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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
There is an end period in the middle of line 15 of claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a method for separating air, but never positively recites the air stream passing into the system and only references “a total quantity of air separated” and “of the total separated air quantity” and as such, it is unclear what is required of the invention as it is unclear how the method steps connect and how they relate to air entering the system as those are referencing air that is separated not any form of feed air. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood that air in the system to be separated is compressed, and the compressed air is then sent at least in part to a first booster.
Claim 3 recites “a further quantity of the total separated air quantity” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how it relates to the air of the method in claim 1 and also it is unclear what stream is required as the claim repeats a requirement of a partial quantity being passed to the first booster. For the purpose of examination this limitation is understood that part of the air stream passed to the first booster is passed to the first turbine instead of the second booster.
Claim 3 recites “a further quantity of the total separated air quantity” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how it relates to the air of the method in claim 1. For the purpose of examination this limitation is understood that part of the air stream passed that is compressed is not passed to the first booster but cooled to the third temperature range.
Claim 6 recites “subjected to one or each internal compression” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what is required for the metes and bounds of the claim. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the “one or more liquids removed’ are subjected to internal compression.
Claim 11 recites an air separation plant with two columns and then recites what the air separation plant is “designed” to do but does not provide sufficient structure for each component that the apparatus is designed for including how the stream is compressed to the first pressure range, how the components of the stream are supplied, what is used to cool the stream (as it appears that compressors are responsible for the cooling which is not how compressors work), and what is used for removal and heating. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are treated effectively like method steps, such that as long as any structure is present which is capable of performing as such the limitations are met.
Claim 11 repeatedly uses “it” throughout the claim without clearly defining what “it” refers to in each instance while appearing to be part of method steps of an apparatus claim. For the purpose of examination these limitations are understood to refer to air that has been subject to the previous step/present in the previous structure mentioned.
Claim 11 recites an apparatus for separating air but never positively recites the air stream passing into the system and only references “a total quantity of air separated” and “a partial quantity of total quantity for separated air separated air” and as such, it is unclear what is required of the invention as it is unclear how the structure method steps connect and how they relate to air entering the system as those are referencing air that is separated not any form of feed air. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood that air in the system to be separated is compressed, and the compressed air is then sent at least in part to a first booster.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-10 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US PG Pub 20050126221), hereinafter referred to as Ha and further in view of Abdelwahab et al. (US PG Pub 20160053764), hereinafter referred to as Abdelwahab and Zhou (CN110274438), hereinafter referred to as Zhou and Ishi et al. (JP2002340477), hereinafter referred to as Ishi.
With respect to claim 1, Ha (Figure 3) teaches a method for the cryogenic separation of air using an air separation plant comprising a rectification column arrangement (30/31) with a pressure column (high pressure column 30, paragraph 48) and a low-pressure column (low-pressure column 31, paragraph 48), wherein the pressure column is operated in a first pressure range and the low-pressure column is operated in a second pressure range, which is below the first pressure range (the double column is a traditional type of two column process, paragraph 48 which is known to have a low pressure column of 1.4 to 4 bar and a high pressure column of 5 to 7 bar, paragraphs 3-4), and at least 90% of a total quantity of air separated in the rectification column arrangement is compressed to a pressure in a third pressure range which is at least 4 bar above the first pressure range (atmospheric air which as seen in the figure represents all of the feed air is initially compressed in air compressor 1, paragraph 48 to pressure 11 to 17 bar, paragraph 52 which overlaps with is at least 4 bars above the first pressure range),
a partial quantity of the total separated air quantity is successively supplied to a first booster driven by a first turbine at a temperature in a first temperature range of -30 to 100 C compressed using the first booster from the pressure in the third pressure range to a pressure in a fourth pressure range, which is above the third pressure range (part of the feed air is cooled to between -20 and 0 C, paragraph 57 supplied to booster braker compressor 3 where it is further pressurized and thus to a higher pressure than the third range, which compressor is braked against expander 18, paragraph 48, which as it is expanding and providing driving is a turbine), cooled to a temperature in a second temperature range of -160 to 60C supplied at the temperature in the second temperature range to a second booster driven by a second turbine (after the compressed the air is cooled to temperature T1 of -110 to -140 C is sent to a second compressor where it is boosted again in pressure, which compressor is driven by expander 18, paragraphs 48 and 55, which would be a turbine as it is driving the booster), compressed using the second booster from the pressure in the fourth pressure range to a pressure in a fifth pressure range, which is above the fourth pressure range (compression in 8 would be to an even higher pressure), cooled to a temperature in a third temperature range of, and fed into the pressure column (the compressed stream 9 is cooled to condense the air which can be fed into column 30), gaseous nitrogen is removed from the pressure column at a pressure in the first pressure range and successively heated to a temperature in a fourth temperature range (nitrogen 14 from 30, which would be at the first pressure range as that is the column pressure, is removed and heated in the heat exchanger to form stream 17), expanded in the second turbine while cooling to a temperature in a fifth temperature range to a pressure in the second pressure range (17 is expanded in 18 to pressure T5, paragraph 48), and heated to a temperature in a sixth temperature range (after expansion the stream is heated to form 24 at ambient, paragraph 48)- gaseous nitrogen is removed from the low-pressure column and heated (gaseous nitrogen 25 is removed from low pressure column 31 and heated to form stream 26, paragraph 7) wherein the gaseous nitrogen removed from the low-pressure column is heated separately from the gaseous nitrogen removed from the pressure column (the two streams of nitrogen are heated in the heat exchanger at separate temperatures),
Ha does not teach the third temperature is in the range of -200 to -150 C. Ha does teach the stream from the second booster is liquefied (paragraph 48) and also teaches that the pressure is 17 to 25 bar for the stream from the second booster (paragraph 55) and while this does appear to provide a range that would include -200 to -150 C as air would liquefy within this range, it is not explicitly taught in Ha.
Abdelwahab (Figure 4) teaches that a further compressed air stream (from 165) which is cooled in the heat exchanger (17) is liquefied and cooled to form a liquid air stream which is at a temperature suitable or rectification in the distillation column (paragraph 69). As such, it can be shown by Abdelwahab that the temperature for cooling of the stream (stream 10 of Ha needs to be optimized to “bring it to a temperature suitable for rectification in a distillation column”. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Ha as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ha so that the third temperature is in a range of -200 to -150 C as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Ha does not teach expansion of the gaseous nitrogen in the second turbine is to the second pressure range.
Zhou teaches that when expanding the overhead nitrogen from the lower column (42) in an expander the pressure is expanded to 0.02 MPa (paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Zhou to have when expanding the gaseous nitrogen stream of Ha in the second turbine to have brought it to 0.02 MPa as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed (see paragraph 42 only stating in particular its between 1 to 2 bar) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The pressure being 0.02 MPa, would be 2 bar, which is within the second pressure range of Ha.
Ha does not teach after expanding in the second turbine that the gaseous nitrogen is hated to a sixth temperature range from 0 to 50°C.
Zhou teaches that after expanding the nitrogen gas is heated to room temperature (paragraph 31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Zhou to have when heating the expanded gaseous nitrogen stream to have done so to room temperature (which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize would be approximately 25-27 C and thus within the range of 0 to 50 C) as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (indicating simply that the sixth temperature range is 0 to 50 C) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Ha does not teach the low-pressure column nitrogen is also heated to the temperature in the sixth temperature range, such that both streams are at the temperature in the sixth temperature range.
Ishi teaches that low pressure nitrogen removed from an upper column is heated to room temperature in the heat exchanger before leaving the cold box (paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Ishi to have when heating the gaseous nitrogen from the low-pressure column have done so to room temperature (which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize would be approximately 25-27 C and thus within the range of 0 to 50 C) as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (indicating simply that the sixth temperature range is 0 to 50 C) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, both streams would be in the same sixth temperature range.
Ha as modified does not explicitly that the fourth temperature range is from -100 to 50°C and the fifth temperature range is from -150 to -40°C.
Ha does teach that the order of the temperatures of the streams of the heat exchanger can be changed based on pressure of the vaporized oxygen and pressure of the column systems to optimize the performance of the process (paragraph 49).
As such, the temperature into the expander (and thus the temperature out) are a result effective variable that need to be optimized to “optimize the performance of the process”. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Ha as modified to have the temperatures within the claimed range, as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Ha as modified such that the fourth temperature range is from -100 to 50°C and the fifth temperature range is from -150 to -40°C as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 2, Ha as modified teaches with which the first pressure range is 4 to 7 bar (5 to 7 bar, paragraph 4), the second pressure range is 1 to 2 bar (1.4 to 4 bar, paragraph 3), the third pressure range is 10 to 18 bar (third pressure is 11 to 17 bar, paragraph 52), the fourth pressure range is in a pressure range of 1.2 times to 1.5 times the third pressure range (pressure of stream 4 is 18 to 25 bar, paragraph 53, which overlaps with 1.2 to 1.5 third pressure) which the fifth pressure range is in a pressure range of 1.6 times to 2.5 times the fourth pressure range (stream of pressure 9 is 27 to 50 bar, paragraph 54, which overlaps with 1.2 to 1.5 the fourth pressure range).
With respect to claim 4, Ha as modified teaches with which a further partial quantity of the total separated air quantity at the pressure in the third pressure range is cooled to a temperature and fed into the pressure column (liquefied air flow stream 33 can be removed and liquefied so that not all of the stream is sent for further compression in 3 and 8, paragraphs 56-67, and is then as sent along with stream 10 to the column 30 as seen in the figure).
Abdelwahab (Figure 4) teaches that a further compressed air stream (from 165) which is cooled in the heat exchanger (17) is liquefied and cooled to form a liquid air stream which is at a temperature suitable or rectification in the distillation column (paragraph 69). As such, it can be shown by Abdelwahab that the temperature for cooling of the stream (stream that becomes 33 that was not sent to compressor 3) of Ha needs to be optimized to “bring it to a temperature suitable for rectification in a distillation column”. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Ha as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ha so that the liquid air stream (33) is in the third temperature range of -200 to -150 C as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 6, Ha as modified teaches with which one or more liquids are removed from the rectification column arrangement (liquid oxygen 20, paragraph 48), subjected to one or each internal compression, and discharged from the air separation plant in the form of one or more gaseous internal compression products (liquid oxygen 20 is boosted by pump 21, paragraph 48, which would be internal compression and then heated and vaporized in the exchanger to provide a oxygen product 23, paragraph 48).
With respect to claim 7, Ha as modified teaches with which the one or more gaseous internal compression products is or comprises a gaseous internal compression product produced using oxygen-rich liquid from the low-pressure column (the oxygen stream is a liquid stream from the low-pressure column, paragraph 48).
With respect to claim 8, Ha as modified teaches in which no liquid products are removed from the air separation plant (as seen in the figure no liquid products are recovered from the system, only three gaseous ones, 23, 26, 24).
With respect to claim 9, Ha as modified does not teach which an argon-rich liquid is removed from the low-pressure column and supplied to an argon recovery system for the recovery of argon.
Examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided an argon column in the distillation column system of Ha as modified where an argon-rich liquid is passed from the low-pressure column to the argon column so that in addition to oxygen and nitrogen products, an argon product can be produced.
With respect to claim 11, Ha (Figure 3) teaches an air separation plant for the cryogenic separation of air, which has a rectification column arrangement (30/31) with a pressure column (high pressure column 30, paragraph 48) and a low-pressure column (low-pressure column 31, paragraph 48), wherein the air separation plant is designed to operate the pressure column in a first pressure range and the low-pressure column in a second pressure range that is below the first pressure range (the double column is a traditional type of two column process, paragraph 48 which is known to have a low pressure column of 1.4 to 4 bar and a high pressure column of 5 to 7 bar, paragraphs 3-4), and to compress at least 90% of a total quantity of air separated in the rectification column arrangement to a pressure in a third pressure range which is at least 5 bar above the first pressure range (atmospheric air which as seen in the figure represents all of the feed air is initially compressed in air compressor 1, paragraph 48 to pressure 11 to 17 bar, paragraph 52 which overlaps with is at least 5 bars above the first pressure range), -to supply a partial quantity of the total quantity of separated air successively at a first temperature range of 30 to 100 C to a first booster driven by a first turbine, using the first booster to compress it from the pressure in the third pressure range to a pressure in a fourth pressure range, which is above the third pressure range (the feed air is cooled to -20 to 0 C, paragraph 57, and part of the feed air is supplied to booster braker compressor 3 where it is further pressurized and thus to a higher pressure than the third range, which compressor is braked against expander 18, paragraph 48, which as it is expanding and providing driving is a turbine), to cool it to a temperature in a second temperature range of -160 to -60°C, to supply it at the temperature in the second temperature range to a second booster driven by a second turbine (after the compression the air is cooled to temperature T1 of -110 to -140 C it is sent to a second compressor where it is boosted again in pressure, which compressor is driven by expander 18, paragraphs 48 and 55, which would be a turbine as it is driving the booster), using the second booster to compress it from the pressure in the fourth pressure range to a pressure in a fifth pressure range which is above the fourth pressure range (compression in 8 would be to an even higher pressure), to cool it to a temperature in a third temperature, and to feed it into the pressure column (the compressed stream 9 is cooled to condense the air which can be fed into column 30),
- to remove gaseous nitrogen from the pressure column at a pressure in the first pressure range and to heat it successively to a temperature in a fourth temperature range (nitrogen 14 from 30, which would be at the first pressure range as that is the column pressure, is removed and heated in the heat exchanger to form stream 17), to expand it in the second turbine while cooling it to a temperature in a fifth temperature range to a pressure (17 is expanded in 18 to pressure T5, paragraph 48, which would bring it to a fifth temperature range) and to heat it to a temperature in a sixth temperature range (after expansion the stream is heated to form 24 at ambient, paragraph 48), and
- to remove gaseous nitrogen from the low-pressure column and heat it to the temperature ((gaseous nitrogen 25 is removed from low pressure column 31 and heated to form stream 26, paragraph 7), wherein the air separation plant is designed
- heating the gaseous nitrogen removed from the low-pressure column separately from the gaseous nitrogen removed from the pressure column (the streams are heated separately as seen in the figure),
Ha does not teach the third temperature is in the range of -200 to -150 C. Ha does teach the stream from the second booster is liquefied (paragraph 48) and also teaches that the pressure is 17 to 25 bar for the stream from the second booster (paragraph 55) and while this does appear to provide a range that would include -200 to -150 C as air would liquefy within this range, it is not explicitly taught in Ha.
Abdelwahab (Figure 4) teaches that a further compressed air stream (from 165) which is cooled in the heat exchanger (17) is liquefied and cooled to form a liquid air stream which is at a temperature suitable or rectification in the distillation column (paragraph 69). As such, it can be shown by Abdelwahab that the temperature for cooling of the stream (stream 10 of Ha needs to be optimized to “bring it to a temperature suitable for rectification in a distillation column”. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Ha as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ha so that the third temperature is in a range of -200 to -150 C as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Ha does not teach expansion of the gaseous nitrogen in the second turbine is to the second pressure range.
Zhou teaches that when expanding the overhead nitrogen from the lower column (42) in an expander the pressure is expanded to 0.02 MPa (paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Zhou to have when expanding the gaseous nitrogen stream of Ha in the second turbine to have brought it to 0.02 MPa as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed (see paragraph 42 only stating in particular its between 1 to 2 bar) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The pressure being 0.02 MPa, would be 2 bar, which is within the second pressure range of Ha.
Zhou teaches that after expanding the nitrogen gas is heated to room temperature (paragraph 31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Zhou to have when heating the expanded gaseous nitrogen stream to have done so to room temperature (which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize would be approximately 25-27 C and thus within the range of 0 to 50 C) as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (indicating simply that the sixth temperature range is 0 to 50 C) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Ha does not teach the low-pressure column nitrogen is also heated to the temperature in the sixth temperature range, such that both streams are at the temperature in the sixth temperature range.
Ishi teaches that low pressure nitrogen removed from an upper column is heated to room temperature in the heat exchanger before leaving the cold box (paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Ishi to have when heating the gaseous nitrogen from the low-pressure column have done so to room temperature (which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize would be approximately 25-27 C and thus within the range of 0 to 50 C) as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (indicating simply that the sixth temperature range is 0 to 50 C) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, both streams would be in the same sixth temperature range.
Ha as modified does not explicitly that the fourth temperature range is from -100 to 50°C and the fifth temperature range is from -150 to -40°C.
Ha does teach that the order of the temperatures of the streams of the heat exchanger can be changed based on pressure of the vaporized oxygen and pressure of the column systems to optimize the performance of the process (paragraph 49).
As such, the temperature into the expander (and thus the temperature out) are a result effective variable that need to be optimized to “optimize the performance of the process”. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Ha as modified to have the temperatures within the claimed range, as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Ha as modified such that the fourth temperature range is from -100 to 50°C and the fifth temperature range is from -150 to -40°C as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha/Abdelwahab/Zhou/Ishi and further in view of Goloubev (US PG Pub 20160003536), hereinafter referred to as Goloubev.
With respect to claim 3, Ha as modified teaches in which a partial quantity of the total separated air quantity is cooled to a temperature in a second temperature range or a further temperature range is expanded in the first turbine to a pressure in the first pressure range and fed into the first column (a part of the compressed air from 11 is removed as stream 15, which is at a temperature T3, which is below T1 expanded as stream 15 in 13 for expansion into the high-pressure column, paragraph 48, which means the expansion pressure would be to that of the first pressure range).
Ha does not teach the stream sent to the first turbine is first part of the stream which is successively supplied to the first booster at the temperature in the first temperature range, compressed using the first compressed using the first booster from the pressure in the third pressure range to the pressure in the fourth pressure range, before being cooled and removed for expansion.
Goloubev teaches that after being boosted in pressure a portion of the boosted air stream (12) can be cooled in the main heat exchanger to an intermediate temperature, removed (16) and passed to a turbine (17) before being sent to the columns (paragraphs 36-37).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Goloubev to have instead of having the air stream passed to the expander (13) of Ha as modified come from the outlet of the compressor (1) to have a split portion of the boosted stream from the outlet of the booster compressor (3) be cooled down and removed as the stream (15) sent to the expander since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (expander stream derived from upstream of the booster compressor) for another (expander stream derived from downstream of booster compressor) to yield predictable results is obvious, whereby as they are both ways of providing a portion of an air stream to an expander which then passe the stream to the column it would have been prima facie obvious to substitute one method for the other as one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to provide the predictable result of an expanded stream suitable for passing for distillation. Thus, the stream passed to the expander would be part of the stream which is supplied to the first booster at the temperature in the first temperature range, is boosted to the fourth pressure, and is cooled and removed for at the further temperature range before being expanded.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha/Abdelwahab/Zhou/Ishi and further in view of Goloubev (US PG Pub 20180017322), hereinafter referred to as Dimitri.
With respect to claim 5, Ha as modified does not teach with which the gaseous nitrogen removed from the low-pressure column and the gaseous nitrogen removed from the pressure column are combined at the temperature in the sixth temperature range after separate heating to the temperature in the sixth temperature range.
Dimitri (Figure 1) teaches that a warm expanded stream from the high-pressure column (17 in part passes to 41 which becomes 43) and the warmed stream from the top of the low-pressure column (18) can be united and drawn off as a product (paragraph 54).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Dimitri to after heating of the two gaseous nitrogen streams of Ha as modified to have combined them (this would be at the sixth temperature range, as it is the warmed streams that are mixed) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby combining the streams would provide the predictable result (as taught by Dimitri) of allowing them to be withdrawn as a single product stream together.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha/Abdelwahab/Zhou/Ishi/Dimitri and further in view of Nojima et al. (JP2006284075), hereinafter referred to as Nojima.
With respect to claim 10, Ha as modified does not teach with which gaseous nitrogen is removed from the pressure column, heated to a temperature in the sixth temperature range and recovered at a pressure in the first pressure range as nitrogen-rich air product.
Dimitri teaches that that a portion of the overhead nitrogen removed from the high-pressure column (stream 17) can be heated in the heat exchanger to form a high-pressure gaseous nitrogen stream (paragraph 56) which is at the same pressure range as the high-pressure column (paragraph 29 and 56 show the stream and column to be in the same range).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Dimitri to have had a portion of the overhead nitrogen stream (14) from the high pressure column of Ha as modified be split off and not sent to the expander (18) where it is heated in the main heat exchanger and recovered since been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby this would provide the predictable result of the recovery of an additional product stream in the form of high pressure nitrogen.
Nojima teaches that when the nitrogen gas from the high-pressure column is heated in the main heat exchanger it is to room temperature (paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Nojima to have when heating the gaseous nitrogen stream form the high pressure column to have done so to room temperature (which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize would be approximately 25-27 C and thus within the range of 0 to 50 C) as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (indicating simply that the sixth temperature range is 0 to 50 C) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763