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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-3 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 is claiming a heat exchanger “used in an air separation unit including a low pressure column, a high-pressure column, and a mixing column”. It is unclear how the details of the air separation unit that the heat exchanger is “used in” effects the structural scope of the claim which is merely directed to “a heat exchanger”.
Claim 1 states “wherein a warm gas which is at least one part of a feed air…….are cooled by at least one cold gas…….and a cold liquid…supplied to the mixing column is heated” however does not connect any of these heating and cooling steps and streams to the heat exchanger. It is entirely unclear how these cooling/heating steps are related to the heat exchanger at all or what sort of structure they impart on “a heat exchanger”.
Claim 2 states “where at least one warm liquid…is cooled” which is found to be indefinite as it is entirely unclear how this is related to “the heat exchanger”.
Claim 3 again provides for passages within the heat exchanger which are clearly structural elements however it is unclear if the specific flows “through which cold liquid flows” etc are functional language of an apparatus claim as clearly the different process gases and liquids are not structurally part of “a heat exchanger” which is the apparatus being claimed.
Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit the deficiencies o their parent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 merely only recites that the heat exchanger is composed of plates and fins as the claim is directed to the heat exchanger and does not require the air separation unit components or streams. Claim 2 further recits that a warm liquid led out form the high pressure column is cooled but does not mention and structurally differences or modifications to the heat exchanger of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. patent number 6,044,902 Pahade et al. (hereinafter Pahade).
Regarding claim 1, Pahade discloses A heat exchanger used in an air separation unit including a low- pressure column, a high-pressure column, and a mixing column, wherein the heat exchanger is composed of plates and fins, and wherein a warm gas which is at least a part of a feed air and at least one warm liquid which is led out from the mixing column are cooled by at least one cold gas which is led out from the low-pressure column and a cold gas which is led out from the mixing column, and a cold liquid which is led out from the low-pressure column through a pressure boosting pump and supplied to the mixing column is heated (see figures 2 and 3, teaching a heat exchanger composed of plates and fins, heat transfer fins 68 integral with parting sheets sandwich between heat exchanger layers 52, see column 3, lines 11-49, this heat exchanger can be used in an air separation unit with a mixing column, this is considered a use of the heat exchanger apparatus and not a structurally claimed aspect of the heat exchanger).
Regarding claim 2 , Pahade further discloses the heat exchanger according to wherein at least one warm liquid which is led out from the high-pressure column is cooled (see rejection of claim 1 above, these limitations to not affect the structure of the claimed heat exchanger).
Regarding claim 3, Pahade (see figures 2 and 3) further discloses The heat exchanger according to wherein the heat exchanger further includes a cold liquid passage (see pathway S3, liquid O2 pumped and vaporized as S3) through which the cold liquid flows, a cold gas passage through which the cold gas flows (see Waste N2, S1/S2), a warm liquid passage through which the warm liquid flows (57, liquid N2), and a warm gas passage through which the warm gas flows (air through S4/S5), and wherein the warm gas passage S4/S5 is arranged so that the warm gas flows in a counter-flow to the cold liquid S3 and the cold gas Waste N2 S1/S2, and the warm liquid passage 57 is arranged so that the warm liquid flows in a cross-flow to the cold liquid and the cold gas (see liquid N2 and S6 liquid O2 cross flow to O2 liquid being vaporized to be S3).
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1,387,136 Spoeri in view of Pahade.
Regarding claim 1, see the rejection of claim 1 above in view of Pahade. In that the “used in an air separation unit including a low-pressure column, high pressure column, and a mixing column” adds any sort of patentable weight to the heat exchange being claimed, Pahade discloses the use of a high- and low-pressure column and air separation unit for said heat exchanger discussed above but does not mention a mixing column. This is disclosed further by Spoeri who provides for the use of heat exchangers in an air separation unit including a mixing column (see figure HP column 5, LP column 4, and mixing column 39, see heat exchangers 2A/2B and 8/15 that can be combined as taught by Pahade). It would have been obvious to utilize the type of heat exchanger (crossflow and counterflow plate and fin heat exchanger that combines subcooler and main heat exchangers of an ASU) as disclosed by Pahade with the ASU of Spoeri to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing as this is merely Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (plate fin heat exchangers are well known in the air separating arts and can easily be applied as the heat exchangers being used on the streams of Spoeri’s ASU); Use of known technique (combining multiple distinct heat exchangers to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way wherein the combination of the subcooling heat exchanger with the main heat exchanger is well known in the art at taught by Pahade in order to simplify the overall structure of the ASU requiring less distinct cold boxes and heat exchanger housings by combining all heat exchangers into a single crossflow and counter flow plate fin heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 2, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Spoeri as modified by the combined heat plate/fin heat exchanger of Pahade (see rejection of claims 1-3 with respect to Pahade) discloses The heat exchanger (when combined into a single heat exchanger, see rejection and motivation of claim 1 above) according to wherein the heat exchanger further includes a cold liquid passage 34/36 sent through HE 8 and 2B through which the cold liquid flows, a cold gas passage 46 through 2B/48/49/2A/50 through which the cold gas flows, a warm liquid passage (42 through 8) through which the warm liquid flows, and a warm gas passage (feed air 1 through 2a/2b) through which the warm gas flows, and wherein the warm gas passage is arranged so that the warm gas flows in a counter-flow to the cold liquid and the cold gas, and the warm liquid passage is arranged so that the warm liquid flows in a cross-flow to the cold liquid and the cold gas (as combined with Pahade who provides utilizing cross-flow and counterflow combined in a single heat exchanger; specifically cross-flow for subcooler which would include the warm liquid of Spoeri in HE 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. 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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights