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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “third cold box” of claim 4 and “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.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7: “the base section and the top section of the low-pressure column” should read “the base section of the low-pressure column and the top section of the low-pressure column”
Claim 1, line 21: “the base section and the top section of the argon column” should read “the base section of the argon column and the top section of the argon column”
Claim 1, line 26: “the top section (15)” should read “the top section”
Claim 9, line 2: “the first or second cold box” should read “the first cold box or the second cold box”
Claim 12, line 2: “the first or the second cold box” should read “the first cold box or the second cold box”
Claim 13, line 1: “wherein a system” should read “comprising the system”
Claims 2-3, 8-10, and 12-13 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 4-6 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 3.
Claim 7 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 11 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 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 of claim 11 recite, “comprising a subcooling heat exchanger which is arranged below the base section of the argon column” which is not supported by the present disclosure as Fig. 2 depicts subcooling heat exchanger 17 to be arranged below the top section of the low-pressure column 13. This arrangement is further described in the following recitation of the specification, “As illustrated in dashed lines here, the subcooling heat exchanger 17 can in particular be arranged below the top section 13 of the low-pressure column in the second cold box 120 such that an orthogonal projection of the subcooling heat exchanger 17 onto the horizontal plane H overlaps with the orthogonal projection of the top section 13 of the low-pressure column onto this horizontal plane H in particular (Pg. 25, paragraph 80)”.
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 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation "the first cold box" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the first cold box" in line 17 of claim 1 to “the first cold box perimeter” which is given proper antecedent basis in line 3 of claim 1. The Examiner further notes lines 25 and 28 of claim 1 also recite “the first cold box”, the Examiner recommends using consistent terminology throughout the claims when referring to the same components.
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 2 recites the broad recitation “wherein the pure argon column is arranged in the first cold box or the second cold box”, and the claim also recites “in particular in the cold box in which the top section of the argon column designed as a crude argon column is arranged” 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 the examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the cold box" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the cold box” in line 4 of claim 2 to “a cold box”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the rectification column arrangement" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the rectification column arrangement” in line 2 of claim 3 to “the rectification column system” which is given proper antecedent basis in claim 1 from which claim 3 depends.
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 “wherein the extraction point for the first transfer liquid is 1 to 30”, and the claim also recites “preferably 1 to 15” 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 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 9 recites the broad recitation “a subcooling heat exchanger which is arranged in the first or second cold box”, and the claim also recites “in particular in the second cold box below the top section of the low-pressure column” 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 the examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claims 2-3, 8-10, and 12-13 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 4-6 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 3.
Claim 7 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 11 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 10.
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 13 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 perimeter 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 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 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, in particular in the cold box in which the top section of the argon column designed as a crude 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 13, Lochner as modified discloses a method for the low temperature separation of air, wherein a system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
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 arrangement has a pure oxygen column.
Hirose teaches wherein the rectification column arrangement 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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Lautenschlager, Hirose, and Kunz 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, preferably 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 30, preferably 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 1 to 30, 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.
Claim 9 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 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), 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 or second cold box, in particular in the second cold box below the top section of the low-pressure column.
Cavagne teaches the subcooling heat exchanger which is arranged in the first or second cold box, in particular in the second cold box below the top section of the 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; 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 or second cold box, in particular in the second cold box below the top section of the low-pressure 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 31).
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 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pompl (US Patent No. 6,530,242) discloses a similar low-temperature air separation plant.
Kurtz et al. (US Patent No. 11,740,015) discloses a similar low-temperature air separation plant.
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 December 12th, 2025
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763