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 09th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 11-17 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every drawing objection, claim objection, 112(a) rejection, and 112(b) rejection previously cited in the Non-Final rejection mailed January 09th, 2026. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
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 1-3, 11, 12-13, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner (US Patent No. 10,591,209), hereinafter Lochner in view of Hirose et al. (US 20200318898), hereinafter Hirose and Kunz et al. (WO 2020083528), hereinafter Kunz.
Regarding claim 1, Lochner discloses a plant for low-temperature separation of air, having a rectification column system having a high-pressure column, a low-pressure column, an argon column and a cold box system (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, third cold box C),
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 (H) does not intersect with an orthogonal projection of the top section of the low-pressure column onto the horizontal plane (H) (Fig. 2 of Lochner depict32s 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 (H) intersects with the orthogonal projection of the base section of the low-pressure column onto the horizontal plane (H) (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 cold box system has a first cold box, a second cold box and a third cold box (Fig. 1, first cold box A, second cold box B, third cold box C),
the high-pressure column together with the base section of the low-pressure column is arranged in the first cold box (Fig. 1; Col. 9, lines 57-59, 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),
the top section of the low-pressure column is arranged in the second cold box (Fig. 1; Col. 9, lines 59-61, A second cold box B can be designed for receiving the top section 3 of the low-pressure column),
the argon column or one or more sections of the argon column is or are arranged in the third cold box (Fig. 1; Col. 9, lines 61-63, In the example shown, a third cold box C is designed for receiving the top section 5 of the crude argon column).
However, Lochner does not disclose the rectification column system having a pure oxygen column,
the pure oxygen column and the argon column or a base section of the argon column are arranged side by side such that an orthogonal projection of at least one upper part of the pure oxygen column onto the horizontal plane does not overlap with an orthogonal projection of the argon column or the base section of the argon column onto the horizontal plane (H),
the pure oxygen column has a feed point for a first transfer liquid and the argon column or 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 the rectification column system having a pure oxygen column (Fig. 1, high-purity oxygen rectification column 8),
the pure oxygen column and the argon column or a base section of the argon column are arranged side by side such that an orthogonal projection of at least one upper part of the pure oxygen column onto the horizontal plane does not overlap with an orthogonal projection of the argon column or the base section of the argon column onto the horizontal plane (H) (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),
the pure oxygen column has a feed point for a first transfer liquid and the argon column or 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 the rectification column system having a pure oxygen column, the pure oxygen column and the argon column or a base section of the argon column are arranged side by side such that an orthogonal projection of at least one upper part of the pure oxygen column onto the horizontal plane does not overlap with an orthogonal projection of the argon column or the base section of the argon column onto the horizontal plane (H), the pure oxygen column has a feed point for a first transfer liquid and the argon column or 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 produce a high-purity liquid oxygen stream for sale and other commercial usage while, simplify component arrangement within the system to improve space utilization, and to reduce the number of pumps required to operate the system to reduce overall plant costs.
Further, Lochner as modified does not disclose the pure oxygen column is arranged in the first cold box.
Kunz teaches a plurality of rectification columns can be distributed in any possible combination between a system of cold boxes (Fig. 31, first rectification column 11, second rectification column 12, third rectification column 13, fourth rectification column 14, fifth rectification column 15, first prefabricated cold box 3110, third prefabricated cold box 3120, third prefabricated cold box 3130, fourth prefabricated cold box 3140; 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. 54-55, lines 25-34 and 1-2, The air separation plant 3100 according to FIG Main heat exchanger 1 may be arranged in a first prefabricated cold box 31 10. The first rectification column 11 with the heat exchanger 2 used to cool its top gas can be arranged in a second prefabricated cold box 3120. The second rectification column 12 can together with the third 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. In the example shown, the fourth is Rectification column 14 is arranged in a further prefabricated cold box 3140, in which, however, the fifth rectification column 15 is also arranged, for example can. However, the fourth rectification column 14 can also be arranged in the third cold box 3130. Any distribution is possible).
Lochner as modified fails to teach 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 a plurality of rectification columns distributed in any possible combination between a system of cold boxes. 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 while maintaining desired heat transfer characteristics within the system). 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 while maintaining desired heat transfer characteristics within the system. 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 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 divided at least into the 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 (H) does not intersect with an orthogonal projection of the top section of the argon column (Lochner, 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).
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), wherein the argon column is designed as a crude argon column and further a pure argon column is provided (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).
However, Lochner as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the pure argon column is arranged in the first cold box or the second cold box.
Kuinz teaches a plurality of rectification columns can be distributed in any possible combination between a system of cold boxes (Fig. 31, first rectification column 11, second rectification column 12, third rectification column 13, fourth rectification column 14, fifth rectification column 15, first prefabricated cold box 3110, third prefabricated cold box 3120, third prefabricated cold box 3130, fourth prefabricated cold box 3140; 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. 54-55, lines 25-34 and 1-2, The air separation plant 3100 according to FIG Main heat exchanger 1 may be arranged in a first prefabricated cold box 31 10. The first rectification column 11 with the heat exchanger 2 used to cool its top gas can be arranged in a second prefabricated cold box 3120. The second rectification column 12 can together with the third 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. In the example shown, the fourth is Rectification column 14 is arranged in a further prefabricated cold box 3140, in which, however, the fifth rectification column 15 is also arranged, for example can. However, the fourth rectification column 14 can also be arranged in the third cold box 3130. Any distribution is possible).
Lochner as modified fails to teach wherein the pure argon column is arranged in the first cold box or the second cold box, however Kunz teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature air separation plants to include a plurality of rectification columns distributed in any possible combination between a system of cold boxes. 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 while maintaining desired heat transfer characteristics within the system). 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 while maintaining desired heat transfer characteristics within the system. 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 11, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a first section of the crude argon column is formed by the base section thereof (Lochner, Fig. 1, two-piece crude argon column having a foot section 4 and a top section 5).
Regarding claim 12, Lochner as modified discloses a method for the low temperature separation of air comprising performing low temperature air separation in the plant according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above; Lochner, Abstract, An air separation plant for obtaining product containing argon by low temperature separation of compressed, cooled feed air).
Regarding claim 13, 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 the argon column is divided into the base section and a top section, and wherein a further a pure argon column is provided, wherein the pure argon column is arranged in 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 15, 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 pure argon column (Lochner, Fig. 1, pure argon column 6).
However, Lochner as modified does not explicitly disclose the pure argon column is arranged in the second cold box.
Kuinz teaches a plurality of rectification columns can be distributed in any possible combination between a system of cold boxes (Fig. 31, first rectification column 11, second rectification column 12, third rectification column 13, fourth rectification column 14, fifth rectification column 15, first prefabricated cold box 3110, third prefabricated cold box 3120, third prefabricated cold box 3130, fourth prefabricated cold box 3140; 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. 54-55, lines 25-34 and 1-2, The air separation plant 3100 according to FIG Main heat exchanger 1 may be arranged in a first prefabricated cold box 31 10. The first rectification column 11 with the heat exchanger 2 used to cool its top gas can be arranged in a second prefabricated cold box 3120. The second rectification column 12 can together with the third 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. In the example shown, the fourth is Rectification column 14 is arranged in a further prefabricated cold box 3140, in which, however, the fifth rectification column 15 is also arranged, for example can. However, the fourth rectification column 14 can also be arranged in the third cold box 3130. Any distribution is possible).
Lochner as modified fails to teach the pure argon column is arranged in the second cold box, however Kunz teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature air separation plants to include a plurality of rectification columns distributed in any possible combination between a system of cold boxes. 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 while maintaining desired heat transfer characteristics within the system). 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 while maintaining desired heat transfer characteristics within the system. 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), wherein the argon column is divided into the base section and a top section (Lochner, Fig. 1, two-piece crude argon column having a foot section 4 and a top section 5).
However, Lochner as modified does not explicitly disclose the top section of the argon column is arranged in the second cold box.
Kuinz teaches a plurality of rectification columns can be distributed in any possible combination between a system of cold boxes (Fig. 31, first rectification column 11, second rectification column 12, third rectification column 13, fourth rectification column 14, fifth rectification column 15, first prefabricated cold box 3110, third prefabricated cold box 3120, third prefabricated cold box 3130, fourth prefabricated cold box 3140; 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. 54-55, lines 25-34 and 1-2, The air separation plant 3100 according to FIG Main heat exchanger 1 may be arranged in a first prefabricated cold box 31 10. The first rectification column 11 with the heat exchanger 2 used to cool its top gas can be arranged in a second prefabricated cold box 3120. The second rectification column 12 can together with the third 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. In the example shown, the fourth is Rectification column 14 is arranged in a further prefabricated cold box 3140, in which, however, the fifth rectification column 15 is also arranged, for example can. However, the fourth rectification column 14 can also be arranged in the third cold box 3130. Any distribution is possible).
Lochner as modified fails to teach disclose the top section of the argon column is arranged in the second cold box, however Kunz teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature air separation plants to include a plurality of rectification columns distributed in any possible combination between a system of cold boxes. 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 while maintaining desired heat transfer characteristics within the system). 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 while maintaining desired heat transfer characteristics within the system. 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 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 argon column is divided into the base section and a top section (Lochner, Fig. 1, two-piece crude argon column having a foot section 4 and a top section 5).
However, Lochner as modified does not explicitly disclose the base section of the argon column is arranged in the first cold box.
Kuinz teaches a plurality of rectification columns can be distributed in any possible combination between a system of cold boxes (Fig. 31, first rectification column 11, second rectification column 12, third rectification column 13, fourth rectification column 14, fifth rectification column 15, first prefabricated cold box 3110, third prefabricated cold box 3120, third prefabricated cold box 3130, fourth prefabricated cold box 3140; 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. 54-55, lines 25-34 and 1-2, The air separation plant 3100 according to FIG Main heat exchanger 1 may be arranged in a first prefabricated cold box 31 10. The first rectification column 11 with the heat exchanger 2 used to cool its top gas can be arranged in a second prefabricated cold box 3120. The second rectification column 12 can together with the third 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. In the example shown, the fourth is Rectification column 14 is arranged in a further prefabricated cold box 3140, in which, however, the fifth rectification column 15 is also arranged, for example can. However, the fourth rectification column 14 can also be arranged in the third cold box 3130. Any distribution is possible).
Lochner as modified fails to teach disclose the base section of the argon 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 a plurality of rectification columns distributed in any possible combination between a system of cold boxes. 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 while maintaining desired heat transfer characteristics within the system). 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 while maintaining desired heat transfer characteristics within the system. 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Hirose, and Kunz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rottmann et al. (US Patent No. 4,824,453), hereinafter Rottmann.
Regarding claim 4, 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 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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Hirose, and Kunz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lochner (US Patent No. 10,690,408), hereinafter Lochner ‘408.
Regarding claim 5, 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Hirose, and Kunz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gershtein et al. (US Patent No. 9,346,010), hereinafter Gershtein.
Regarding claim 6, 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 an empty section is arranged in the argon column or in the base section of the argon column.
Gershtein teaches an empty section in a cryogenic rectification column (Fig. 4, mass transfer column section 400, spacing 408; Col. 6, lines 9-12, Between the packing 404 and the liquid distributor 410 is a spacing 408 where vapor stream 420 ascends upward through the packing 404 and liquid 416 falls downward from the liquid distributor 410)
Lochner as modified fails to teach wherein an empty section is arranged in the argon column or in the base section of the argon column, however Gershtein teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic rectification columns to include an empty section in a cryogenic rectification column. This is strong evidence that modifying Lochner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to provide desired heat transfer characteristics within the column 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 Gershtein 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 to provide desired heat transfer characteristics within the column to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Hirose, and Kunz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cavagne et al. (US 20200132368), hereinafter Cavagne.
Regarding claim 7, 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 second cold box.
Cavagne teaches the subcooling heat exchanger which is arranged in the first cold box or 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 or 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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Hirose, and Kunz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirose (TW 202009434), hereinafter Hirose ‘434.
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).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Hirose, Kunz, and Hirose ‘434 as applied to claim 8 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 8 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 8 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 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 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner as modified by Hirose, and Kunz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alekseev et al. (US 20090188280), hereinafter Alekseev.
Regarding claim 14, Lochner as modified discloses the plant according to claim 8 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 8 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 arranged in the second cold box below the top section of the low-pressure column.
Alekseev teaches the subcooling heat exchanger arranged in a cold box below the low-pressure column (Fig. 1, distilling-column system for nitrogen-oxygen separation 20, low-pressure column 22, subcooling countercurrent device 23).
Lochner as modified fails to teach the subcooling heat exchanger arranged in the second cold box below the top section of the low-pressure column, however Alekseev teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature air separation plants to include the subcooling heat exchanger arranged in a cold box below the low-pressure column. 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 while maintaining desired heat transfer characteristics within the system). 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 Alekseev 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 while maintaining desired heat transfer characteristics within the system. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 09th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 13-14 (as numbered by the Applicant) of the Remarks, “Thus, Kunz et al. disclose the high-purity oxygen column 15 being in the same cold box as double low-pressure column 12/13 which includes the low-pressure column. Kunz et al. provide no suggestion of a pure oxygen column being in the same cold box as the high pressure column and a base section of a divided low-pressure column. Compare claim 1. In view of the above remarks, it is respectfully submitted that the disclosure of Lochner, take alone or in combination with the disclosures of Hirose et al. and/or Kunz et al., fails to render obvious applicants' claimed invention. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.” However, this argument is not persuasive as Kunz generally teaches the a plurality of rectification columns can be distributed in any possible combination between a system of cold boxes (Pg. 54-55, lines 25-34 and 1-2, The air separation plant 3100 according to FIG Main heat exchanger 1 may be arranged in a first prefabricated cold box 31 10. The first rectification column 11 with the heat exchanger 2 used to cool its top gas can be arranged in a second prefabricated cold box 3120. The second rectification column 12 can together with the third 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. In the example shown, the fourth is Rectification column 14 is arranged in a further prefabricated cold box 3140, in which, however, the fifth rectification column 15 is also arranged, for example can. However, the fourth rectification column 14 can also be arranged in the third cold box 3130. Any distribution is possible) and therefore indicates to a PHOSITA that any arrangement of the columns within the three cold boxes is possible including arranging the pure oxygen column within the same cold box as the high-pressure column and the base section of the low-pressure column as required by claim 1 as amended.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The rejections of independent claim 1 is maintained. The rejection of dependent claims 2-9 and 11-12 are also maintained for at least the reasons described herein. See the rejection of new dependent claims 13-17 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 June 16th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights