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
Claims 1-6 are objected to for the following informalities:
All of the claims interchangeably use and do not use a “-“ between “high and purity” but they should remain consistent for the sake of clarity.
Claims 2 and 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 should have the word “an” before expansion turbine instead of “a”.
There should not be a space between the “a” and the “n” in line 8 of claim 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as they are blurry and difficult to read. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
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
In claim 1, the use of “returning the gas to the second condenser” is understood such that although the term gas is used, after passing through the oxygen evaporator the stream is a liquid stream.
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 1-6 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 uses both the terms “vapor” and “gas” which can mean the same thing but do not always mean the same within the art which renders the metes and bounds of the claims indefinite. For the purpose of examination, with respect to the claims when gas is not used to specifically understood to refer to a fluid within the system, and not always a vapor. The first instance of gas as claimed is understood to refer to a fluid containing vapor; however the second instance of “the gas” is understood to refer to a liquid.
Claim 1 uses the term “returning the gas to the second nitrogen condenser” which is considered indefinite. The term “returning” is generally used to refer to something that is sent back to where it originates, not for it being passed somewhere new. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is also understood that returning does not mean it returns back to the point it started, and returning only means sending.
Claim 2 recites “cooling the compressed part of the feed air in a main heat exchanger” but claim 1 has already required “introducing a feed air cooled by a main heat exchanger” which renders the limitation indefinite. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the compressed part of the feed air is an additional part of the feed air than the limitation in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “expanding the feed air by a expansion turbine; and introducing the feed air into the second nitrogen rectification column” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how it relates to the recitation in claim 1 of introducing feed air into the first nitrogen rectification column as well as the “separating the feed air”. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood that the cooled part of the compressed feed air.
Claim 4 recites “pressurizing nitrogen condensed in the second condenser” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how it relates to the “condensing a first vapor stream in a first nitrogen condenser” as it appears to be the same streams being referred to. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be nitrogen condensed in the second condenser formed of condensing the second vapor stream.
Regarding claim 6 the recitation of “and producing” in lines 23-24 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the fifth conduit is configured to send this fluid in order to produce the high-purity product oxygen.
Regarding claim 6 the recitation of “and returning” in lines 26-27 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood the sixth conduit is configured to send gas so that the gas can be condensed in the oxygen evaporator and sent to the second nitrogen condenser.
Claim 6 recites “returning the gas condensed in the oxygen evaporator to the second nitrogen condenser” which is indefinite. The claims only recite gas being configured to be passed to an evaporator, but don’t actually recite that the evaporator is configured to condense the gas which renders the limitation indefinite. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the oxygen evaporator is configured to condense the gas that is sent to it to produce a condensed gas. Further, the term “returning” is generally used to refer to something that is sent back to where it originates, not for it being passed somewhere new. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is also understood that returning does not mean it returns back to the point it started and returning only means sending.
Claim 6 uses both the terms “vapor” and “gas” which can mean the same thing but do not always mean the same within the art which renders the metes and bounds of the claims indefinite. For the purpose of examination, with respect to the claims when gas is not used to specifically understood to refer to a fluid within the system, and not always a vapor. The first instance of gas as claimed is understood to refer to a fluid containing vapor; however the second instance of “the gas” is understood to refer to a liquid.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected 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 (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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potempa (US Patent No. 5918482), hereinafter referred to a Potempa and further in view of Griffiths et al (US Patent No. 6397631), hereinafter referred to as Griffiths and Naumovitz et al. (US Patent No. 5689973), hereinafter referred to as Naumovitz.
With respect to claim 1, Potempa teaches (Figure 1) a method for producing high purity oxygen, comprising steps:
introducing a feed air cooled by a main heat exchanger to a lower section of a first nitrogen rectification column (feed air stream 2 formed of feed air 1 is cooled in the heat exchanger 4 to produce cooled feed air 5 which is passed into main column 6, Column 3, lines 49-60, as it is separating air into nitrogen 16 and oxygen 13, Column 3, line 65 – Column 4, line 4, is a nitrogen rectification column as part of an overall rectification system for both columns, Column 3, lines 24-26, all columns present are providing rectification, Column 2, line 45-49);
a second nitrogen rectification column (auxiliary column 12, as it is separating air into nitrogen 25 and oxygen 21, Column 4, lines 14-25, is a nitrogen rectification column);
separating the feed air into a nitrogen-enriched component and an oxygen-enriched component in the first nitrogen rectification column and the second nitrogen rectification column (nitrogen 16 and oxygen 21 are components produced by the columns from the original feed air);
condensing a first vapor stream from the first nitrogen rectification column in a first nitrogen condenser (nitrogen vapor portion 17 from column 6 is condensed in the condenser 15 at the top of the column, Column 4, lines 5-7);
condensing a second vapor stream from the second nitrogen rectification column in a second nitrogen condenser (vapor stream 25 from column 12 is condensed in condenser 22, Column 4, lines 25-27);
introducing an oxygen-containing fluid derived from the rectification section of the second nitrogen rectification column into a high-purity oxygen rectification column and producing high-purity product oxygen by using an oxygen evaporator (oxygen-richer fluid 35 is withdrawn from the column 12 and introduced into a column 25 which produces a high purity oxygen product 42 and a reboiler Column 4, lines 46-54, Column 5, lines 1-3, which column is a rectification column producing high purity oxygen using a reboiler which would be an evaporator that evaporates oxygen in the bottom of the column, and any separated stream would be produced in or pass through a rectification section);
gas as a heat medium for the oxygen evaporator which evaporates liquefied oxygen (stream 40 of oxygen enriched vapor acts as a heating medium to evaporate heat the reboiler Column 5, lines 1-5), and returning the gas to the second nitrogen condenser (after heating, stream 24 is fed into the top condenser of the column 12, Column 5, lines 7-10).
Potempa does not teach introducing an oxygen-enriched liquid derived from a bottom portion of the first nitrogen rectification column into a rectification section of the second nitrogen rectification column.
Griffiths (Figure 1) teaches that in a two column (103/121) system with two overhead condensers (113, 129) (Column 15, lines 28-45) that the crude oxygen (105) produced in the bottom of the higher-pressure column is passed from the higher-pressure column to the middle of the lower pressure column to produce the oxygen and nitrogen streams in the lower pressure column (Column 5, lines 38-41).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of passing the bottom liquid of the main column (6) to the auxiliary column (12) of Potempa via the first overhead condenser to have based on the teaching of Griffiths passed the stream directly into the middle of the auxiliary column since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the stream to the middle of the column would provide for what would be common knowledge in the art of a known way of producing the desired oxygen and liquid streams with a known feed point for the oxygen stream from the main column. It can be noted, that while Potempa uses his stream as the overhead condensing stream, it would be well within ordinary skill in the art to recognize that this would require a change of the mode of condensing in Potempa for that overhead stream, which could be done by stacking the columns as shown in Griffiths to compensate for the change which would be equally as obvious as both methods are known ways of achieving both the separation and necessary condensation.
Potempa as modified does not teach using gas removed from a bottom portion of the second nitrogen rectification column as the gas used for the heating medium.
Naumovitz teaches that an oxygen-containing vapor lean in heavy components (46) can be removed from a column (it can be seen in the figure to be a lower portion, as it is below an upper portion of a column) and used to provide heating to a reboiler (52) of an ultra-high purity oxygen stripping column (52) (Column 4, lines 28-31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the stream that is fed to the reboiler of the stripping column (and in turn to the second condenser) of Potempa to have been based on the teaching of Naumovitz be from a bottom portion of one of the columns (6 or 12) since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known ways of providing cooling to a reboiler choosing between them would have been well within ordinary skill in the art and it would be common knowledge in the art that utilizing the stream from the column directly would provide a suitable stream for reboil of the ultra-high purity column to provide the necessary upflow of vapor in the column. Further, as there are only two other columns (6 or 12) in Potempa, the choice of which column the stream would originate from would be obvious as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby as there are only two columns in Potempa (compared to one in Naumovitz) it would been obvious for the gas that is removed form the bottom portion for use as the heating medium to have been from the auxiliary column (6 which is the claimed second rectification column) as there are only a finite number of columns that can produce a gas stream useable in this way in the system and choosing from between them would have a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 2, Potempa as modified teaches further comprising the steps of: compressing part of the feed air by a compressor (part of the feed air stream 3 is compressed in compressor 7, Column 3, lines 54-55);
cooling the compressed part of the feed air in a main heat exchanger (the compressed portion from the compressor 8 is cooled to form stream 9, Column 3, lines 56-57);
expanding the feed air by an expansion turbine (the compressed cooled stream is expanded in turboexpander 10, Column 3, lines 57-58, which would be understood to be a turbine);
and introducing the feed air into the second nitrogen rectification column (the expanded stream from the turboexpander is passed into column 12, Column 3, lines 59-60).
With respect to claim 4, Potempa as modified teaches further comprising pressuring nitrogen condensed in the second condenser in a pump and then sending the pressurized condensed nitrogen to the top of the first nitrogen rectification column (nitrogen liquid 28 formed from the nitrogen condensed in 22 is pressurized in the pump 29 and fed into column 6, Column 4, lines 25-35).
With respect to claim 5, Potempa as modified teaches wherein the oxygen-containing fluid derived from the rectification section of the second nitrogen rectification column is introduced into the high-purity oxygen rectification column as the sole feed for the high-purity oxygen rectification column (34 is the only feed to the column taught).
With respect to claim 6, Potempa teaches an air separation apparatus for producing high purity oxygen (Figure 1), comprising :
a main heat exchanger (primary heat exchanger 4, Column 3, line 52),
a first nitrogen rectification column (main column 6 which as it is separating air into nitrogen 16 and oxygen 13, Column 3, line 64 – Column 4, line 4, is a nitrogen rectification column as part of an overall rectification system for both columns, Column 3, lines 24-26, all columns present are providing rectification, Column 2, line 45-47)
a second nitrogen rectification column (auxiliary column 12, as it is separating air into nitrogen 25 and oxygen 21, Column 4, lines 14-25, is a nitrogen rectification column)
a first nitrogen condenser (condenser 15 at the top of the column 6, Column 4, lines 5-6)
a second nitrogen condenser (condenser 22 at the top of column 12, Column 4, lines 25-27)
a high purity oxygen rectification column (stripping column which produces ultra-high purity oxygen, Column 4, lines 61-62, which column is a rectifying column as it is rectifying the oxygen stream as part of an overall rectification system)
an oxygen evaporator (reboiler 41 int eh bottom of the stripping column, Column 5, line 3-5)
a first conduit configured to introduce feed air cooled by a main heat exchanger to a lower section of a first nitrogen rectification column in order to separate the feed air into a nitrogen-enriched component and an oxygen-enriched component in the first nitrogen rectification column (feed air stream 2 formed of feed air 1 is cooled in the heat exchanger 4 to produce cooled feed air 5 which is passed into main column 6, Column 3, lines 49-60, which stream 5 would be in a conduit to produce oxygen 13 nitrogen 16);
a third conduit configured send a nitrogen enriched vapor stream from the first nitrogen rectification column to the first nitrogen condenser (nitrogen richer vapor is passed from the top of column 6 as stream 17 into 15, Column 4, lines 4-6, which passageway for the stream would be a conduit);
a fourth conduit configured to send a nitrogen enriched vapor stream from the second nitrogen rectification column to the second nitrogen condenser (nitrogen enriched vapor is passed in stream 25 to the condenser 22, Column 4, lines 25-26, which passageway for the stream would be a conduit);
a fifth conduit configured to send an oxygen-containing fluid derived from the rectification section of the second nitrogen rectification column into the high-purity oxygen rectification column and producing high-purity product oxygen at the bottom of the high purity oxygen rectification column (oxygen-richer fluid 34 is withdrawn from the column 12 and introduced into a column 25 which produces a high purity oxygen product 42, which transfer passageway would be a conduit);
and a sixth conduit configured to send gas removed as a heat medium for the oxygen evaporator which evaporates liquefied oxygen (the passageway that sends stream 40 into 41, Column 5, lines 1-3), and returning the gas condensed in the oxygen evaporator to the second nitrogen condenser (condensed gas from 41 in 24 is passed into 22, Column 5, lines 6-9).
Potempa does not teach a second conduit configured to introduce oxygen-enriched liquid derived from the bottom of the first nitrogen rectification column into a rectification section of a second nitrogen rectification column in order to separate the oxygen enriched liquid into a nitrogen-enriched component and an oxygen-enriched component in the second nitrogen rectification column. Potempa does teach that the introduction of a fluid into the column is for produce an oxygen enriched liquid 21 and a nitrogen gas 25, Column 4, lines 18-25, and ultimately the stream is formed of the oxygen liquid (13) from the bottom of the first column, but the liquid is not the stream introduced into the column.
Griffiths (Figure 1) teaches that in a two column (103/121) system with two overhead condensers (113, 129) (Column 15, lines 28-45) that the crude oxygen (105) produced in the bottom of the higher-pressure column is passed from the higher-pressure column to the middle of the lower pressure column to produce the oxygen and nitrogen streams in the lower pressure column (Column 5, lines 38-41).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of passing the bottom liquid of the main column (6) to the auxiliary column (12) of Potempa via the first overhead condenser to have based on the teaching of Griffiths passed the stream directly into the middle of the auxiliary column since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the stream to the middle of the column would provide for what would be common knowledge in the art of a known way of producing the desired oxygen and liquid streams with a known feed point for the oxygen stream from the main column. It can be noted, that while Potempa uses his stream as the overhead condensing stream, it would be well within ordinary skill in the art to recognize that this would require a change of the mode of condensing in Potempa for that overhead stream, which could be done by stacking the columns as shown in Griffiths to compensate for the change which would be equally as obvious as both methods are known ways of achieving both the separation and necessary condensation. This would result in the oxygen-enriched liquid from the first column being obvious to be passed to the second column to separate it into oxygen enriched and nitrogen enriched components.
Potempa does not teach the sixth conduit is for passing the gas from the bottom of the second nitrogen rectification column as the hat medium for the oxygen evaporator.
Naumovitz teaches that an oxygen-containing vapor lean in heavy components (46) can be removed from a column (it can be seen in the figure to be a lower portion, as it is below an upper portion of a column) and used to provide heating to a reboiler (52) of an ultra-high purity oxygen stripping column (52) (Column 4, lines 28-31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the stream that is fed to the reboiler of the stripping column (and in turn to the second condenser) of Potempa to have been based on the teaching of Naumovitz be from a bottom portion of one of the columns (6 or 12) since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known ways of providing cooling to a reboiler choosing between them would have been well within ordinary skill in the art and it would be common knowledge in the art that utilizing the stream from the column directly would provide a suitable stream for reboil of the ultra-high purity column to provide the necessary upflow of vapor in the column. Further, as there are only two other columns (6 or 12) in Potempa, the choice of which column the stream would originate from would be obvious as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby as there are only two columns in Potempa (compared to one in Naumovitz) it would been obvious for the gas that is removed from the bottom portion for use as the heating medium to have been from the auxiliary column (6 which is the claimed second rectification column) as there are only a finite number of columns that can produce a gas stream useable in this way in the system and choosing from between them would have a reasonable expectation of success. The passageway for passing said stream would be the sixth conduit.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potempa/Griffiths/Naumovitz further in view of Xu et al. (US PG Pub 20210372698), hereinafter referred to as Xu
With respect to claim 3, Potempa as modified does not teach further comprising expanding in a turbine a vapor formed by vaporizing liquid in the second condenser.
Xu teaches that a waste gas stream (93) from the top of a low-pressure column (74) formed of vaporized liquid in the condenser (95) is heated in the heat exchanger (93 to 193) then expanded in a turbine (195) and passed back into the heat exchanger to provide supplemental regulation (paragraph 27).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Xu to have in Potempa after partially heating the stream (38, which is the vaporized stream from 22) to have expanded the stream in a turbine and then passed it back into the heat exchanger since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the expansion int eh turbine would be done in order to increase the available refrigeration from the stream to provide supplemental refrigeration to the heat exchanger through the expansion which would ensure there is the necessary refrigeration required for cooling the feed streams.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lochner (US PG Pub 20090107177).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights