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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because ALL of the drawings are not of acceptable quality. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2 is 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.
The term “approximately” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 1, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2016/0114876, hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a system (Fig. 6) for providing inert nitrogen gas (MPEP 2115 states: “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).) to a reactor (this recitation is being interpreted as intended use and any future recitation of a reactor is interpreted as further defining the intended use that the system of Lee meets), comprising: a liquid nitrogen tank (11); a vaporizer (31); a heat exchanger (21), wherein the heat exchanger is configured to receive a steam stream (this is a functional limitation that the system of Lee is capable of performing); a pressure build line (see Exhibit A) connected to the liquid nitrogen tank and the vaporizer; and an exit conduit (the conduit exiting 21 and leading into and/or including L2/L7) connected to the heat exchanger, the exit conduit configured for connection to a reactor (intended use); wherein the system defines a nitrogen stream (the fluid flowing through the system), wherein: the nitrogen stream begins at the liquid nitrogen tank and ends at the reactor, and passes through the vaporizer, the heat exchanger, and the exit conduit (para. [0166] – [0182]); and a portion of the nitrogen stream is configured to return to the liquid nitrogen tank through the pressure build line (the fluid is at least capable of returning to 11 through the pressure build line indicated below since there are no components that would prevent fluid flow to the tank through this line).
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
649
965
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lee further discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the steam stream is a waste stream from a refinery. (this limitation further defines the functional limitation above that the system of Lee meets)
Regarding claim 10, Lee further discloses the system of claim 1 wherein heat sources consist essentially of the steam stream and ambient temperatures surrounding the vaporizer. (note that the steam stream is not positively recited and this limitation is further defining the functional language; also the system necessarily can receive heat from ambient temperatures and the steam stream)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 2, Lee further discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose the liquid nitrogen tank has a working pressure of approximately 250 psi.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the system of Lee such that the liquid nitrogen tank has a working pressure of approximately 250 psi since applicant has not disclosed that having the liquid nitrogen tank has a working pressure of approximately 250 psi solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having the liquid nitrogen tank has a working pressure of approximately 250 psi, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). In this case, in para. [0013], the specification merely states: The liquid nitrogen tank 102 may have a working pressure of 250 psi.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Takada et al. (WO 2011/043308, hereafter “Takada”).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the heat exchanger comprises a coil made of stainless steel.
Takada teaches a heat exchanger (12) comprising a coil made of stainless steel. (page 4)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the heat exchanger of Lee to have a coil made of stainless steel as taught by Takada since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a known material that is cost effective, durable, and able to operate in a large range of temperatures.
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Takada further discloses the system of claim 3, wherein a wettability of the coil is increased through the application of a nano-layer of hydrophilic material. (note that this is a functional limitation and the wettability of the coil is at least capable of being increased through application of a nano-layer of hydrophilic material)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Takada and Varrin et al. (US 2011/0209730, hereafter “Varrin”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Takada further discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the heat exchanger is configured to receive the steam stream within a water bath (note that the steam stream is not positively recited and is recited in a functional limitation; also the heat exchanger of Lee is capable of performing this function in the even that a steam stream flows to the heat exchanger), but fails to disclose wherein the heat exchanger includes spargers proximate an inlet of the steam stream.
Varrin teaches a heat exchanger that includes spargers proximate an inlet of the steam stream. (para. [0036])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the heat exchanger of Lee to include a sparger as taught by Varrin in order to provide suitable mixing of the steam and liquid. (para. [0036])
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Guerif et al. (US 2021/0348840, hereafter “Guerif”).
Regarding claim 8, Lee further discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose a turboexpander connected to the exit conduit for pressurizing the nitrogen stream.
Guerif teaches a turboexpander (409) connected to the exit conduit (the conduit between 407 and 409) for pressurizing the nitrogen stream. (para. [0112] and [0113])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the system of Lee to include a turboexpander as taught by Guerif in order to provide a means for expansion of the fluid. (para. [0112] and [0113])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, and 16-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571 272-4881. 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753