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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 10: In line 1, “he” should be replaced with --the--.
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 1-17 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 1 recites the limitation "wherein at least a portion of the plurality of distillation columns are configured according to an indirect split arrangement of the coupled sections,” in lines 4-6.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the coupled sections” in the claim.
Furthermore, it is unclear what “the coupled sections” is referring to. Thus, it is unclear what structure is required for “at least a portion of the plurality of distillation columns are configured according to an indirect split arrangement of the coupled sections,” as claimed.
For the purposes of examination, claim 1 has been interpreted as merely requiring that at least two of the plurality of distillation columns be configured according to an indirect split (indirect sequence) arrangement.
Applicant should amend claim 1 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 1 recites “a pressure sensor control” in line 12.
The scope of “a pressure sensor control” is unclear. In particular, it is unclear if the term “pressure sensor control” refers to --a device which controls a pressure sensor--, as the plain reading of the term would suggest, or to --a pressure controller comprising a pressure sensor--, which would, in Examiner’s opinion, make more sense from a technical perspective.
For the purposes of examination, the claimed “pressure sensor controller” has been interpreted as a pressure controller comprising a pressure sensor.
Applicant should amend claim 1 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 1 recites “a vacuum pressure control valve operable to maintain a near steady-state pressure condition,” in lines 13-14.
It is unclear what qualifies as “a near steady-state pressure condition”, as it is unclear where the line is drawn between what is and is not “near steady-state”. Thus, the scope of the claimed “vacuum pressure control valve” is also unclear, as it is unclear what conditions must be met for a vacuum pressure control valve to be “operable to maintain a near steady-state pressure condition”.
Presumably, Applicant’s intention is to claim a vacuum pressure control valve capable of maintaining a particular pressure condition (e.g. a constant pressure). Therefore, for the purposes of examination, claimed vacuum pressure control valve has been interpreted as --a vacuum pressure control valve capable of maintaining a particular pressure condition (e.g. a constant pressure)--.
Applicant should amend claim 1 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the furthest downstream condenser inlet" in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-17 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the reboiler" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: This limitation would lack antecedent basis even if claim 6 were a dependent of claim 2, as claim 2 recites “a stripping column reboiler” not --a reboiler--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the vacuum pressure control valve operable to stop processing under leak conditions" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: There is sufficient antecedent basis for --the vacuum pressure control valve--, but not "the vacuum pressure control valve operable to stop processing under leak conditions".
Claim 8 recites “wherein the continuous vacuum distillation system further comprises a closed system.” This limitation is indefinite for several reasons.
First, it is unclear what it means for the claimed system to further comprise “a closed system”. Should this limitation be taken to mean that the claimed system is a closed system? Or should this limitation be taken to mean that the system comprises a system (i.e. a subsystem) which is closed.
Second, it is unclear what is required for a system to be closed. Must a closed system have no material inputs or outputs? If so, it is unclear how the system, or any component thereof, could be a closed system considering that the system receives a material feed and is understood to produce at least one product output.
For the purposes of examination, the scope of the claimed “closed system” has been interpreted broadly.
Claim 13 recites “a near steady-state condition” in lines 1-2.
It is unclear what qualifies as “a near steady-state condition”, as it is unclear where the line is drawn between what is and is not “near steady-state”.
For the purposes of examination, the scope of the “near steady-state condition” recited in claim 13 has been interpreted broadly.
Furthermore, it is unclear if the “near steady-state condition” recited in claim 13 is the same condition as the “near steady-state pressure condition” recited in claim 1.
Based on the fact that claim 13 recites that the system is “further comprising a near steady-state condition” rather than merely reciting “the near steady-state pressure condition” indicates that the “near steady-state condition” recited in claim 13 is different than the “near steady-state pressure condition” recited in claim 1. However, this indication is called into question by the fact that said “near steady-state condition” of claim 13 is revealed to be a pressure condition by the language of claim 13.
For the purposes of examination, the “near steady-state condition” of claim 13 has been interpreted broadly as being optionally the same condition as the “near steady-state pressure condition” recited in claim 1.
Applicant should amend claim 13 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 13 recites “a nearly unchanged pressure condition” in lines 2-3.
It is unclear what qualifies as “a nearly unchanged pressure condition”, as it is unclear where the line is drawn between what is and is not “nearly unchanged”.
For the purposes of examination, the scope of the “nearly unchanged pressure condition” recited in claim 13 has been interpreted broadly.
Applicant should amend claim 13 to clarify as appropriate.
With regard to claim 15: The term “low watt density” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low watt density” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the scope of the claimed “low watt density heater element” is unclear.
Applicant should amend claim 15 to clarify as appropriate. Examiner notes that claims 16 and 17 sufficiently describe the scope of “low watt density” by providing a range of wattage per unit area of the low watt density heater element.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the low watt density heater element" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the low watt density heater element" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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 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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messick et al. (US 4,422,903), hereafter referred to as Messick, in view of Harper et al. (US 4,432,913), hereafter referred to as Harper, Cabbage (US 3,049,886), Rijnsdorp (US 3,336,205), Bernardin et al. (US 2016/0251297), hereafter referred to as Bernardin.
With regard to claim 1: Messick teaches a vacuum distillation system for separating one or more components of a multi-component composition by distillation (abstract, Figures 1 and 2, Column 7 Lines 35-51). The system is a vacuum distillation system at least on account of the distillation column (tower) 11 being operated at subatmospheric pressure in at least one embodiment of the invention (Column 7 Lines 35-51).
The distillation system of Messick is understood to be continuous at least in that it is capable of continuous operation, as is easily determined by a person having an understanding of distillation upon viewing the figures of Messick.
In the unlikely alternative, continuous operation is obvious over prior art batch operations and vice versa. Furthermore, continuous operation is understood to have certain advantages. Namely continuous operations can be used to continuously product with little to no downtime.
In the unlikely event that it were not already the case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Messick by configuring the system thereof to operate continuously, in order to obtain a predictably functional system capable of continuous operation and capable of producing product continuously.
The system of Messick comprising:
i) A plurality of distillation columns 10, 11, 12, and 13, wherein the distillation columns include both stripping columns and rectifying columns (for example, the column 11 being a “stripper-rectifier tower” is both a stripper and a rectifier, the column 13 is a stripper [as explicitly identified], and the column 10 qualifies as a stripper on account of the feed 31 thereto being fed into the top of the column), wherein at least a portion of the plurality of distillation columns are configured according to an indirect split (indirect sequence) arrangement of some distillation columns which are coupled (Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 line 1-Column 4 Line 6, Column 5 Lines 3-50).
ii) A plurality of condensers, e.g. condensers 16, 107, 127, etc. (Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 line 1-Column 4 Line 6, Column 5 Lines 3-65).
iii) A plurality of separators, e.g. degassing vessel 30, flash drum 61, decanter 138, decanter 53, etc. (Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 line 1-Column 4 Line 25, Column 5 Lines 3-65, Column 6 Lines 2-32).
ix) A feed (beer feed) (Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 line 1-Column 4 Line 25, Column 5 Lines 3-65, Column 6 Lines 2-32). Note: System claims are not limited by recitation of material worked upon (See MPEP 2115). The claimed feed is understood to be a material worked upon by the claimed system. Framing the feed as a component of the claimed system does not change that the feed is a material worked upon.
x) A feed pipe (line) 14 (Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 line 1-Column 4 Line 25).
Messick is silent to the system comprising iv) a packing and v) a plurality of liquid distributors.
However, it is notoriously well-known in the art that packing is suitable for use as column internals in vapor-liquid contacting columns, such as distillation columns, e.g. in the alternative to trays/plates. Furthermore, it is notoriously well known to be desirable to include liquid distributors when using packing as column internals, in order to provide a means of evenly distributing liquid across the packing. For example, Harper teaches a vapor liquid contacting column comprising multiple packing sections 18, 20, and 22, and multiple liquid distributors 10, 12, and 14 for distributing liquid in each of the packing sections (abstract, Figure 1, Column 7 Lines 25-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Messick in view of Harper by configuring each distillation column to have one or more packing sections serving as column internals therein and at least one liquid distributor for each packing section, said liquid distributors functioning to distribute descending liquid evenly across their respective packing, in order to obtain predictably functional distillation columns using packing as column internals.
Modified Messick is silent to the system comprising vi) a plurality of reflux controllers.
However, reflux controllers are well known in the art. For example, Cabbage teaches a fractionation column having a reflux controller (Figure 1, Column 3 Lines 1-10, Claim 2). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that inclusion of reflux controllers is advantageous, as reflux controllers allow reflux to be regulated automatically with minimal oversight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick in view of Cabbage by adding a plurality of reflux controllers, i.e. at least one for each distillation column, in order to obtain a system which is capable of automatically regulating reflux to each column with minimal oversight.
Modified Messick is silent to xi) a feed flowmeter and xii) a feed control valve positioned downstream of the feed flowmeter.
However, it is well known in the art to control feed flow rate to distillation columns using the combination of a feed flowmeter and a feed control valve positioned downstream thereof. For example, Rijnsdorp teaches a distillation system having a feed flowmeter 17 and a feed control valve 15 positioned downstream of the feed flowmeter 17 for controlling the flow of feed into distillation column 1 (Figure 1, Column 3 lines 45-65). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that inclusion of such a combination is advantageous, as said combination allows for automatic control of feed flow rate with minimal oversight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick in view of Rijnsdorp by adding a feed flowmeter and a feed control valve positioned downstream of the feed flowmeter, in order to obtain a system which is capable of automatically regulating feed flow rate with minimal oversight.
Modified Messick is silent to vii) a pressure controller having a pressure sensor and viii) a vacuum pressure control valve operable to maintain a pressure condition.
However, as discussed above, the distillation column (tower) 11 of Messick is operated at subatmospheric pressure (i.e. at a vacuum) in at least one embodiment of the invention (Column 7 Lines 35-51). Therefore, it is understood that Messick will require some means of controlling the vacuum pressure within the distillation column 11. However, Mesick does not explicitly teach any specific examples of such means. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to search the prior art for means of controlling vacuum pressure.
It is known in the art to control vacuum pressure using an arrangement comprising a pressure controller having a pressure sensor and a vacuum pressure control valve operable to maintain a pressure condition. For example, such an arrangement is at least suggested by Bernardin, which teaches controlling vacuum pressure by means of a pressure sensor P1 or P2 in combination with a control valve 281 or 282 (Figure 2, paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Mesick in view of Bernardin by adding a pressure controller having a pressure sensor associated with a vacuum pressure control valve operable to maintain a pressure condition in the distillation column 11, in order to obtain a system having a means of controlling the pressure in the distillation column 11.
Modified Messick is silent to a pressure sensor proximal to a furthest downstream condenser inlet.
However, Messick teaches that, in operation, the various distillation columns in the system are to be operated at differing pressures (Column 7 Lines 35-51). In light of this teaching, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be advantageous to provide the system with pressure sensors for monitoring the pressure which prevails at various locations within the system, including but not limited to pressure sensors in the condensers, in order to provide the system with means of monitoring pressure to ensure that the desired pressure conditions prevail. Furthermore, it is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to provide systems with monitoring sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick by adding a pressure sensor proximal to a furthest downstream condenser inlet, in order to monitor said portion of the system to ensure that desired pressure conditions prevail therein.
With regard to claim 2: Modified Messick comprises a plurality of stripper column reboilers 36, 36, 107, and 93 (Messick: Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 line 1-Column 5 line 38).
With regard to claim 3: Modified Messick is silent to a feed pump.
However, it is notoriously well understood that fluids (e.g. liquids), such as the feed in modified Messick require a pressure gradient in order to flow. Pumps are notoriously well known and well understood means of providing pressure gradients to induce fluid flow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick by adding a feed pump to provide a pressure gradient to the feed, in order to induce flow thereof into the system.
With regard to claim 4: Modified Messick does not explicitly teach that the near steady-state pressure condition includes an absolute pressure operating range of approximately 25 mmHg to 55 mmHg. However, the claim language regarding the near steady-state pressure condition comprising an absolute pressure operating range of approximately 25 mmHg to 55 mmHg, is a statement pertaining to the intended use/manner of operating the claimed system. Mere statements of intended use/manner of operating do not distinguish system claims from a prior art system capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the distillation column 11 and the pressure controller and vacuum pressure control valve associated therewith are capable of maintaining a vacuum pressure condition within the distillation column 11. Therefore, the system of Messick, i.e. the distillation column 11 and the pressure controller and vacuum pressure control valve associated therewith, are necessarily capable of operating at an array of different vacuum pressures, including but not limited to an absolute pressure operating range of approximately 25 mmHg to 55 mmHg. Thus, modified Messick satisfies the language of claim 4.
Regardless, in the event that Messick were not necessarily capable of operating at absolute pressure operating range of approximately 25 mmHg to 55 mmHg, Messick teaches that the distillation column 11 operates at a vacuum pressure (Column 7 Lines 35-51). Pressure is well understood to be a result effective variable in distillation. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
In the event that Messick were not necessarily capable of operating at absolute pressure operating range of approximately 25 mmHg to 55 mmHg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick by configuring the system thereof, i.e. the distillation column 11 and the pressure controller and vacuum pressure control valve associated therewith, to maintain an absolute pressure operating range of approximately 25 mmHg to 55 mmHg within the distillation column 11, in order to obtain a system capable of operating the distillation column 11 at a vacuum pressure as desired by Messick.
With regard to claim 5: Modified Messick does not explicitly teach that the near steady-state pressure condition includes an absolute pressure operating range of approximately 15 mmHg to 85 mmHg. However, the claim language regarding the near steady-state pressure condition comprising an absolute pressure operating range of approximately 15 mmHg to 85 mmHg, is a statement pertaining to the intended use/manner of operating the claimed system. Mere statements of intended use/manner of operating do not distinguish system claims from a prior art system capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the distillation column 11 and the pressure controller and vacuum pressure control valve associated therewith are capable of maintaining a vacuum pressure condition within the distillation column 11. Therefore, the system of Messick, i.e. the distillation column 11 and the pressure controller and vacuum pressure control valve associated therewith, are necessarily capable of operating at an array of different vacuum pressures, including but not limited to an absolute pressure operating range of approximately 15 mmHg to 85 mmHg. Thus, modified Messick satisfies the language of claim 4.
Regardless, in the event that Messick were not necessarily capable of operating at absolute pressure operating range of approximately 15 mmHg to 85 mmHg, Messick teaches that the distillation column 11 operates at a vacuum pressure (Column 7 Lines 35-51). Pressure is well understood to be a result effective variable in distillation. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
In the event that Messick were not necessarily capable of operating at absolute pressure operating range of approximately 25 mmHg to 55 mmHg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick by configuring the system thereof, i.e. the distillation column 11 and the pressure controller and vacuum pressure control valve associated therewith, to maintain an absolute pressure operating range of approximately 25 mmHg to 55 mmHg within the distillation column 11, in order to obtain a system capable of operating the distillation column 11 at a vacuum pressure as desired by Messick.
With regard to claim 6: Modified Messick does not explicitly teach that the reboiler operates at a temperature at or below 110 °F. However, the claim language regarding the operating temperature of the reboiler, is a statement pertaining to the intended use/manner of operating the claimed system. Mere statements of intended use/manner of operating do not distinguish system claims from a prior art system capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114). The various stripper column reboilers 36, 36, 107, and 93 are necessarily capable of operating at a wide array of different temperatures. Thus, the system of Messick satisfies the claim language regarding the reboiler operating at a temperature at or below 110 °F.
Regardless, in the event that at none of said reboilers were necessarily capable of operating at a temperature at or below 110 °F, temperature is well understood to be a result effective variable in distillation. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
In the event that at none of said reboilers were necessarily capable of operating at a temperature at or below 110 °F, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick by configuring at least one of the reboilers thereof to operate at a temperature at or below 110 °F, in order to obtain a system capable of successfully carrying out a particular distillation process.
With regard to claim 7: As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the pressure controller comprising the pressure sensor and the vacuum pressure control valve are integrated with each other, i.e. to together control pressure in the distillation column 11 (see rejection of claim 1 above for details).
Modified Messick is silent to the vacuum pressure control valve being operable to stop processing under leak conditions.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be desirable for the pressure control valve to be operable to stop processing (i.e. application of a vacuum) under leak conditions. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that were the distillation column 11 to begin leaking, it would make maintaining a vacuum therein much more difficult, if not impossible. Attempting to maintain a vacuum within the column 11 while it is leaking would place extra stain on the vacuum source (e.g. a vacuum pump). Therefore, attempting to maintain a vacuum under leak conditions, if possible at all, could lead to premature failure of the vacuum source.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick by configuring the vacuum pressure control valve to stop processing (i.e. by shutting off the vacuum) when a leak condition is detected, in order to prevent excessive strain on the vacuum source as a result of a leak in the distillation column 11 or elsewhere.
With regard to claim 8: The system of modified Messick comprises a closed system in the sense that it recycles at least a portion of the azeotropic agent (e.g. benzene) (Messick: Figures 1 and 2, Columns 3-6).
With regard to claims 9 and 10: The continuous vacuum distillation system operates at an operating temperature of 80°F-95°F, said operating temperature being the feed temperature (Messick: Column 3 Lines 25-35).
With regard to claim 11: As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the column 10 is a stripping column (Messick; Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 Line 1-Column 5 Line 6). In an alternative characterization of modified Messick, the line 31 can be considered to be the feed pipe, and the fluid flowing in said line can be considered to be the feed (Messick; Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 Line 1-Column 5 Line 6). Said feed in feed line 31 enters the top of the stripping column 10 directly (Messick; Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 Line 1-Column 5 Line 6).
Messick does not explicitly teach that the feed (i.e. the feed in feed line 31) has a temperature with 10 °F of a top operating temperature of the stripping column 10. However, the claim language pertaining to the feed comprising a temperature within 10°F of a top operating temperature of the stripping column is merely a statement of intended use/manner of operating the claimed system. Note: Framing the feed as a component of the claimed system which comprises a particular temperature condition does not confer additional weight to feed temperature within the context of a system claim. Mere statements of intended use/manner of operating do not distinguish system claims from a prior art system capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114). The system of modified Messick is necessarily capable of operating according to a mode wherein the temperature of the feed in lien 31 is within 10°F of a top operating temperature of the stripping column 10. Thus, modified Messick satisfies the language of claim 11.
In the alternative, i.e. if the system of modified Messick were not capable of operating according to a mode wherein the temperature of the feed in line 31 is within 10°F of a top operating temperature of the stripping column 10, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, because the feed in line 31 is fed directly into the top of stripping column 10, the temperature of said feed should be as close as possible to the operating temperature at the top of the column. If the feed temperature were not close to the operating temperature at the top of the stripping column 10, the feed would either be flashed (evaporated) in an undesirably rapid manner (were the feed at a temperature significantly higher than the operating temperature) or cause undesirably rapid condensation of rising vapor (were the feed fed at a temperature significantly below the operating temperature). Furthermore, feed temperature is well understood to be a result effective variable in distillation processes. Selection of feed temperature is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
If the system of modified Messick were not capable of operating according to a mode wherein the temperature of the feed in line 31 is within 10°F of a top operating temperature of the stripping column 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick by configuring the system to operate according to a mode wherein the feed flowing in line 31 has a temperature within 10°F of a top operating temperature of the stripping column 10, in order to obtain a system having a predictably functional stripping column, wherein the feed thereto can be fed without causing any undesirable flashing or condensation therein.
With regard to claim 12: As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the column 10 is a stripping column (Messick; Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 Line 1-Column 5 Line 6). In an alternative characterization of modified Messick, the line 31 can be considered to be the feed pipe, and the fluid flowing in said line can be considered to be the feed (Messick; Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 Line 1-Column 5 Line 6). Said feed in feed line 31 enters the top of the stripping column 10 directly (Messick; Figures 1 and 2, Column 3 Line 1-Column 5 Line 6).
Messick does not explicitly teach that the feed (i.e. the feed in feed line 31) has a temperature with 2 °F of a top operating temperature of the stripping column 10. However, the claim language pertaining to the feed comprising a temperature within 2°F of a top operating temperature of the stripping column is merely a statement of intended use/manner of operating the claimed system. Note: Framing the feed as a component of the claimed system which comprises a particular temperature condition does not confer additional weight to feed temperature within the context of a system claim. Mere statements of intended use/manner of operating do not distinguish system claims from a prior art system capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114). The system of modified Messick is necessarily capable of operating according to a mode wherein the temperature of the feed in lien 31 is within 2°F of a top operating temperature of the stripping column 10. Thus, modified Messick satisfies the language of claim 11.
In the alternative, i.e. if the system of modified Messick were not capable of operating according to a mode wherein the temperature of the feed in line 31 is within 2°F of a top operating temperature of the stripping column 10, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, because the feed in line 31 is fed directly into the top of stripping column 10, the temperature of said feed should be as close as possible to the operating temperature at the top of the column. If the feed temperature were not close to the operating temperature at the top of the stripping column 10, the feed would either be flashed (evaporated) in an undesirably rapid manner (were the feed at a temperature significantly higher than the operating temperature) or cause undesirably rapid condensation of rising vapor (were the feed fed at a temperature significantly below the operating temperature). Furthermore, feed temperature is well understood to be a result effective variable in distillation processes. Selection of feed temperature is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
If the system of modified Messick were not capable of operating according to a mode wherein the temperature of the feed in line 31 is within 2°F of a top operating temperature of the stripping column 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick by configuring the system to operate according to a mode wherein the feed flowing in line 31 has a temperature within 2°F of a top operating temperature of the stripping column 10, in order to obtain a system having a predictably functional stripping column, wherein the feed thereto can be fed without causing any undesirable flashing or condensation therein.
With regard to claim 13: Modified Messick does not explicitly teach operating the system at a near steady state condition wherein the near steady state condition comprises a nearly unchanged pressure condition across a plurality of stages. However, the system comprising a near steady state condition, wherein the near steady state condition comprises a nearly unchanged pressure condition across a plurality of stages is merely a statement pertaining to the intended use/manner of operating the claimed system. Mere statements of intended use/manner of operating do not distinguish system claims from a prior art system capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114). Note: Framing a claimed system as “comprising” an operating condition does not confer additional weight to said operating condition within the context of a system claim. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the distillation column 11 and the pressure controller and vacuum pressure control valve associated therewith are capable of maintaining a vacuum pressure condition within the distillation column 11. Therefore, the system of Messick, i.e. the distillation column 11 and the pressure controller and vacuum pressure control valve associated therewith, are necessarily capable of operating the column at a near steady state condition, wherein the near steady state condition comprises a nearly unchanged pressure condition (i.e. a nearly constant pressure condition) across a plurality of timewise stages (i.e. across several discrete lengths of time). Thus, modified Messick satisfies the language of claim 13.
In the alternative, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is advantageous for the pressure conditions within the distillation column 11 to be maintained at a constant level, i.e. in order to prevent variations in pressure causing variations in product purity.
If it were not already the case in modified Messick, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick by configuring the distillation column 11 and the pressure controller and vacuum pressure control valve associated therewith such that the distillation column is operated at a nearly constant pressure (i.e. through intervention of the pressure control valve and pressure controller) cross a plurality of timewise stages (i.e. across several discrete lengths of time), in order to obtain system which avoids variations in product purity caused by variations in pressure within the distillation column 11.
With regard to claim 14: Modified Messick is silent to the stripping column reboiler comprising a stab-in reboiler.
However, stab-in reboilers are well known in the art. For example, Cabbage teaches a distillation column 1 having a stab-in reboiler made up of heating coil 6 (Figure 1, Column 2 lines 45-67). It is well established that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick in view of Cabbage by replacing at least one of the stripping column reboilers with a stab-in reboiler, in order to obtain a predictably functional stripping column having a predictably functional reboiler.
With regard to claims 15 and 16: Modified Messick is silent to the stripping column reboiler comprising a low watt density heater element, wherein the low watt density heating element comprises a wattage less than 150 Watts/inch2.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that wattage and watt density (i.e. wattage per unit area) is a result effective variable in heater elements. In particular, wattage is understood to be a measurement of the amount of heat a heater element can produce over time, i.e. 1 Watt is equal to 1 Joule per second. The amount of power (Watts) a reboiler heating element can produce is reflective of how quickly and to what degree it will be capable of heating fluid in said reboiler. A heater with a higher wattage will be capable of heating a larger amount of fluid to a greater degree more quickly. However, a heater with too much wattage may heat fluid too quickly, waste energy, and the like. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick configuring at least one of the stripping column reboilers to comprise a low watt density heater element, wherein the low watt density heating element comprises a wattage less than 150 Watts/inch2, in order to obtain a reboiler that is capable of heating the stripping column (i.e. by reboiling liquid received therefrom) without wasting energy.
With regard to claims 15 and 17: Modified Messick is silent to the stripping column reboiler comprising a low watt density heater element, wherein the low watt density heating element comprises a wattage less than 50 Watts/inch2.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that wattage and watt density (i.e. wattage per unit area) is a result effective variable in heater elements. In particular, wattage is understood to be a measurement of the amount of heat a heater element can produce over time, i.e. 1 Watt is equal to 1 Joule per second. The amount of power (Watts) a reboiler heating element can produce is reflective of how quickly and to what degree it will be capable of heating fluid in said reboiler. A heater with a higher wattage will be capable of heating a larger amount of fluid to a greater degree more quickly. However, a heater with too much wattage may heat fluid too quickly, waste energy, and the like. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Messick configuring at least one of the stripping column reboilers to comprise a low watt density heater element, wherein the low watt density heating element comprises a wattage less than 50 Watts/inch2, in order to obtain a reboiler that is capable of heating the stripping column (i.e. by reboiling liquid received therefrom) without wasting energy.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Duc Long et al. (“Review of Retrofitting Distillation Columns Using Thermally Coupled Distillation Sequences and Dividing Wall Columns to Improve Energy Efficiency”) show the difference between a direct split (direct sequence) arrangement and an indirect split (indirect sequence) arrangement (see Figure 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772