DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed with the US on 06/18/2024 and having an Effective Filing Date of 12/20/2021, in which claims 1-15 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 18 JUNE 2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “n being between 2 and 30;
in which the n zones comprise:
- at least one extraction zone Zi located between a zone Z1 comprising the second injection point for the second phase (3), and a feed zone Zx comprising the first injection point for the first phase (2), x being greater than or equal to 1; and
- at least one backwash zone located between a zone Zx+l and a zone Zn comprising the third injection point for the backwash liquid ( 4 ), n being greater than x”
This is confusing because the claims clearly state the number of zones n may be as low as 2, but then go on to list ~6 zones, i.e. Zi, Z1, Zx, a backwash zone, Zx+1, Zn. It is the Examiners interpretation that what is meant to be claimed is:
at least one extraction zone Zi including at least a zone Z1 comprising the second injection point of the second phase, and a feed zone Zx comprising the first injection point for the first phase, where x being greater than or equal to 1, where Zi, Zx and Z1 may be the same singular “extraction zone” Z1, and
at least one backwash zone (Zj in claims 8-10) including at least a zone Zx+1 and a zone Zn comprising the third injection point for the backwash liquid, n being 2-30 and greater than X, where the backwash zone (Zj), Zx+1 and Zn can be one singular “backwash zone” Z2.
Correction is required to clarify the number of zones and how each are related.
Claim 1 recites “than than” is the last line of the claim. Correction is required.
Claim 1-5, 8-11, 13 and 15 appear to use the format “between X and Y” with ranges to mean the range is from X to Y, i.e. including both X and Y. This is confusing because for example, “between 2 and 10” would normally mean a range from 3-9. Correction is required. It is suggested that Applicant’s amend the claims to replace “is between” (or similar) with “ranges from” (or similar).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “et x is greater than 1”. It is not clear what is meant by “et”, it is expected to me “and” or “or”. It will be interpreted as “and” since the claims which depend on claim 3 refer to embodiments where x is greater than 1.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for depending on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,293,387 (hereinafter “Winter”).
Regarding Claim 1 Winter discloses a liquid-liquid extraction column (Fig. 1) comprising the following elements:
- a first injection point for a first phase (4) located at an intermediate position between the top and the bottom of the column;
- a second injection point for a second phase (3) and
a third injection point for a backwash liquid (19), one being located at the top of the column and the other being located at the bottom of the column;
- a first withdrawal point for an extract (6) and a second withdrawal point for a raffinate (2), one being located at the bottom of the column and the other being located at the top of the column;
- a plurality of trays Pi (trays 9 and 10) located from the top of the column to the bottom of the column and defining n zones, each zone comprising at least two trays (9 or 10), n being between 2; in which the n zones comprise:
- at least one extraction zone Zi (7, trays 9) comprising a zone Z1 comprising the second injection point for the second phase (3), and a feed zone (Zx) comprising the first injection point for the first phase (4), X equal to 1 (i.e. the zone 7 comprising plates 9 is considered a singular extraction zone); and
- at least one backwash zone (8, trays 10) comprising a zone Zₓ₊₁ and a zone Zₙ comprising the third injection point for the backwash liquid (5), n being 2, i.e. greater than x;
in which the trays (Pi) of the same zone have the same number of holes (14, 15); and
in which: X is equal to 1, and the number of holes (14) per perforated tray (Pi) of the at least one backwash zone is less than the number of holes (15) per perforated tray (Pi) of the zone Z₁; Fig. 1, C2/L48-C4/L12, C5/L11-44.
Regarding Claim 2 Winter discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim 1, in which, X is 1, and wherein the extraction trays have perforations which are ¼” to 1/3” in size, the backwashing trays’ perforations are 1/8 to ½ larger than the backwash trays up to ½” (i.e. 0.281-0.5”), and the trays have the same total cross sectional area of perforations, C3/L53-C4/L12; thus their relative number is directly related to their relative perforation size such that this results in a ratio of the number of holes per perforated tray of the at least one backwash zone to the number of holes per perforated tray of the (extraction) zone Z₁ of 0.44-0.79.
Regarding Claim 6 Winter discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim 1, in which the at least one backwash zone may be considered a plurality of zones, from a zone Zₓ₊₁ to zone Zₙ, and in which the number of holes (14) per perforated tray (Pi) is constant from zone Zₓ₊₁ to zone Zₙ, i.e. because the extraction zone is disclosed to have 6 plates in the figure all of which are the same, and the column may have more plates than shown including 60-120 trays (Fig. 1, C3/L19-21, C2/L48-C4/L12, C5/L11-44), thus any set of two or more trays in the backwash zone may be considered a separate zone
Regarding Claim 11 Winter discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim 3, in which the number of backwash zones may be considered to be 1, supra.
Regarding Claim 12 Winter discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim 1, in which the number of holes (14) in the perforated trays (Pi, 10) of the backwash zone Zₓ₊₁ is less than, the number of holes (15) in the perforated trays (Pi) of the extraction zone Zx, supra.
Regarding Claim 15 Winter discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim l, in which the diameter of the holes (14, 15) of the trays (Pi) is between 0.125-0.5 inches, C3/L53-C4/L12; i.e. 3.1 mm to 12.7 mm.
Claims 1, 6, 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,039,389 (hereinafter “Christman”).
Regarding Claim 1 Christman discloses a liquid-liquid extraction column (Fig. 1) comprising the following elements:
- a first injection point for a first phase (6) located at an intermediate position between the top and the bottom of the column;
- a second injection point for a second phase (3) and a third injection point for a backwash liquid (1), one being located at the top of the column and the other being located at the bottom of the column;
- a first withdrawal point for an extract (4) and a second withdrawal point for a raffinate (5), one being located at the bottom of the column and the other being located at the top of the column;
- a plurality of trays (Pᵢ) 17 and 18 located from the top of the column to the bottom of the column and defining n zones, each zone comprising at least two trays (Pi), n being 2; in which the n zones comprise:
- at least one extraction zone Zi (trays 18) comprising a zone Z1 comprising the second injection point for the second phase (3), and a feed zone (Zx) comprising the first injection point for the first phase (6), X equal to 1 (i.e. the zone comprising plates 18 is considered a singular extraction zone); and
- at least one backwash zone (trays 17) comprising a zone Zₓ₊₁ and a zone Zₙ comprising the third injection point for the backwash liquid (1), n being 2, i.e. greater than x; and
in which: when X is equal to 1, the number of holes (22) per perforated tray 17 (Pi) of the at least one backwash zone is greater than the number of holes (22) per perforated tray 18 (Pi) of the zone Z₁; Fig. 1, C3/L16-C5/L39.
Note: With regard to the “first injection point for a first phase”, “second injection point for a second phase” and “third injection point for a backwash liquid”, it is noted the intended use of an apparatus is not considered a claim limitation, see MPEP 2111.02(II), it is further noted that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114(II)); Thus items 6, 3 and 1, may be considered, structurally, “a first injection point for a first phase”, “a second injection point for a second phase” and “a third injection point for a backwash liquid”.
Regarding Claim 6 Christman discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim 1, in which the at least one backwash zone may be considered to be a plurality of zones, from a zone Zₓ₊₁ to zone Zₙ, and in which the number of holes (9) per perforated tray (Pi) is constant from zone Zₓ₊₁ to zone Zₙ; i.e. because the extraction zone is disclosed to have, in at least one embodiment, 6 plates in the figure all of which are the same, (Fig. 1, C3/L16-C5/L39), thus any set of two or more trays in the backwash zone may be considered a separate zone
Regarding Claim 11 Christman discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim 3, in which the number of backwash zones may be considered to be 1, supra.
Regarding Claim 12 Christman discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim 1, in which the number of holes (22) in the perforated trays (Pi) of the backwash zone Zₓ₊₁ is greater than the number of holes (22) in the perforated trays (Pi) of the extraction zone Zx, supra.
Regarding Claim 15 Christman discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim l, in which the diameter of the holes (22) of the trays (Pi) is between 1/8-3/8 inch, C2/L36-37, i.e. 3.1 mm to 9.5 mm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter in view of WO 1997045184 A1 (hereinafter “Hüebinger”).
Regarding Claim 13-14 Winter discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim 1, but does not disclose each perforated tray (Pi) has a number of holes of between 3000 and 20 000, or (claim 14) the ratio of the area of the holes of each tray (Pi) to the total area of each tray (Pi) is less than 0.5.
However Hüebinger discloses a similar perforated tray extraction column wherein each tray has 2000-9000 holes/perforations and the specific free perforated area is 2-25% (i.e. the ratio of the area of the holes (22) of each tray (Pi) to the total area of each tray (Pi) is less 2-25%)
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the liquid-liquid extraction column of Winter by forming each tray to have between 2000-9000 holes and a ratio of the area of the holes of each tray (Pi) to the total area of each tray (Pi) is less 2-25%) as disclosed by Hüebinger because this a number of holes per tray and a ratio of the area of the holes of each tray to the total area of each tray that is known to work in a similar perforated tray extraction column and would therefore be expected to provide a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christman.
Regarding Claim 2 Christman discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim 1, in which X is 1, supra, but does not disclose the ratio of the number of holes per perforated tray of the at least one backwash zone to the number of holes per perforated tray of the zone Z₁ is between 0.40 and 0.95, or the ratio of the number of holes per perforated tray of the zone Z₁ to the number of holes per perforated tray of the at least one backwash zone is between 0.40 and 0.95.
However, it is disclosed that the number of perforations are specifically adjusted to effect flow rate to cause a lower flow rate in the top section/zone of the column as needed for the separation process, and where the flow rates in each section effect the efficiency of extraction (C3/L16-C5/L39). Therefore, the ratio of the number of holes per perforated tray of the at least one backwash zone to the number of holes per perforated tray of the zone Z₁ is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 3 Christman discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to Claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein n is between 3 and 30, and X is greater than 1.
However, Christman discloses “[i]t is also possible to construct an apparatus embodying the inventive concept which has three or more raffinate draw-off points and/or three or more sections of independently sized trays” (C5/L36-39), and thus the column may obviously have three or more zones of different flow rates, which is accomplished by changing the number of the perforations in the plates of each zone, thus n may be 3 or more. There is no specific direction given as to whether the extra zones would be above or below the line 6 (i.e. in the extraction zone or the backwash zone), and thus either or both would have been equally prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Thus it would have been obvious to include at least an additional zone in the extraction zone, i.e. x is at least 2.
Since the range disclosed overlaps the range claimed, the range recited in the claim is considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 4-5 Christman discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to Claim 3, wherein in the extraction zones Zᵢ where i ranges from 1 to X, and x may be at least 2, supra, but it is not disclosed that the ratio of the number of holes (9) per perforated tray (Pi) of a zone Zᵢ to the number of holes (9) per perforated tray (Pi) of a zone Zᵢ₊₁ is between 0.40 and 0.95, or (claim 5) 0.80 and 0.95.
However it is disclosed that the number of perforations are specifically adjusted to effect flow rate to cause a lower flow rate in the top section/zone of the column as needed for the separation process, and where the flow rates in each section effect the efficiency of extraction (C3/L16-C5/L39). Therefore, the ratio of the number of holes per perforated tray of the at least one backwash zone to the number of holes per perforated tray of the zone Z₁ is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 7 Christman discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one backwash zone is a plurality of zones, from a zone Zₓ₊₁ to zone Zₙ, and in which the number of holes per perforated tray (Pi) increases from zone Zₓ₊₁ to zone Zₙ.
However, Christman discloses “[i]t is also possible to construct an apparatus embodying the inventive concept which has three or more raffinate draw-off points and/or three or more sections of independently sized trays” (C5/L36-39), and thus the column may obviously have three or more zones of different flow rates, which is accomplished by changing the number of the perforations in the plates of each zone, thus n may be 3 or more. There is no specific direction given as to whether the extra zones would be above or below the line 6 (i.e. in the extraction zone or the backwash zone), and thus either or both would have been equally prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Thus it would have been obvious to include at least an additional zone in the backwash zone.
Further, since it is disclosed that the upper zone has a slower flow rate and thus less perforations than the bottom zone (C5/L17-39), it would have been obvious, in embodiments having more than 2 zones, to continue that trend and have the zones increasing in perforations as they go down the column, thus it an embodiment where there are 3 zones, 2 of which are backwash zones, the upper backwash zone would have less perforations than the lower backwash zone. Thus it would have been obvious to modify the column such that the at least one backwash zone is a plurality of zones, from a zone Zₓ₊₁ to zone Zₙ, and in which the number of holes (22) per perforated tray (Pi) increases from zone Zₓ₊₁ to zone Zₙ.
Regarding Claim 8-10 Christman discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one backwash zone is a plurality of zones Zj between zone Zₓ₊₁ and zone Zₙ, and in the zones Zj where j ranges from x+1 to n, the ratio of the number of holes per perforated tray (Pi) of a zone Zj to the number of holes per perforated tray (Pi) of a zone Zj+1 is between 0.70 and 0.95, or (claim 9) 0.70 and 0.90, or (claim 10) 0.80 and 0.90.
However, Christman discloses “[i]t is also possible to construct an apparatus embodying the inventive concept which has three or more raffinate draw-off points and/or three or more sections of independently sized trays” (C5/L36-39), and thus the column may obviously have three or more zones of different flow rates, which is accomplished by changing the number of the perforations in the plates of each zone, thus n may be 3 or more. There is no specific direction given as to whether the extra zones would be above or below the line 6 (i.e. in the extraction zone or the backwash zone), and thus either or both would have been equally prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Thus it would have been obvious to include at least an additional zone in the backwash zone.
Further, since it is disclosed that the upper zone has a slower flow rate and thus less perforations than the bottom zone (C5/L17-39), it would have been obvious, in embodiments having more than 2 zones, to continue that trend and have the zones increasing in perforations as they go down the column, thus it an embodiment where there are 3 zones, 2 of which are backwash zones, the upper backwash zone would have less perforations than the lower backwash zone. Thus it would have been obvious to modify the column such that the at least one backwash zone is a plurality of zones Zj between zone Zₓ₊₁ and zone Zₙ, where j ranges from x+1 to n.
The claimed ratio is not specifically disclosed, however it is disclosed that the number of perforations are specifically adjusted to effect flow rate to cause a lower flow rate in the top section/zone of the column as needed for the separation process, and where the flow rates in each section effect the efficiency of extraction (C3/L16-C5/L39). Therefore, the ratio of the number of holes per perforated tray of the at least one backwash zone to the number of holes per perforated tray of the zone Z₁ is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christman in view of Hüebinger.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14 Christman discloses the liquid-liquid extraction column according to claim 1, but does not disclose each perforated tray (Pi) has a number of holes of between 3000 and 20 000, or (claim 14) the ratio of the area of the holes of each tray (Pi) to the total area of each tray (Pi) is less than 0.5.
However Hüebinger discloses a similar perforated tray extraction column wherein each tray has 2000-9000 holes/perforations and the specific free perforated area is 2-25% (i.e. the ratio of the area of the holes (22) of each tray (Pi) to the total area of each tray (Pi) is less 2-25%)
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the liquid-liquid extraction column of Christman by forming each tray to have between 2000-9000 holes and a ratio of the area of the holes of each tray (Pi) to the total area of each tray (Pi) is less 2-25%) as disclosed by Hüebinger because this a number of holes per tray and a ratio of the area of the holes of each tray to the total area of each tray that is known to work in a similar perforated tray extraction column and would therefore be expected to provide a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights