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 .
StatusClaims(s) 1-16, is/are filed on 02/28/2024 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 12 recites the limitation ‘the decision variables.’ There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites "a return line connected with the second bottom outlet line, at least one of the second bottom outlet line and the return line leading through an evaporator." The presence of the return line is not optional in the claim, and the claim leaves unclear whether it is the second bottom outlet line or the return line that leads through the evaporator. Reading the claim in light of the specification, the evaporated stream serves as stripping vapor for the ammonia stripper column; the alternative in which the bottom outlet line (rather than the return line) passes through the evaporator is inconsistent with that function. The position of the evaporator relative to these two lines is therefore unclear. Correction to recite that the return line leads through the evaporator and then enters the ammonia stripper column would overcome this rejection.
Dependent claims 14-16 are rejected thereof.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian (DE 4239637 C1) in view of COLE (US 4650502 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
989
1225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, CHRISTIAN teaches a process of treating a wastewater stream containing an ammonia and carbon dioxide to produce a concentrated aqueous ammonia solution and a purified wastewater stream -- CHRISTIAN discloses a process for removing ammonium-containing compounds from wastewater (1) and recovering the ammonia as an ammonia-water product ([0001],[0003]). The wastewater contains carbon dioxide, which CHRISTIAN removes by a pretreatment step ([0012]–[0013]). CHRISTIAN thereby produces a concentrated aqueous ammonia product (88) and a purified wastewater stream (36) ([0024]); the concentrated aqueous ammonia solution containing at least 5% by weight of dissolved ammonia and at most 20% by weight of dissolved carbon dioxide -- CHRISTIAN recovers the ammonia product (88) from the sump of the washing column (68) and teaches that the concentration of that product varies with the process variant and the operating parameters ([0024]). Because CHRISTIAN removes the carbon dioxide upstream in the deacidification stripper (31) before the ammonia is recovered ([0013]), the product (88) is inherently low in dissolved carbon dioxide. CHRISTIAN does not state the recited weight percentages. The recovered ammonia concentration and the residual carbon dioxide content are result-effective variables governed by the feed-split ratio and the degree of upstream carbon dioxide removal, both of which CHRISTIAN controls. Arriving at the recited values is a matter of routine optimization, and the limitation is taught or rendered obvious by CHRISTIAN. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have to concentrate the ammonia product of CHRISTIAN by the partial-condensation technique of COLE (C2/60-70), which recovers a concentrated aqueous ammonia stream from an ammonia stripper by partially condensing the stripped vapor to increase its ammonia concentration. One of ordinary skill seeking a saleable, storage-stable ammonia product from CHRISTIAN would have been motivated to so concentrate the product, with a reasonable expectation of success, obtaining a solution of at least 5% by weight dissolved ammonia while, in view of CHRISTIAN's upstream carbon dioxide removal, retaining at most 20% by weight dissolved carbon dioxide; and the purified wastewater stream containing at most 1,000 ppm dissolved ammonia -- CHRISTIAN teaches that the ammonia content of the treated water is reduced to the required effluent level by stripping steam ([0008]). The effluent ammonia concentration is a result-effective variable, and attaining at most 1,000 ppm is a matter of routine optimization of the stripping duty. The limitation is taught or rendered obvious by CHRISTIAN. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A); the process comprising: feeding the wastewater stream into a carbon dioxide degasser column, the carbon dioxide degasser column comprising: at least one bed of one or more random packings, and at least one tray or at least one bed of one or more structured packings ---CHRISTIAN feeds the wastewater to a carbon dioxide degasser column, embodied as the deacidification stripper, or pre-stripper (31), in which carbon dioxide is stripped from the heated wastewater ([0013],[0025]). The pre-stripper (31) is a packed column and thus contains at least one bed of packing ([0025]); A first portion of the wastewater stream is fed at a position above the at least one bed of one or more random packings, the at least one bed of one or more structured packings or the at least one tray --- CHRISTIAN feeds an unheated cold side stream of the wastewater to the upper region of the pre-stripper (31) as wash water (14) ([0025]). The limitation is taught by CHRISTIAN; at least one of: a second portion of the wastewater stream having a higher temperature than the first portion, and a mixture of a second portion of the wastewater stream with a portion of a liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream being withdrawn as a first bottom fraction from the carbon dioxide degasser column and having a higher temperature than the first portion, is fed at a position below the at least one bed of one or more random packings, the at least one bed of one or more structured packings or the at least one tray into the carbon dioxide degasser column -- CHRISTIAN feeds the main wastewater stream (13), previously heated in heat exchanger (28), to the pre-stripper (31) at a position below the packing ([0025]). The main stream (13) is at a higher temperature than the unheated side stream (14); the at least one bed... above which the first portion of the wastewater stream is fed is a same as or located above the at least one bed... below which the at least one of: the second portion of the wastewater stream and the mixture... is fed -- in CHRISTIAN the first portion (14) enters above, and the second portion (13) enters below, the same packed bed of the pre-stripper (31) ([0025]). The bed above which the first portion is fed is therefore the same as the bed below which the second portion is fed; a mass flow ratio of the first portion of the wastewater stream to a total wastewater stream fed into the carbon dioxide degasser column is 0.01 to 0.6 – CHRISTIAN teaches that the unheated by-stream constitutes 3–10% of the wastewater ([0014]), corresponding to a mass flow ratio of 0.03 to 0.10. This falls within the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.6. Where a prior art range lies within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05(I); withdrawing a gaseous carbon dioxide rich stream containing less than 10% by weight of the ammonia contained in the wastewater stream as a first overhead fraction and the liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream having a pH value of 9.0 or higher as the first bottom fraction from the carbon dioxide degasser column -- CHRISTIAN withdraws a gaseous carbon dioxide rich stream overhead, which is vented through a filter (74) ([0025]). CHRISTIAN teaches that ammonia escaping in the pre-stripper is redissolved by the integrated scrubber acting through the cold by-stream (14) ([0014]), so that ammonia carryover in the overhead is minimized; the recited limit of less than 10% is a result-effective variable governed by that by-stream. As to pH, CHRISTIAN teaches adjusting the wastewater to a pH of approximately 11 ([0007]) and teaches that deacidification itself raises the pH and reduces the alkali demand by up to 98% ([0013],[0017]); the carbon dioxide depleted bottom fraction therefore inherently has a pH of 9.0 or higher. See MPEP 2112; feeding the liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream into an ammonia stripper column -- CHRISTIAN feeds the carbon dioxide depleted stream to the ammonia stripper, or stripping column (32) ([0023]). The Examiner notes that CHRISTIAN routes this stream through an intervening mixing tank (4); claim 1 does not require a direct connection, and the limitation is met; withdrawing a gaseous ammonia rich stream as a second overhead fraction and the purified wastewater stream containing at most 1.000 ppm dissolved ammonia as a second bottom fraction from the ammonia stripper column -- CHRISTIAN withdraws the gaseous ammonia rich stream overhead from the stripping column (32) via line (48) and withdraws the purified wastewater as the bottom fraction via line (36) ([0023]). The effluent ammonia limit is addressed above; at least a portion of the purified wastewater stream withdrawn from the ammonia stripper column is evaporated to form an evaporated portion, and at least a portion of the evaporated portion is fed back into the ammonia stripper column -- CHRISTIAN generates stripping vapor by evaporating a portion of the stripped bottoms water on a horizontal tube spray film evaporator (40) and returning that vapor to the stripping column (32) via line (44), with the unevaporated residue returned via line (78) ([0009],[0024]); feeding the gaseous ammonia rich stream and separately therefrom water into a quencher column -- CHRISTIAN feeds the gaseous ammonia (64) and, separately, cold water supplied as fresh water or via line (50) into the washing column (68), where they are contacted countercurrently ([0024]). The washing column (68) corresponds to the recited quencher column; withdrawing a gaseous vent gas stream as a third overhead fraction and the concentrated aqueous ammonia solution containing at least 5% by weight of dissolved ammonia and at most 20% by weight of dissolved carbon dioxide as a third bottom fraction from the quencher column -- CHRISTIAN discharges a vent stream overhead from the washing column, or its associated condenser, into the sewage drain ([0011]) and withdraws the concentrated aqueous ammonia product as the bottom fraction via pipe (88) ([0024]).
Regarding claim 2, CHRISTIAN teaches inherently teaches wherein the concentrated aqueous ammonia solution does not form any precipitate when stored for at least one day at a temperature of 10° C. Since it removes carbon dioxide upstream in the pre-stripper (31) (¶ [0013]), the recovered product (88) is low in dissolved carbonate species and inherently resists carbonate and bicarbonate precipitation on storage. Alternatively, it is well-known see at least US 10,793,458 B2 which teaches maintaining conditions in an ammonia-recovery process so as to control precipitation of dissolved ammonium bicarbonate and ammonium carbonate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have, to incorporate this teaching, yielding the recited stability with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, CHRISTIAN recites negative conditions: no inert gas is fed to the quencher column, which receives only the gaseous ammonia stream (64) and water ([0024]); no acid is added; base is added only downstream of the degasser ([0016]); and the purified wastewater (36) is returned to the sewage treatment plant rather than recycled to the degasser ([0023]).
Regarding claim 4, the recitation "comprises one bed," under the broadest reasonable interpretation, does not exclude additional beds and does not further limit the claim. The two-bed alternative is disclosed in CHRISTIAN (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, CHRISTIAN teaches wherein: the second portion of the wastewater stream is heated in a first heat exchanger before being fed into the carbon dioxide degasser column, and a water rich condensate stream obtained from the gaseous ammonia rich stream withdrawn from the ammonia stripper column by partial condensation is used in the first heat exchanger as a first heating medium, the second portion of the wastewater stream is heated in a second heat exchanger before being fed into the carbon dioxide degasser column, and the purified wastewater stream withdrawn from the ammonia stripper column is used in the second heat exchanger as a second heating medium, or the second portion of the wastewater stream is heated in a third heat exchanger before being fed into the carbon dioxide degasser column, and the liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream or a portion of the liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream withdrawn from the carbon dioxide degasser column is used in the third heat exchanger as a third heating medium. The claim requires only one of the recited alternatives. CHRISTIAN discloses the second: the feed is preheated by the outgoing purified wastewater (36) in heat exchanger (28) before entering the column ([0008], [0023]).
Regarding claim 6, CHRISTIAN teaches wherein the second portion of the wastewater stream or the mixture of the second portion of the wastewater stream with the portion of the liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream being withdrawn as the first bottom fraction from the carbon dioxide degasser column is heated in an evaporator with an external heating medium, before the second portion of the wastewater stream or the mixture of the second portion of the wastewater stream with the portion of the liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream being withdrawn as the first bottom fraction from the carbon dioxide degasser column is fed into the carbon dioxide degasser column. CHRISTIAN supplies external heating steam to the evaporator (40) from an external steam generator via line (80) ([0011],[0024]). Evaporating the second portion in such an evaporator and introducing it to the column, rather than generating stripping vapor from water alone, is well-known and would be obvious.
Regarding claim 7, CHRISTIAN teaches wherein the portion of the liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream being withdrawn as the first bottom fraction from the carbon dioxide degasser column is mixed with the second portion of the wastewater stream, before the mixture of the second portion of the wastewater stream with the portion of the liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream being withdrawn as the first bottom fraction is fed into the carbon dioxide degasser column. Combining a portion of the carbon dioxide depleted bottom stream with the second portion (13) before feeding the pre-stripper (31) is well-known and would be obvious among recognized alternatives for supplying and heating that portion, and would have required no more than ordinary skill in view of CHRISTIAN's heating and recycle arrangements ([0024]–[0025]).
Regarding claim 8, CHRISTIAN teaches wherein the gaseous carbon dioxide rich stream being withdrawn from the carbon dioxide degasser column contains less than 5% by weight of the ammonia contained in the wastewater stream. For the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1, ammonia carryover in the overhead (74) is minimized by the cold by-stream (14) ([0014]) and is a result-effective variable. Attaining less than 5% is a matter of routine optimization. The added limitation is rendered obvious by CHRISTIAN. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)
Regarding claim 9, CHRISTIAN teaches wherein the liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream being withdrawn from the carbon dioxide degasser column contains less than 0.5% by weight of dissolved carbon dioxide and 0% by weight to 2% by weight of dissolved ammonia and has a temperature of 100° C. to 130° C. CHRISTIAN teaches that most of the carbon dioxide is stripped in the deacidification stripper ([0013]) and that the wastewater is heated to nearly boiling at column pressure ([0008]). The recited compositions and temperature are inherent, or in the alternative are obvious results of routine optimization of the deacidification duty and column conditions. The added limitation is taught or rendered obvious by CHRISTIAN.
Regarding claim 10, CHRISTIAN teaches wherein the ammonia stripper column comprises at least two beds of one or more random packings, at least two beds of one or more random structured packings or at least two trays arranged on top of each other, the liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream is fed into the ammonia stripper column at a position between two adjacent beds of one or more random packings, between two adjacent beds of one or more structured packings or between two adjacent trays, and the liquid purified wastewater stream is fed back into the ammonia stripper column below the at least two beds of one or more random packings, below the at least two beds of one or more structured packings or below the at least two trays. CHRISTIAN discloses feeding the evaporated purified wastewater back below the column, the stripping vapor re-entering via line (44) and the residue via line (78) ([0024]). Providing two or more beds and introducing the carbon dioxide depleted feed between adjacent beds is a conventional stripping-column arrangement and would be nothing more than duplication of parts, the selection of which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill and which the record does not show to be synergistically linked to the remainder of the process.
Regarding claim 11, CHRISTIAN teaches wherein the purified wastewater stream being withdrawn from the ammonia stripper column contains at most 500 ppm of dissolved ammonia. The effluent ammonia concentration is a result-effective variable; CHRISTIAN reduces the ammonia to the required effluent level by stripping ([0008]). Attaining at most 500 ppm is a matter of routine optimization. The added limitation is rendered obvious by CHRISTIAN. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 12, while the specific equations and coefficients are not found in the prior art of record, applicant has not established that the recited model imparts any unexpected result or renders any operating condition critical. Selecting and optimizing the feed-split ratio, column pressure, and heat-integration scheme constitutes routine optimization of result-effective variables that CHRISTIAN teaches to control. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the process of CHRISTIAN within the recited conditions. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A); In re Aller.
Regarding claim 13, CHRISTIAN discloses a plant for treating an ammonia and carbon dioxide containing wastewater stream to produce a concentrated aqueous ammonia solution (88) and a purified wastewater stream (36) ([0006], [0018]). The plant comprises a carbon dioxide degasser column (deacidification stripper 31) having a packed bed, a first feed inlet line entering above the bed (14), a second feed inlet line entering below the bed (13), an overheads outlet line for the gaseous carbon dioxide rich stream (74), and a first bottom outlet line for the liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream ([0025]). The plant further comprises an ammonia stripper column (32) having an inlet line connected to the bottom outlet of the degasser column, an overhead outlet line for the gaseous ammonia rich stream (48), a second bottom outlet line for the purified wastewater stream (36), and a return line (44)/(78) leading through an evaporator (40) ([0023]–[0024]). The plant further comprises a quencher column (washing column 68) having an inlet line connected, through the rectification column (52) and evaporator (40), to the stripper overhead, an inlet line for water (50), and an outlet line for the concentrated aqueous ammonia solution (88) ([0024]). As claim 13 permits the quencher inlet line to be "directly or indirectly connected" to the stripper overhead, CHRISTIAN's indirect connection reads on the claim.
CHRISTIAN differs from claim 13 in two respects. First, in CHRISTIAN the ammonia stripper inlet line is connected to the degasser bottom outlet indirectly, by way of the mixing tank (4) and settling stage, rather than directly. Second, in CHRISTIAN the return line and the bottom outlet of the stripper are connected independently to the stripper sump, rather than the return line being connected to the bottom outlet line.
As to the first, CHRISTIAN teaches that deacidification alone raises the pH and reduces the alkali demand by up to 98% ([0013], [0017]). Omitting the intervening base-addition and settling stage, and connecting the degasser bottom directly to the ammonia stripper, is an obvious simplification of the plant that entails only the recognized minor trade-off that the pH is not further optimized; such simplification requires no more than ordinary skill. As to the second, connecting the return line to the bottom outlet line rather than terminating both lines separately at the sump is a minor rearrangement of conduits that has no effect on the treatment process and constitutes an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the plant of CHRISTIAN as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, CHRISTIAN discloses a plant for treating an ammonia and carbon dioxide containing wastewater stream to produce a concentrated aqueous ammonia solution containing at least 5% by weight of dissolved ammonia and at most 20% by weight of dissolved carbon dioxide and a purified wastewater stream containing at most 1,000 ppm dissolved ammonia ([0006],[0018]), wherein the plant comprises: a carbon dioxide degasser column comprising: at least one bed of one or more random packings, at least one bed of one or more structured packings or at least one tray -- CHRISTIAN discloses the deacidification stripper (31), a packed column containing at least one bed of packing ([0013],[0025]); a first feed inlet line entering the carbon dioxide degasser column at a position above the at least one bed -- CHRISTIAN discloses the wash-water line (14) entering the pre-stripper (31) above the packing ([0025]); a second feed inlet line for feed or a mixture of feed and a liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream entering the carbon dioxide degasser column at a position below the at least one bed -- CHRISTIAN discloses the main feed line (13) entering the pre-stripper (31) below the packing ([0025]); wherein the at least one bed... above which the first feed inlet line enters... is a same as or located above the at least one bed... below which the second feed inlet line... enters -- the first inlet (14) enters above, and the second inlet (13) below, the same bed of the pre-stripper (31) ([0025]); an overheads outlet line for a gaseous carbon dioxide rich stream, and a first bottom outlet line for the liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream – CHRISTIAN discloses the overhead vent through filter (74) and the bottom outlet of the pre-stripper (31), which passes toward the mixing tank (4) ([0025]); an ammonia stripper column comprising: a first inlet line directly connected with the bottom outlet line of the carbon dioxide degasser column ---CHRISTIAN discloses the ammonia stripper (32) with an inlet line connected to the bottom outlet of the pre-stripper (31); in CHRISTIAN that connection is by way of the intervening mixing tank (4), rather than directly ([0023],[0025]). This is a difference addressed below; an overhead outlet line for a gaseous ammonia rich stream, a second bottom outlet line for the purified wastewater stream, and a return line connected with the second bottom outlet line, at least one of the second bottom outlet line and the return line leading through an evaporator -- CHRISTIAN discloses the overhead outlet line (48), the purified-wastewater bottom outlet line (36), and a return line (44)/(78) leading through the evaporator (40) ([0023]–[0024]). In CHRISTIAN the return line and the bottom outlet terminate independently at the stripper sump rather than the return line being connected to the bottom outlet line; this is a difference addressed below; a quencher column comprising: a second inlet line directly or indirectly connected with the overhead outlet line of the ammonia stripper column, a third inlet line for water, and an outlet line for concentrated aqueous ammonia solution -- CHRISTIAN discloses the washing column (68) with an inlet line connected, through the rectification column (52) and evaporator (40), to the stripper overhead; because the claim permits an indirect connection, this reads on the claim. CHRISTIAN further discloses the water inlet (50) and the product outlet (88) ([0024]). CHRISTIAN does not teach that (i) the ammonia stripper inlet line is connected to the degasser bottom outlet indirectly rather than directly, and (ii) the return line and the bottom outlet terminate independently rather than the return line being connected to the bottom outlet line. As to (i), CHRISTIAN teaches that deacidification alone raises the pH and reduces the alkali demand by up to 98% ([0013],[0017]); omitting the intervening base-addition and settling stage and connecting the degasser bottom directly to the stripper is an obvious simplification, entailing only the recognized trade-off that the pH is not further optimized. As to (ii), connecting the return line to the bottom outlet line, rather than terminating both at the sump, is a minor rearrangement of conduits with no effect on the process and is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the plant of CHRISTIAN as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, CHRISTIAN discloses at least one of: a first heat exchanger, through which at least one of: a second feed line and the second feed inlet line, and an overhead connection line connected with the overhead outlet line for the gaseous ammonia rich stream are led; a second heat exchanger, through which at least one of: the second feed line and the second inlet line, and the bottom outlet line for the purified wastewater stream of the ammonia stripper column are led; a third heat exchanger, through which at least one of: the second feed line and the second inlet line, and the bottom outlet line for the liquid carbon dioxide depleted stream of the carbon dioxide degasser column are led. -- The claim requires only one of the recited heat exchangers. CHRISTIAN discloses the second: heat exchanger (28), through which both the feed line and the purified-wastewater bottom outlet line (36) are led ([0008],[0023]).
Regarding claim 15, CHRISTIAN discloses wherein the ammonia stripper column comprises at least two beds of one or more random packings, at least two beds of one or more structured packings or at least two trays arranged on top of each other, the first inlet line being connected with the first bottom outlet line of the carbon dioxide degasser column and entering the ammonia stripper column at a position between two adjacent beds... and the return line entering the ammonia stripper column at a position below the at least two beds... --- see rejection of claim 10, CHRISTIAN discloses the return line entering below the column (44)/(78) ([0024]), and the multi-bed arrangement with an inter-bed inlet is a conventional and obvious column configuration.
Regarding claim 16, CHRISTIAN teaches wherein the quencher column comprises at least two beds of one or more random packings, at least two beds of one or more structured packings or at least two trays arranged on top of each other, the third inlet line for water entering the quencher column at a position above an uppermost one of the at least two beds... and the second inlet line of the ammonia stripper column entering the quencher column at a position below a lowermost one of the at least two beds..." --CHRISTIAN discloses this countercurrent arrangement, in which water enters the top of the washing column (68) and the ammonia rich gas (64) enters the bottom ([0011],[0024]). Providing two or more beds is an obvious selection among recognized alternatives and merely a duplication of parts.
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached on 571-271-0579. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights