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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the gas delivery pipeline delivering a gas flow from the expander to the internal heat exchanger to be heated in Claim 2; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A detection element in claim 7. For purposes of examination: system comprises a liquid level sensor or composition analysers (Applicant Specification Publication [0057]) and its equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 112781321 A) in view of Theobald et al (EP0042676A1).
In re Claim 1, Zhao discloses an air separation system (Fig. 3) comprising:
an air separation apparatus comprising
a rectification column system (K02, E02, K01),
a main heat exchanger (E01, E03; The first heat exchanger E01 and the subcooler E03 designed as one integrated main heat exchanger) and
multiple output pipelines (at least e, b and g),
the multiple output pipelines (at least e, b and g) being led out from the rectification column system (K02, E02, K01) via the main heat exchanger (E01, E03), and
the multiple output pipelines (at least e, b and g) comprising a nitrogen gas pipeline (e) configured to output a nitrogen gas product (j);
a nitrogen liquefier (Fig. 2) comprising
an expander (ET20) configured to expand at least a portion of the nitrogen gas product (j2) from the nitrogen gas pipeline (e), and
a gas delivery pipeline (j12’) configured to deliver a gas flow expanded by the expander (ET21),
However, Zhao does not explicitly teach, an intermediary pipeline, wherein, an inlet end of the intermediary pipeline is connected to the gas delivery pipeline of the nitrogen liquefier, and an outlet end of the intermediary pipeline is connected to at least one output pipeline of the multiple output pipelines of the air separation apparatus at a position between the rectification column system and the main heat exchanger, such that the intermediary pipeline delivers a gas flow to the at least one output pipeline.
On the other hand, Theobald teaches an intermediary pipeline (22),
wherein, an inlet end of the intermediary pipeline (inlet of 22) is connected to the gas delivery pipeline of the nitrogen liquefier (43), and
an outlet end of the intermediary pipeline (outlet of 22) is connected to at least one output pipeline (33) of the multiple output pipelines of the air separation apparatus (Fig. 1) at a position between the rectification column system (6/7) and the main heat exchanger (4), such that the intermediary pipeline (22) delivers a gas flow (26) to the at least one output pipeline (33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Zhao and to have modified them by an intermediary pipeline as taught by Theobald, wherein, an inlet end of the intermediary pipeline is connected to the gas delivery pipeline of the nitrogen liquefier of Zhao as taught by Theobald, and an outlet end of the intermediary pipeline is connected to at least one output pipeline of the multiple output pipelines of the air separation apparatus of Zhao at a position between the rectification column system of Zhao and the main heat exchanger of Zhao as taught by Theobald, such that the intermediary pipeline delivers a gas flow to the at least one output pipeline as taught by Theobald, in order to assist in cooling said first sub-stream of substantially pure compressed nitrogen and a conduit for carrying said substantially pure gaseous nitrogen (See Theobald [0011]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 2, Modified Zhao teaches wherein the nitrogen liquefier (Zhao Fig. 2) further comprises:
an internal heat exchanger (E20),
the gas delivery pipeline (j12’) delivering a gas flow (Theobald 43) from the expander (ET20) to the internal heat exchanger (E20/E21) to be heated (Page 10¶3);
a gas-liquid separator (V20), located on the gas delivery pipeline j12’) and between the expander (ET20/ET21) and the internal heat exchanger (E20); and
a throttle valve (connected to first separator V20 via a throttle valve),
the gas-liquid separator (V20) collecting a gas flow expanded by the expander (ET21/ET/20) and
a stream (j11) throttled by the throttle valve (connected to first separator V20 via a throttle valve), and
separating all collected fluids (fluids in V20) into a gas phase flow and a liquid phase flow ( Zhao Page 10¶3: liquid phases of the stream fed to first separator V20 are separated in first separator V20 to form a first vapor phase stream k and a first liquid phase stream l).
In re Claim 3, Modified Zhao teaches wherein the inlet end (Theobald inlet of 22) of the intermediary pipeline (Theobald 22) is connected to the gas delivery pipeline (Zhao j12’) at a position (Theobald 42) between the expander (Zhao ET21 corresponding to Theobald 40) and the internal heat exchanger (Zhao E20 corresponding to Theobald 15).
In re Claim 4, Modified Zhao teaches wherein the inlet end (Theobald inlet of 22) of the intermediary pipeline (Theobald 22) is connected to the gas delivery pipeline (Zhao j12’) at a position (Theobald 42) between the gas-liquid separator (Zhao V20 corresponding to Theobald 37) and the internal heat exchanger (Zhao E20 corresponding to Theobald 15).
In re Claim 5, Modified Zhao teaches wherein the nitrogen liquefier (Zhao Fig. 2) further comprises:
a liquid return pipeline (l) configured to send a first part of liquid flow in the liquid phase flow (p) separated out by the gas-liquid separator (V20) back to the rectification column system (K02, E02, K01); and
a liquid delivery pipeline configured to output a second part of liquid flow in the liquid phase flow (s) separated out by in the gas-liquid separator (V20) to a storage tank (another portion of the nitrogen-rich liquid stream s is introduced into the liquid nitrogen storage tank.).
In re Claim 6, Modified Zhao teaches wherein, in the nitrogen liquefier (Zhao Fig. 2), an outlet end of the gas delivery pipeline (outlet of k) is connected to the nitrogen gas pipeline (outlet of e), so as to send a gas flow heated in the internal heat exchanger (E20) to the nitrogen gas pipeline (outlet of e) to converge with the nitrogen gas product in the nitrogen gas pipeline (outlet of e).
In re Claim 8, Modified Zhao teaches wherein the at least one output pipeline is a waste discharge pipeline of the air separation apparatus for delivering waste gas ((Zhao Fig. 1 and Fig. 3: c; waste nitrogen c)).
In re Claim 9, Modified Zhao teaches at a start-up stage of an air separation apparatus (air separation apparatus of Fig. 3) in the air separation system (Zhao Fig. 3),
delivering a gas flow (Theobald 26) to at least one output pipeline (Theobald 33) of the air separation apparatus (Zhao Fig. 3 corresponding to Theobald Fig. 1) from the nitrogen liquefier (Zhao Fig. 2) in the air separation system (Zhao Fig. 3), via the intermediary pipeline (Theobald 22) in the air separation system (Zhao Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, when taken as a whole, neither anticipates nor render prima facie obvious the claimed invention as currently recited in at least claim 7 and 10-11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763