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 15th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every drawing objection, claim objection, 112(a) rejection, 112(b) rejection, and 112(f) interpretation previously cited in the Non-Final rejection mailed January 15th, 2026. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, 9-11 and 13-15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2: “at least 1. 2 times” should read “at least 2 times”
Claim 5, lines 1-2: “wherein the compressor connection in the distributor module which can be connected” should read “wherein the compressor connection in the distributor module can be connected”
Claim 9, line 3: “and/or optionally a control unit” should read “and/or a control unit”
Claim 9, line 5: “and/or optionally a control unit” should read “and/or the control unit”
Claim 11, line 3: “the adsorbers or the at least” should read “the adsorbers of the at least”
Claim 13, lines 3-4: “an adsorption phase and a regeneration phase” should read “the adsorption phase and the regeneration phase”
Claim 10 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 9.
Claims 14-15 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 6, and 16 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 4, lines 3-4 recite, “wherein these connections are arranged in the upper third of the height of the distributor module” which is unclear to the Examiner which connections of the previously claimed compressor connection, first adsorber connection, second adsorber connection, first heat exchanger connection, second heat exchanger connection, and residual gas connection are being referred to. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret any of the many previously claimed connections of claim 1 from which claim 4 depends to constitute the connections of claim 4.
Claim 6, lines 12-13 recite “wherein the second valves and/or flaps are arranged spatially above the first valves and/or flaps; and” which is unclear to the Examiner as the first valves are only optionally claimed in line 2 of claim 6 and are therefore not required by the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the recitation of lines 12-13 to only be required when both the first valves and/or flaps and the second valves and/or flaps are selected in the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 6, lines 14-16 recite, “wherein the first flap and/or the second flap are arranged horizontally and the connecting lines to which the corresponding flap is connected are arranged horizontally” which is unclear to the Examiner as lines 7-11 of claim 6 only optionally require the second flaps and further specify them to be arranged in a vertical plane when selected. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the recitation of lines 14-16 to only be required when the first and second flaps are selected. Further, the Examiner recommends the amending the claims to clarify whether the flaps are to be in a vertical or a horizontal arrangement.
Claim 16 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
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, 5, 7-10, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracque et al. (US Patent No. 5,461,871), hereinafter Bracque.
Regarding claim 1, Bracque discloses a distributor module for a process engineering system, which is connected to a main air compressor arrangement, at least two adsorbers, each of which can be operated in an adsorption phase and a regeneration phase, and a main heat exchanger arrangement can be connected by means of fluid lines (Fig. 1, warm module 3, air compression module 1, electric motor 8, principal compressor 9, cylinders 2A, 2B, cold module 4, heat exchange line 24, subcooler 25, connecting tubes 6; Col. 2, lines 56-57, The cylinders 2A, 2B are conventional adsorption cylinders; Further, the cylinders 2A, 2B of Bracque have the same structure as the claimed at least two adsorbers and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed), comprising:
a compressor connection for each adsorber to be connected, a connection pair with a first adsorber connection and a second adsorber connection, a first heat exchanger connection and a second heat exchanger connection and a residual gas connection or a residual gas outlet and (Fig. 1, inlet connector 11, inlet connection 15, connections 12A, 12B, connections 22A, 22B, coupling 23, inlet/outlet connectors 29, conduit 19; Col. 2, lines 66-67, the conduit 19 for evacuating the residual gas of the column),
a valve and flap assembly that is optionally configured for each connection pair (Col. 3, lines 22-27, It will be understood that, according to the installation under consideration, the elements of the modules 3 and 4 can vary as to type and number. Moreover, these modules comprise all the connection conduits for their elements to each other, with corresponding automatic and/or remotely controlled valves):
in a first state of the connection pair, to fluidically connect the compressor connection to the first adsorber connection of the connection pair and fluidically connect the second adsorber connection of the connection pair to the first heat exchanger connection (Fig. 1 of Bracque depicts the compressor module 1 to be fluidically connected to the cylinders 2A, 2B and to the cold module 4 via inlet connector 11, inlet connection 15, connections 12A, 12B, connections 22A, 22B, coupling 23, inlet/outlet connectors 29); and,
in a second state of the connection pair, to fluidically connect the second heat exchanger connection to the second adsorber connection of the connection pair, and to fluidically connect the first adsorber connection of the connection pair to the residual gas connection or a residual gas outlet (Fig. 1 of Bracque depicts the cold module 4 to be connected to cylinders 2A, 2B and conduit 19 via connections 12A, 12B, connections 22A, 22B, coupling 23, inlet/outlet connectors 29),
wherein the distributor module has a floor side, and a height of the distributor module measured perpendicular to the floor side, and traverse dimensions of the distributor module measured parallel to the floor side. (See annotated Fig. 3 of Bracque below, floor side F, height H, traverse dimension T).
Bracque teaches the claimed invention except for the height of the distributor module measured perpendicular to the floor side is at least 1.5 times greater than both transverse dimensions of the distributor module measured parallel to the floor side. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the height of the distributor module measured perpendicular to the floor side is at least 1.5 times greater than both transverse dimensions of the distributor module measured parallel to the floor side, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the height of the distributor module measured perpendicular to the floor side is at least 1.5 times greater than both transverse dimensions of the distributor module measured parallel to the floor side, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Moreover, Bracque may not expressly teach the height of the distributor module is at least 1.5 times greater than both transverse dimensions of the distributor module measured parallel to the floor side of the instant claim, Bracque teaches a distributor module. The courts have held the following: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the distributor module of Bracque is capable of operating in the manner claimed and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
393
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Bracque
Regarding claim 2, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Bracque teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the height of the distributor module is at least 2 times greater than the traverse dimensions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the height of the distributor module is at least 2 times greater than the traverse dimensions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of wherein the height of the distributor module is at least 2 times greater than the traverse dimensions, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Moreover, Bracque may not expressly teach wherein the height of the distributor module is at least 2 times greater than the traverse dimensions, Bracque teaches a distributor module. The courts have held the following: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the distributor module of Bracque is capable of operating in the manner claimed and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 3, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the transverse dimensions are each one of the following dimensions:
a maximum dimension of the distributor module parallel to the floor side (Annotated Fig. 3 of Bracque depicts the traverse dimensions T of the modules to be parallel to the floor side F).
PNG
media_image1.png
393
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Bracque
Regarding claim 5, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the compressor connection in the distributor module which can be connected to the main air compressor arrangement via a fluid line (Fig. 1, connecting tubes 6, inlet connector 11, inlet connection 15).
Regarding claim 7, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), comprising a regeneration gas heater that is fluidly connected to the second heat exchanger connection (Fig. 1, reheater 18; Col. 2, lines 65-66, a reheater 18 for gas for regenerating the adsorbent; Col. 3, lines 22-27, It will be understood that, according to the installation under consideration, the elements of the modules 3 and 4 can vary as to type and number. Moreover, these modules comprise all the connection conduits for their elements to each other, with corresponding automatic and/or remotely controlled valves; Further, the teachings of Bracque at least imply the a regeneration gas heater that is fluidly connected to the second heat exchanger connection since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 8, the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), comprising a blowdown silencer arranged on the residual gas connection or the residual gas outlet (Fig. 1, muffler 20; Col. 2, lines 66-67, the conduit 19 for evacuating the residual gas of the column, provided with a muffler 20).
Regarding claim 9, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a support frame on which are mounted the valve and flap assembly, and/or the regeneration gas heater and/or optionally a control unit, and/or; the blowdown silencer, wherein further fluid lines for connecting the valve and flap assembly, and/or the regeneration gas heater and/or optionally a control unit, and for connecting to the compressor connection, the first t exchanger connection and the second heat exchanger connection, the first adsorber connection, and the second adsorber connection, are also mounted on the support frame (Fig. 1, parallelepipedal framework 13, connecting tubes 6; Col. 2-3, lines 59-67 and 1-6, The module 3 comprises a parallelepipedal framework 13 in which are fixed the assembly of the "warm" elements of the installation other than the compression module and the purification cylinders: the final cooler 14 of the compressor, connected to an inlet connection 15 disposed facing the connection 11, and a cold group 17 mounted in series with the cooler 14, a reheater 18 for gas for regenerating the adsorbent, the conduit 19 for evacuating the residual gas of the column, provided with a muffler 20, and also the assembly of the monitoring, control and instrumentation members relating to the elements 14 to 20, schematically shown at 21. The module 3 also comprises two connections 22A, 22B for each respective cylinder 2A, 2B, and couplings 23 for connection with the cold module 4, three in number in this example; Col. 3, lines 22-27, It will be understood that, according to the installation under consideration, the elements of the modules 3 and 4 can vary as to type and number. Moreover, these modules comprise all the connection conduits for their elements to each other, with corresponding automatic and/or remotely controlled valves).
Regarding claim 10, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 9 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the support frame is cuboid and has a length, a width, and a depth, and wherein the height of the distributor module is equal to the length of the support frame and the transverse dimension of the distributor module is equal to the width of the support frame, the depth of the support frame, or an average of the width and the depth of the support frame (Fig. 1, parallelepipedal framework 13; See annotated Fig. 3 of Bracque below which depicts height H to be equal to a length L and the traverse dimensions to be equal to a width W of the modules and a depth D). Further, Bracque may not expressly teach wherein the height of the distributor module is equal to the length of the support frame and the transverse dimension of the distributor module is equal to the width of the support frame, the depth of the support frame, or an average of the width and the depth of the support frame of the instant claim, Bracque teaches a distributor module and a support frame. The courts have held the following: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the distributor module of Bracque is capable of operating in the manner claimed and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
393
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Bracque
Regarding claim 13, Bracque as modified discloses an air separation plant comprising a distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above) and further comprising fluid lines that connect the main air compressor arrangement, the at least two adsorbers, each of which can be operated in an adsorption phase and a regeneration phase, and the main heat exchanger arrangement which are connected to the distributor module (Fig. 1, warm module 3, air compression module 1, electric motor 8, principal compressor 9, cylinders 2A, 2B, cold module 4, heat exchange line 24, subcooler 25, connecting tubes 6; Col. 2, lines 56-57, The cylinders 2A, 2B are conventional adsorption cylinders; Further, the cylinders 2A, 2B of Bracque have the same structure as the claimed at least two adsorbers and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Regarding claim 14, Bracque as modified discloses the air separation plant according to claim 13 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 13 above) further comprising a separation column arrangement, wherein the main heat exchanger arrangement is arranged between the distributor module and the separation column arrangement, and wherein the main heat exchanger arrangement is preferably mounted in a main heat exchanger module, and/or the separation column arrangement is mounted in a separation column module (Fig. 1, double distillation column 5, cylindrical wall 32, cold module 4; Col. 3, lines 7-21, The module 4 comprises the principal heat exchange line 24, constituted by several parallelepipedal heat exchangers of the brazed plate type, a subcooler 25, the cold accessories of the installation such as cryogenic pumps 26 and turbines 27, and the assembly of the monitoring, control and instrumentation members relating to the elements 24 to 27, schematically shown at 28. The module 4 also comprises inlet/outlet connectors 29 of the heat exchange line, of a number equal to the couplings 23 and disposed facing these latter, and couplings 30 for connection to the column 5. The assembly of the elements 24 to 30 is mounted in a parallelepipedal framework 31. The assembly of the cold parts of the cold elements (exchangers 24 and 25, bodies of cryogenic valves, pumps 26, turbines 27, etc.) are thermally insulated, for example by means of perlite; Further, Fig. 1 of Bracque depicts the heat exchange line 24 and the subcooler 25 to be mounted in cold module 4 between warm module 3 and the double distillation column 5).
Regarding claim 15, Bracque as modified discloses the air separation plant according to claim 13 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 13 above).
While Bracque as modified may not expressly teach wherein the height of the distributor module in relation to a heat exchanger height of the main heat exchanger arrangement or a heat exchanger height of the main heat exchanger module is between the heat exchanger height minus 5 m and heat exchanger height plus 5 m of the instant claim, Bracque teaches a distributor module. The courts have held the following: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the distributor module of Bracque is capable of operating in the manner claimed and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 17, Bracque as modified discloses the air separation plant according to claim 9 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 9 above).
Bracque as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the support frame is a steel support frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the support frame from steel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 18, Bracque as modified discloses the air separation plant according to claim 9 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 10 above).
Bracque teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the width of the support frame and the depth of the support frame are, independently of one another, in the range of 3.5 m to 7 m, and the length of the support frame is in the range of 10 m to 30 m. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the width of the support frame and the depth of the support frame are, independently of one another, in the range of 3.5 m to 7 m, and the length of the support frame is in the range of 10 m to 30 m, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of wherein the width of the support frame and the depth of the support frame are, independently of one another, in the range of 3.5 m to 7 m, and the length of the support frame is in the range of 10 m to 30 m, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Moreover, Bracque may not expressly teach wherein the width of the support frame and the depth of the support frame are, independently of one another, in the range of 3.5 m to 7 m, and the length of the support frame is in the range of 10 m to 30 m, Bracque teaches a distributor module. The courts have held the following: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the support frame of Bracque is capable of operating in the manner claimed and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 20, Bracque as modified discloses the air separation plant according to claim 14 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 14 above) wherein the main heat exchanger arrangement is mounted in a main heat exchanger module, and/or the separation column arrangement is mounted in a separation column module (Fig. 1, double distillation column 5, cylindrical wall 32, cold module 4; Col. 3, lines 7-21, The module 4 comprises the principal heat exchange line 24, constituted by several parallelepipedal heat exchangers of the brazed plate type, a subcooler 25, the cold accessories of the installation such as cryogenic pumps 26 and turbines 27, and the assembly of the monitoring, control and instrumentation members relating to the elements 24 to 27, schematically shown at 28. The module 4 also comprises inlet/outlet connectors 29 of the heat exchange line, of a number equal to the couplings 23 and disposed facing these latter, and couplings 30 for connection to the column 5. The assembly of the elements 24 to 30 is mounted in a parallelepipedal framework 31. The assembly of the cold parts of the cold elements (exchangers 24 and 25, bodies of cryogenic valves, pumps 26, turbines 27, etc.) are thermally insulated, for example by means of perlite; Further, Fig. 1 of Bracque depicts the heat exchange line 24 and the subcooler 25 to be mounted in cold module 4 between warm module 3 and the double distillation column 5).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracque et al. (US Patent No. 5,461,871), hereinafter Bracque in view of Rampp (US 20130283855), hereinafter Rampp.
Regarding claim 4, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first heat exchanger connection and the second heat exchanger connection can be connected to the warm end of the main heat exchanger arrangement by the fluid lines (Fig. 1, inlet/outlet connectors 29).
However, Bracque as modified does not disclose wherein these connections are arranged in an upper third of the height of the distributor module.
Rampp teaches wherein these connections are arranged in an upper third of the height of the distributor module (Fig. 2 of Rampp depicts ports 10a, 10b for connecting between the piping module 10 and the two main heat exchangers 1a, 1b to be arranged in the upper third of the height of the piping module 10).
Bracque as modified fails to teach wherein these connections are arranged in an upper third of the height of the distributor module, however Rampp teaches that it is a known method in the art of low temperature air separation plants to include wherein these connections are arranged in an upper third of the height of the distributor module. This is strong evidence that modifying Bracque as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing a simple arrangement for fluid distribution). 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 Bracque as modified by Rampp 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 providing a simple arrangement for fluid distribution.
Regarding claim 6, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein second valves and/or flaps, which shut off/release fluid flows between connection pairs and the heat exchanger connections (Col. 3, lines 22-27, It will be understood that, according to the installation under consideration, the elements of the modules 3 and 4 can vary as to type and number. Moreover, these modules comprise all the connection conduits for their elements to each other, with corresponding automatic and/or remotely controlled valves).
However, Bracque as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein second valves and/or flaps are arranged in a vertical in the distributor module or in the valve and flap assembly and the connection lines to which the corresponding valve is connected are arranged in a vertical plane.
Rampp teaches wherein second valves and/or flaps are arranged in a vertical in the distributor module or in the valve and flap assembly and the connection lines to which the corresponding valve is connected are arranged in a vertical plane (Fig. 2 of Rampp depicts the valve 14 and the connection lines to be arranged in a vertical plate in the piping module 10).
Bracque as modified fails to teach wherein second valves and/or flaps are arranged in a vertical or almost vertical plane in the distributor module or in the valve and flap assembly, that is, the connection lines to which the corresponding valve is connected are arranged in a vertical or almost vertical plane, however Rampp teaches that it is a known method in the art of low temperature air separation plants to include wherein second valves and/or flaps are arranged in a vertical or almost vertical plane in the distributor module or in the valve and flap assembly, that is, the connection lines to which the corresponding valve is connected are arranged in a vertical or almost vertical plane. This is strong evidence that modifying Bracque as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing a simple arrangement for fluid distribution). 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 Bracque as modified by Rampp 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 providing a simple arrangement for fluid distribution.
Further, the limitations of claim 6 are interpreted as best understood see the 112(b) rejections of claim 6 above.
Claims 11-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracque et al. (US Patent No. 5,461,871), hereinafter Bracque in view of Hirose (JP 6668542), hereinafter Hirose.
Regarding claim 11, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), configured, when the distributor module is connected to the main air compressor arrangement, the at least two adsorbers and the main heat exchanger arrangement, for each of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers, independently of each other (Fig. 1 of Bracque depicts the warm module 3 to be connected to the air compressor module 1, cylinders 2A, 2B, and the cold module 4 via inlet connector 11, inlet connection 15, connections 12A, 12B, connections 22A, 22B, coupling 23, inlet/outlet connectors 29).
However, Bracque as modified does not explicitly disclose the system to direct an air flow to one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers during the adsorption phase of the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers, and to direct the air flow from the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers to the main heat exchanger arrangement after flowing through the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers; and,
to direct a regeneration gas flow from the main heat exchanger arrangement to one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers during the regeneration phase of the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers and, after flowing through the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers, to direct the regeneration gas flow to a residual gas outlet.
Hirose teaches the system to direct an air flow to one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers during the adsorption phase of the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers, and to direct the air flow from the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers to the main heat exchanger arrangement after flowing through the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers (Pg. 9, paragraph 37, The valve switching device 30 switches between the introduction and the derivation of the raw air and the regeneration gas to the first adsorption tower 10 and the second adsorption tower 20, that is, alternately performs the purification processing of the raw air and the regeneration processing of the adsorbent. It is a device to make it. The valve switching device 30 includes a raw air supply line L1 for supplying raw air supplied from the raw air production equipment, and a purified air for supplying purified raw air purified by the adsorption tower to the rectification tower equipment 40. A raw air supply line L2, a regeneration gas supply line L3 for supplying a regeneration gas sent from the rectification tower equipment 40, and a waste gas for discharging a waste gas that is a regeneration gas used for the regeneration treatment of the adsorbent. It has a gas line L4 and a valve control unit 35 for controlling the opening and closing of a gate valve (or control valve) installed in each line); and,
to direct a regeneration gas flow from the main heat exchanger arrangement to one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers during the regeneration phase of the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers and, after flowing through the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers, to direct the regeneration gas flow to a residual gas outlet (Pg. 9, paragraph 37, The valve switching device 30 switches between the introduction and the derivation of the raw air and the regeneration gas to the first adsorption tower 10 and the second adsorption tower 20, that is, alternately performs the purification processing of the raw air and the regeneration processing of the adsorbent. It is a device to make it. The valve switching device 30 includes a raw air supply line L1 for supplying raw air supplied from the raw air production equipment, and a purified air for supplying purified raw air purified by the adsorption tower to the rectification tower equipment 40. A raw air supply line L2, a regeneration gas supply line L3 for supplying a regeneration gas sent from the rectification tower equipment 40, and a waste gas for discharging a waste gas that is a regeneration gas used for the regeneration treatment of the adsorbent. It has a gas line L4 and a valve control unit 35 for controlling the opening and closing of a gate valve (or control valve) installed in each line).
Bracque as modified fails to teach the system to direct an air flow to one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers during the adsorption phase of the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers, and to direct the air flow from the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers to the main heat exchanger arrangement after flowing through the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers; and, to direct a regeneration gas flow from the main heat exchanger arrangement to one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers during the regeneration phase of the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers and, after flowing through the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers, to direct the regeneration gas flow to a residual gas outlet, however Hirose teaches that it is a known method in the art of low temperature air separation plants to include the system to direct an air flow to one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers during the adsorption phase of the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers, and to direct the air flow from the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers to the main heat exchanger arrangement after flowing through the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers; and, to direct a regeneration gas flow from the main heat exchanger arrangement to one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers during the regeneration phase of the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers and, after flowing through the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers, to direct the regeneration gas flow to a residual gas outlet. This is strong evidence that modifying Bracque as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. in order to increase the efficiency of continuous operation of the air separation device, the purification process and the regeneration process are alternately switched using two or more adsorption columns (Hirose, Pg. 3, paragraph 3)). 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 Bracque 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 in order to increase the efficiency of continuous operation of the air separation device, the purification process and the regeneration process are alternately switched using two or more adsorption columns (Hirose, Pg. 3, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 12, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a control unit which is configured to control the valve and flap assembly (Fig. 1, assemblies 21, 2, work station 35; Col. 3-4, line 67 and 1-5, Moreover, in the installation of FIG. 1, there can be provided assemblies 21 and 28 in the compartments that are open and facing each other, and there can be provided between them, between the modules 3 and 4, a work station 35 having direct access to all the monitoring, control and instrumentation members of the installation).
However, Bracque as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the connection pair is operated according to the first state in order to operate one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers connected thereto in the adsorption phase, and is operated according to the second state in order to operate the other adsorber of the at least two adsorbers connected to the connection pair in the regeneration phase.
Hirose teaches the control unit which is configured to control the valve and flap assembly wherein the connection pair is operated according to the first state in order to operate one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers connected thereto in the adsorption phase, and is operated according to the second state in order to operate the other adsorber of the at least two adsorbers connected to the connection pair in the regeneration phase (Pg. 9, paragraph 37, The valve switching device 30 switches between the introduction and the derivation of the raw air and the regeneration gas to the first adsorption tower 10 and the second adsorption tower 20, that is, alternately performs the purification processing of the raw air and the regeneration processing of the adsorbent. It is a device to make it. The valve switching device 30 includes a raw air supply line L1 for supplying raw air supplied from the raw air production equipment, and a purified air for supplying purified raw air purified by the adsorption tower to the rectification tower equipment 40. A raw air supply line L2, a regeneration gas supply line L3 for supplying a regeneration gas sent from the rectification tower equipment 40, and a waste gas for discharging a waste gas that is a regeneration gas used for the regeneration treatment of the adsorbent. It has a gas line L4 and a valve control unit 35 for controlling the opening and closing of a gate valve (or control valve) installed in each line).
Bracque as modified fails to teach the control unit which is configured to control the valve and flap assembly wherein the connection pair is operated according to the first state in order to operate one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers connected thereto in the adsorption phase, and is operated according to the second state in order to operate the other adsorber of the at least two adsorbers connected to the connection pair in the regeneration phase, however Hirose teaches that it is a known method in the art of low temperature air separation plants to configured the control unit to control the valve and flap assembly wherein the connection pair is operated according to the first state in order to operate one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers connected thereto in the adsorption phase, and is operated according to the second state in order to operate the other adsorber of the at least two adsorbers connected to the connection pair in the regeneration phase. This is strong evidence that modifying Bracque as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. in order to increase the efficiency of continuous operation of the air separation device, the purification process and the regeneration process are alternately switched using two or more adsorption columns (Hirose, Pg. 3, paragraph 3)). 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 Bracque 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 in order to increase the efficiency of continuous operation of the air separation device, the purification process and the regeneration process are alternately switched using two or more adsorption columns (Hirose, Pg. 3, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 19, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 12 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the control unit is configured to control the valve and flap assembly so that at least one connection pair of the connection pairs for each adsorber of the at least two adsorbers is operated alternately according to the first state (Hirose, Pg. 9, paragraph 37, The valve switching device 30 switches between the introduction and the derivation of the raw air and the regeneration gas to the first adsorption tower 10 and the second adsorption tower 20, that is, alternately performs the purification processing of the raw air and the regeneration processing of the adsorbent. It is a device to make it. The valve switching device 30 includes a raw air supply line L1 for supplying raw air supplied from the raw air production equipment, and a purified air for supplying purified raw air purified by the adsorption tower to the rectification tower equipment 40. A raw air supply line L2, a regeneration gas supply line L3 for supplying a regeneration gas sent from the rectification tower equipment 40, and a waste gas for discharging a waste gas that is a regeneration gas used for the regeneration treatment of the adsorbent. It has a gas line L4 and a valve control unit 35 for controlling the opening and closing of a gate valve (or control valve) installed in each line). Further, the limitations of claim 19 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracque as modified by Rampp as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Finke et al. (US Patent No. 3,870,079), hereinafter Finke.
Regarding claim 16, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 6 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 6 above).
However, Bracque as modified does not disclose wherein the first flap and/or second flap are three lever flaps.
Finke teaches the use of three lever valves in high pressure gaseous applications (Fig. 1, three lever valve 10; Col. 1, lines 6-8, Our invention is directed to valves and, more particularly, to three lever valves for gaseous media under high pressures).
Bracque as modified fails to teach wherein the first flap and/or second flap are three lever flaps, however Finke teaches that it is a known method in the art of flow control valves to include the use of three lever valves in high pressure gaseous applications. This is strong evidence that modifying Bracque as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient flow control within the system 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 Bracque as modified by Finke 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 providing sufficient flow control within the system to improve overall system efficiencies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 15th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9-10 (As numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “However, applicants disagree. The claimed feature of the distributor module having a
floor side and a height of the distributor module (measured perpendicular to the floor side) in which the height is at least 1.5 times greater than both transverse dimensions of the distributor module measured parallel to the floor side provides a module that requires a relatively small floor space and is rather high, when the module is erected at the site and connected to other modules/arrangements. This provides, among other things, the advantage of the overall system having a smaller requisite footprint, making the system suitable for situations in which available space is limited, while still permitting the module to be transportable. As described in applicants' specification in paragraph [0073]: The advantages of a distributor module characterized in this way are, on the one hand, that the elements of the distributor module can be arranged vertically therein, so that the space required when the distributor module is positioned upright on the floor side is small compared to a horizontal arrangement, and thus a total area of the air separation plant can be kept relatively small. On the other hand, a horizontal transport of the distributor module over roads from a production plant to the air separation plant, more precisely its construction site, is possible. Furthermore, lines and connections for connecting the heat exchanger module and the vertical distributor module are substantially shorter and integrated in the distributor module and do not have to be installed on the construction site. Thus, the dimensions as defined in claim 1: (i) reduce the total area occupied by the air separation plant after the module is erected, (ii) enable easy transport, when the module is transported in a horizontal position, and (iii) reduce the pipes and connections which allows easy integration and prefabrication (because the dimensions are adapted to the dimensions and shape of other components such as the heat exchanger, thereby reducing the length of conduits). As a result, the claimed device does perform differently than the prior art device Bracque et al. as it achieves the advantages described above.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the claimed relative dimensions of the distributor module are not critical to the function of the distributor module. The alleged advantages described by applicant are merely predictable results of reducing the overall footprint of a distributor module for use in a smaller space. Per MPEP 2144.05, Section III, paragraph A, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected result of the claimed dimensions. See section 2144.05 for further direction on criticality.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 2 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 rejection of independent claim 1 is maintained. The rejections of dependent claims 2-15 are also maintained for at least the reasons described herein. See the rejections of new dependent claims 16-20 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