is arranged in a cold box below a low pressure column. This is strong evidence that modifying Lochner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. making the cold box more compact (Cavagne, Pg. 2, paragraph 31)). 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 Cavagne 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 making the cold box more compact (Cavagne, Pg. 2, paragraph 31). Furthermore, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Lautenschlager as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirose (TW 202009434), hereinafter Hirose ‘434.
Regarding claim 10, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose wherein the top section of the low-pressure column has a feed point for a second transfer liquid, and the base section of the argon column has an extraction point for the second transfer liquid, wherein the base section of the argon column and the top section of the low-pressure column are arranged in such a way that the extraction point for the second transfer liquid is above the feed point for the second transfer liquid.
Hirose ‘434 teaches wherein the top section of the low-pressure column has a feed point for a second transfer liquid, and the base section of the argon column has an extraction point for the second transfer liquid, wherein the base section of the argon column and the top section of the low-pressure column are arranged in such a way that the extraction point for the second transfer liquid is above the feed point for the second transfer liquid (Fig. 1A, lower section 31 crude argon distillation tower, second distillation column 21, second oxygen-rich liquid feedline L4; Pg. 5, paragraph 15, The second oxygen-rich liquid feed line (L4) is used to supply the second oxygen-rich liquid from the bottom (311) of the lower distillation column (31) to the middle part (213) of the second distillation column (21) (or The position of the tower below the middle section); Further, Fig. 1A of Hirose ‘434 depicts the wherein the lower section 31 of the argon column and the second distillation column 21 to be arranged in such a way that the extraction point for the second oxygen-rich liquid feedline L4 is above the feed point for the second oxygen-rich liquid feedline L4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plant of Lochner as modified wherein the top section of the low-pressure column has a feed point for a second transfer liquid, and the base section of the argon column has an extraction point for the second transfer liquid, wherein the base section of the argon column and the top section of the low-pressure column are arranged in such a way that the extraction point for the second transfer liquid is above the feed point for the second transfer liquid as taught by Hirose ‘434. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce the number of pumps required to operate the system to reduce overall plant costs (Hirose ‘434, Pg. 5, paragraph 16).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Lautenschlager and Hirose ‘434 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Cavagne et al. (US 20200132368), hereinafter Cavagne.
Regarding claim 11, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 10 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 10 above), comprising a subcooling heat exchanger (Lochner, Fig. 1, subcooling counterflow heat exchanger 13).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose the subcooling heat exchanger below the base section of the argon column.
Cavagne teaches the subcooling heat exchanger below the base section of the argon column (Fig. 2 of Cavagne depicts subcooling heat exchanger 12 to be disposed in the cold box 10 below the argon column 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plant of Lochner as modified to arrange the subcooling heat exchanger below the base section of the argon column as taught by Cavagne. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to make the cold box more compact (Cavagne, Pg. 2, paragraph 40).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Lautenschlager as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lochner (EP 3614082), hereinafter Lochner ‘082.
Regarding claim 12, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Lochner as modified does not disclose in which all cold apparatus parts are arranged in the first cold box or the second cold box and no third cold box is used.
Lochner ‘082 teaches in which all cold apparatus parts are arranged in the first cold box or the second cold box and no third cold box is used (Fig. 7; Pg. 13, paragraph 80, line cold box 40 is provided in each case Figure 7 The arrangement shown on the left shows all of the separating units, namely the high-pressure column 1, the foot section 2 of the low-pressure column, the head section 3 of the low-pressure column and the crude argon column 4 with the pure argon column 5 in a common column cool box, which is also indicated here by 50, to which are arranged immediately connects the cable gold box 40. The pillar gold box and the line gold box 40 can in particular be connected to one another at their corresponding surfaces. In the in Figure 7 The view shown on the right is of a corresponding L-shaped pillar gold box, denoted here by 50 ', and the line cold box 40 is fitted into the pillar gold box 50' in the manner shown).
Lochner as modified fails to teach all cold apparatus parts are arranged in the first or the second cold box and no third cold box is used, however Lochner ‘082 teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature air separation plants to include all cold apparatus parts are arranged in the first or the second cold box and no third cold box is used. This is strong evidence that modifying Lochner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. simplifying component arrangement within the system to improve space utilization). 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 Lochner ‘082 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 simplifying component arrangement within the system to improve space utilization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 08th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9 (as numbered by the Applicant) of the Remarks, “With regards to the first objection, applicants submit herewith new Fig. 2a which shows a third cold box housing the pure oxygen column 18 as recited in claim 4. Regarding the second objection, claim 10 is cancelled.” However, claim 10 remains pending and no amendments to the drawings or specification have been submitted to overcome the drawing objection for the claimed subject matter of claim 10 not being shown, therefore, the drawing objection for claim 10 has not been overcome. See drawing objections above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 12-13 (as numbered by the Applicant) of the Remarks, “As shown in Figs. 1-2, Lautenschlager disclose a second cold box 40 that houses a second crude argon column 41 and a pure argon column. Thus, Lautenschlager, like Lochner, does not disclose a top section of a crude argon column and a top section 3 of the low-pressure column being arranged in a second cold box. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the system of Lochner based on the disclosure of Lautenschlager. Lautenschlage, as noted above, is directed to retrofitting an existing system to provide for pure argon production. However, Lochner' s system already provides for such production since Lochner' s system has crude argon column 4, 5 and pure argon column 6. Thus, there is no need to retrofit the system of Lochner based on the Lautenschlager disclosure. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to the disclosure of Lautenschlager to modify the Lochner system. In view of the above remarks, it is respectfully submitted that the disclosure of Lochner, take alone or in combination with the disclosure of Lautenschlager, fails to render obvious applicants' claimed invention. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.” However, this argument is not persuasive as Lautenschlager explicitly shows it is known in the art to have two portions of a crude argon column separated into separate cold boxes (Fig. 1 of Lautenschlager depicts the first crude argon column 6 to be arranged in first cold box 1 and second crude argon column 41 to be arranged in second cold box 40). This teaching would suggest to a PHOSITA that a top section and a base section of a crude argon column can be housed in different cold boxes from one another to produce the predictable result of simplifying component arrangement within the system to improve space utilization. Further, the Examiner is not suggesting any retrofitting of the system of Lochner based on the Lautenschlager disclosure. The system of Lochner already discloses a crude argon column separated into two sections and a pure argon column, Lautenschlager similarly teaches these same components but with a different arrangement of the columns within the cold boxes of the system. Further, the Examiner notes the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C. See the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 13 (as numbered by the Applicant) of the Remarks, “Moreover, with regards to claim 6, Hirose et al. do not disclose a crude argon column that is divided into a base section and a top section. Thus, Hirose et al. do not disclose or suggest that a base section of the argon having an extraction point for a first transfer liquid that is above a feed point for the first transfer liquid into the pure oxygen column. In Fig. 1, Hirose et al. show an extraction point at a midpoint of crude argon column 6, not a base section thereof.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the argon column 6 of Hirose includes a bottom portion 62 and a top portion 63 (Hirose, Pg. 1, paragraph 14, a third rectification column (crude argon column) (6) for rectifying argon, said third rectification column (6) comprising a third column bottom portion (61) to which is introduced a crude argon feed gas drawn from the intermediate portion (51) of the second rectification portion (50) of the second rectification column (5), a third rectification portion (62) for rectifying the crude argon feed gas, and a third column top portion (63) in which argon is stored) and explicitly discloses the extraction point (Hirose, Fig. 1, drawing line L62) to be lower than a central portion of the third rectification portion 62 of the crude argon column 6 (Hirose, Pg. 4, paragraph 76, An intermediate portion drawing line L62 is a line for introducing, into an intermediate portion of the oxygen rectification portion 82 (preferably a lower stage than a central position of the oxygen rectification portion 82), an oxygen-rich liquid (intermediate-portion drawn liquid) drawn from the intermediate portion of the third rectification portion 62 (preferably a lower stage than a central position of the third rectification portion 62)). The explicit disclosure of the drawing line L62 being disposed below a central portion of the third rectification portion 62 suggest to a PHOSITA that the drawing line L62 originates from a base section of the crude argon column 6. See the rejection of claim 6 above.
The rejection of independent claim 1 is maintained. The rejection of dependent claims 2-13 are also maintained for at least the reasons described herein. See the rejections of new dependent claims 14-19 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 May 15th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights