DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group III (claims 16-31), species 3, subspecies C in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 1-15, 26-27 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, species, or subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 26-27 do not read on the elected invention because the elected invention separates liquid neon (pg. pub. para. 29) from helium impurities with the distillation column (157), not liquid nitrogen.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
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.
Claim(s) 16-25, 28-31 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 16, the recitation, “the steps” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “heat exchange system” is indefinite as explained in the claim interpretation section below.
The recitation, “separating the mixture” is indefinite since it is unclear if this references the previously recited “gas mixture” or some other mixture.
The recitation, “cooling the crude neon stream” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis and it is unclear if this is referencing the crude neon vapor stream or some other stream.
The recitation, “separating the crude neon stream” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis and it is unclear if this is referencing the crude neon vapor stream or some other stream.
In regard to claim 17, the recitation, “the steps” is indefinite for referencing a plurality that lacks proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “the pressure” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “it in the heat exchange system” is indefinite since it is not clear what “it” references.
The recitation, “the refrigeration” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “the system” is indefinite as it is unclear what system is being referenced.
In regard to claim 18, the recitation, “the step” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “the refrigeration” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 20, the recitation, “the step of cooling the second two-phase stream” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the step” and “the second two-phase stream”.
In regard to claim 23, the recitation, “the step” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 24, the recitation, “the step” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “the purified helium stream” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 25, the recitation, “the step” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “the pressure” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 28, the recitation, “the step” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “the helium impurities” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 29, the recitation, “the step” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “the pressure” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 30, the recitation, “the step” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 31, the recitation, “the step” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claim limitation “heat exchange system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure mentions a heat exchanger (105, 143) but never defines a heat exchange system. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (CN 202216490). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 16, Yu teaches a method of purifying neon (see all figures and whole disclosure, including para. 3), comprising:
cooling a gas mixture (raw material gas para. 27) comprising neon, nitrogen, and helium (para. 3) in a heat exchange system (at least 3, 8) to a first temperature (after 3);
separating the gas mixture (raw material gas) in a first separator (at least 4) into a nitrogen-rich liquid stream (toward 5) and a crude neon vapor stream (21);
purifying the crude neon vapor stream (21) in a first adsorber (7);
cooling the crude neon vapor stream (21) to a second temperature (after 8);
separating the crude neon vapor stream (after 8) in a second separator (9) into a crude helium vapor stream (22) and a crude neon liquid stream (toward 10); and
purifying the crude neon liquid stream (toward 10) in a distillation column (11) to a purified neon product stream (23).
In regard to claim 17, Yu teaches reducing a pressure of the nitrogen-rich liquid stream (toward 5) and vaporizing it in the heat exchange system (at least 3, 8) to generate a portion of refrigeration (see cooling with liquid vaporizing).
In regard to claim 19, Yu teaches that the first adsorber (7) is configured to remove nitrogen (para. 31, abstract).
In regard to claim 20, Yu teaches cooling a second two-phase stream (from 8 to 9) with a cryocooler (refrigeration cycle, para. 7) associated with the second separator (9).
In regard to claim 25, Yu teaches decreasing a pressure (via 10) of the crude neon liquid stream (from 9) before entering the distillation column (11).
In regard to claim 28, Yu teaches heating helium impurities (in 22) in the heat exchange system (at least 3, 8).
Claim(s) 16-20, 22, 25, 30, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barjhoux (US 2018/0335255). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 16, Barjhoux teaches a method of purifying neon (see all figures and whole disclosure, including para. 2-3), comprising:
cooling a gas mixture (“gas mixture” para. 37, 30) comprising neon, nitrogen, and helium (para. 37, 30) in a heat exchange system (at least 8, 9, 10, 11, 13) to a first temperature (after 8);
separating the gas mixture (gas mixture) in a first separator (11) into a nitrogen-rich liquid stream (para. 47) and a crude neon vapor stream (to 12; para. 30, 49);
purifying the crude neon vapor stream (to 12) in a first adsorber (12; para. 48);
cooling the crude neon vapor stream (via portion 13) to a second temperature (after 13);
separating the crude neon vapor stream (after 14) in a second separator (15) into a crude helium vapor stream (para. 55-62) and a crude neon liquid stream (para. 56, 55); and
purifying the crude neon liquid stream (para. 55) in a distillation column (16) to a purified neon product stream (para. 55-62).
In regard to claim 17, Barjhoux teaches reducing a pressure (para. 46) of the nitrogen-rich liquid stream (para. 47) and vaporizing it in the heat exchange system (at least 8, 9, 10, 11, 13) to generate a portion of refrigeration (see cooling with liquid vaporizing).
In regard to claim 18, Barjhoux teaches introducing an imported liquid nitrogen stream (20, para. 64) to the heat exchange system (8, 9, 10, 11, 13).
In regard to claim 19, Barjhoux teaches that the first adsorber (12) is configured to remove nitrogen (para. 48).
In regard to claim 20, Barjhoux teaches cooling a second two-phase stream (in 14) with a cryocooler (para. 51-52) associated with the second separator (15).
In regard to claim 22, Barjhoux teaches the cryocooler (cryocooler) is a Gifford-McMahon cryocooler (para. 52).
In regard to claim 25, Barjhoux teaches decreasing a pressure (para. 56) of the crude neon liquid stream (para. 55) before entering the distillation column (16).
In regard to claim 30, Barjhoux teaches warming (see 13, 9, 8) the purified neon product stream (17).
In regard to claim 31, Barjhoux teaches collecting the purified neon product stream (as 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 18, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 202216490) in view of PHYSICHESKI (GB 1365801). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 18, Yu teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach an imported liquid nitrogen stream to the heat exchange system (at least 3, 8). However, introducing an imported liquid nitrogen stream is old and well known as taught by Physicheski. Physicheski teaches cooling a heat exchange system (at least 5) by introducing an imported liquid nitrogen stream (see N2 imported) to the heat exchange system (at least 3, 8) to generate a portion of refrigeration (for cooling a feed gas stream). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yu with a step of introducing imported liquid nitrogen to provide additional cooling capacity independent of the nitrogen in the feed stream.
In regard to claim 23, Yu teaches most claim limitations but does not explicitly teach purifying the crude helium vapor stream in a second adsorber. However, Physicheski teaches purifying (page 3, line 55-60) a crude helium vapor stream (35) in a second adsorber (38, 39) to provide further purification. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yu with a step of purifiying the crude helium vapor stream (from 9 toward 22) in a second adsorber as taught by Physicheski for the purpose of providing greater purity helium output.
In regard to claim 24, Yu, as modified, teaches vaporizing (in 3, 8) a purified helium stream (from 9 to the second adsorber of Physicheski) to create a purified helium product (22 after the adsorber of Phsyicheski) for the purpose of obtaining a helium product and refrigeration therefrom.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571) 272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights