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
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 method of claim 14 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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 Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8: “sourced a refrigerant source or a refrigerant cooling system” should read “sourced from a refrigerant source or a refrigerant cooling system”
Claim 1, line 12: “the first and second heated flows” should read “the first heated flow and the second heated flow”
Claim 2, line 1: “the first and second flows” should read “the first flow and the second flow”
Claim 10, lines 2-3: “a refrigerant cooling system” should read “the refrigerant cooling system”
Claim 18, line 15: “the first and second heated flows” should read “the first heated flow and the second heated flow”
Claim 18, lines 22-23: “a refrigerant cooling system” should read “the refrigerant cooling system”
Claims 2-6, and 8-14 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 7 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
Claims 15-17 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Claim 1, lines 15-16: “heat consuming element” draws corresponding structure to the following recitation of the specification, “the heat consuming element is a heater (Pg. 5, line 4)” or equivalents thereof.
Claim 14, line 5: “purification unit” draws corresponding structure to the following recitation of the specification, “TSA front-end purification unit (Pg. 8, line 9)” or equivalents thereof.
Claim 18, line 1: “heat consuming element” draws corresponding structure to the following recitation of the specification, “the heat consuming element is a heater (Pg. 5, line 4)” or equivalents thereof.
Claim 18, lines 20-21: “cooling apparatus” does not draw any corresponding structure from the specification, see 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
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.
The following recitations recite means and are being interpreted herein under 35 U.S.C 112(f):
Claim 18, line 8: “means for dividing” draws corresponding structure to the split of line 1 into line 11 and line 21 in Fig. 1, or equivalents thereof.
Claim 18, line 17: “means for at least periodically sending…” draws corresponding structure to the valves in Fig. 2-3, or equivalents thereof.
Claim 18, line 19: “means for sending…” draws corresponding structure line 12 in Fig. 1, or equivalents thereof.
Claim 18, line 22: “means for sending…” draws corresponding structure line 2 in Fig. 1, or equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Lines 20-21 recite, “cooling apparatus” which is not described by any corresponding structure in the specification to define the components of the cooling apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-18 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 recites the limitation "the first heated flow" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the first heated flow” in line 11 to “a first heated flow”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second heated flow" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the second heated flow” in lines 11-12 to “a second heated flow”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “wherein the first and second heated flows being at temperatures that differ by at least 30°C”, and the claim also recites “wherein the first heated flow is hotter than the second heated flow” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 1, line 16 recites, “a first flow cooled to a third temperature” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the previously claimed first flow of line 7 relates to the first flow cooled to a third temperature of line 16. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the first flows of lines 7 and 16 to be the same fluid differentiated by temperature. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to clarify the relationship between the first flows of lines 7 and 16.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first at least periodically cooled flow" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the first at least periodically cooled flow" in line 18 to “a first at least periodically cooled flow”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “wherein the first and second flows arrive at the intermediate cooler and at the final cooler respectively at the same temperature”, and the claim also recites “for example between 15°C and 25°C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10, lines 1-2 recite, “wherein all of the refrigerants of the compressor are flows of refrigerant” which is unclear to the Examiner as only a single refrigerant has been claimed in claim 1 from which claim 10 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the recitation to simply require the refrigerant of claim 1 to be the only refrigerant used in the compressor cooling. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the intermediate or first compression stage" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the intermediate or first compression stage" in lines 5-6 to "an intermediate compression stage or the first compression stage".
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first heated flow" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the first heated flow” in line 12 to “a first heated flow”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the second heated flow" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the second heated flow” in line 14 to “a second heated flow”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “wherein the first and second heated flows being at temperatures that differ by at least 30°C”, and the claim also recites “wherein the first heated flow is hotter than the second heated flow” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim limitation “cooling apparatus” 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. No corresponding structure is provided in the present specification to define the components of the cooling apparatus which further renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear to the Examiner how to determine when an undefined cooling apparatus has been passed through. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the cooling apparatus to be a heat exchanger or equivalents thereof. 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.
Claims 2-6 and 8-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 7 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
Claims 15-17 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
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, 4-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judas et al. (FR 2 844 863), hereinafter Judas.
Regarding claim 1, Judas discloses method for compressing a gas (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, the compressor is used to compress a gas originating from or destined for the cryogenic separation apparatus), the method comprising the steps of:
compressing the gas in a compressor having at least two stages, the at least two stages comprising a first compression stage and a final compression stage configured to compress the gas downstream of the first compression stage (Fig. 1, compressor 6, first stage 6A, second stage 6B; Pg. 4, Filtered gaseous air is compressed in the first stage 6A, cooled by indirect heat exchange with the cooling water circuit in a heat exchanger 11, and then sent to a second stage 6B);
cooling the gas downstream of the first compression stage in an intermediate cooler (Fig. 1, heat exchanger 11, Pg. 4, Filtered gaseous air is compressed in the first stage 6A, cooled by indirect heat exchange with the cooling water circuit in a heat exchanger 11, and then sent to a second stage 6B);
cooling the gas downstream of the final compression stage in a final cooler (Fig. 1, heat exchanger 13; Pg. 4, After compression to its final pressure in this stage, the air is cooled in the heat exchanger 13 against cooling water);
dividing a refrigerant into a first flow and a second flow, wherein the refrigerant is sourced a refrigerant source or a refrigerant cooling system (Fig. 1, cold water flow 7, cold water flow 9; Pg. 5, Cold water from a cold water source (typically a tower)…A cold water flow 7 is sent to the heat exchanger 11 downstream of the first stage 6A and a cold water flow 9 is sent to the heat exchanger 13 downstream 15 of the second stage 6B);
sending the first flow to cool the intermediate cooler only (Pg. 5, A cold water flow 7 is sent to the heat exchanger 11 downstream of the first stage 6A and a cold water flow 9 is sent to the heat exchanger 13 downstream 15 of the second stage 6B);
sending the second flow to cool the final cooler only (Pg. 5, A cold water flow 7 is sent to the heat exchanger 11 downstream of the first stage 6A and a cold water flow 9 is sent to the heat exchanger 13 downstream 15 of the second stage 6B);
removing the first heated flow from the intermediate cooler, and removing the second heated flow from the final cooler (Pg. 5, Part of the water flow 9 is returned to the cold water source with a part of the flow 7);
sending the first heated flow at least periodically to provide heat to a heat consuming element thereby producing a first flow cooled to a third temperature (Fig. 1, vaporization pool 5; Pg. 4, To meet occasional needs, the liquid is pumped by pump 3 and then vaporized in a vaporization pool 5 by indirect heat exchange with hot water. Hot water can also be heated by steam injection as in known processes. The vaporized gas thus produced is sent to a network or to a customer's consumer process. The hot water comes from the intermediate and final refrigerants of a circuit of cooling used to cool the gas exiting the different compression stages of a two-stage compressor 6A, 6B, which can be the main air compressor of the air separation apparatus from which the cryogenic liquid originates; Pg. 5, but another part 15 of the flow 7 and of the flow 9 which is at 350C is sent to the vaporization pool 5 through a regulating valve 17 of the cooling circuit. The regulating valve is controlled by a TIC 21 of the pool 5);
mixing the second heated flow, which has not been sent to provide heat to the heat consuming element and has not been cooled, with the first at least periodically cooled flow (Pg. 5, Part of the water flow 9 is returned to the cold water source with a part of the air flow 7, but another part 15 of the flow 7 and of the flow 9 which is at 350C is sent to the vaporization pool 5 through a regulating valve 17 of the cooling circuit. The regulating valve is controlled by a TIC 21 of the pool 5; Further, Judas discloses sending a portion of the flow 9 directly back to the source which is mixed with the flow that exits the vaporization pool 5 that includes the portion of the flow 7 that was sent to the vaporization pool 5); and
sending the mixture to the refrigerant source or to the refrigerant cooling system (Pg. 5, The hot water in the pool cools down to a temperature of 15°C and is returned to the cold water source, possibly after pumping by the pump 23 of the circuit).
Judas teaches the claimed invention except for “wherein the first and second heated flows being at temperatures that differ by at least 30°C”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the first and second heated flows being at temperatures that differ by at least 30°C”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of “wherein the first and second heated flows being at temperatures that differ by at least 30°C”, 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). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Judas as modified discloses the method according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the first and second flows arrive at the intermediate cooler and at the final cooler respectively at the same temperature (Fig. 1 of judas depicts the cooling water to be split directly into flow 7 for cooling the heat exchanger 11 and flow 9 for cooling the heat exchanger 13 which at least implies the flows will arrive to the respective heat exchangers at the same temperature as no additional heat exchanger is disclosed for either flow 7 or flow 9 on the way into the respective heat exchangers since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 5, Judas as modified discloses the method according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first heated flow is sent to the heat consuming element where at least periodically it is not cooled or at least periodically it is not sent to the heat consuming element (Pg. 5, Part of the water flow 9 is returned to the cold water source with a part of the air flow 7, but another part 15 of the flow 7 and of the flow 9 which is at 350C is sent to the vaporization pool 5 through a regulating valve 17 of the cooling circuit. The regulating valve is controlled by a TIC 21 of the pool 5; Further, the use of the control valve 17 at least implies wherein the first heated flow is sent to the heat consuming element where at least periodically it is not cooled or at least periodically it is not sent to the heat consuming element since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 6, Judas as modified discloses the method according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein at least periodically, the second heated flow is mixed with the first flow cooled to the third temperature (Pg. 5, Part of the water flow 9 is returned to the cold water source with a part of the air flow 7, but another part 15 of the flow 7 and of the flow 9 which is at 350C is sent to the vaporization pool 5 through a regulating valve 17 of the cooling circuit. The regulating valve is controlled by a TIC 21 of the pool 5; Further, the use of the control valve 17 at least implies wherein at least periodically, the second heated flow is mixed with the first flow cooled to the third temperature since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 7, Judas as modified discloses the method according to Claim 5 (see the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein at least periodically, the second heated flow is mixed with the first flow that has not been cooled (Pg. 5, Part of the water flow 9 is returned to the cold water source with a part of the air flow 7, but another part 15 of the flow 7 and of the flow 9 which is at 350C is sent to the vaporization pool 5 through a regulating valve 17 of the cooling circuit. The regulating valve is controlled by a TIC 21 of the pool 5; Further, the use of the control valve 17 at least implies wherein at least periodically, the second heated flow is mixed with the first flow that has not been cooled since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 8, Judas as modified discloses the method according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the second heated flow is mixed with the first heated flow, whether or not it has been cooled by the heat consuming element (Pg. 5, Part of the water flow 9 is returned to the cold water source with a part of the air flow 7, but another part 15 of the flow 7 and of the flow 9 which is at 350C is sent to the vaporization pool 5 through a regulating valve 17 of the cooling circuit. The regulating valve is controlled by a TIC 21 of the pool 5; Further, the use of the control valve 17 at least implies wherein the second heated flow is mixed with the first heated flow, whether or not it has been cooled by the heat consuming element since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 9, Judas as modified discloses the method according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
While Judas as modified may not expressly teach the wherein the first flow is smaller than the second flow of the instant claim, Judas as modified teaches the first flow and the second flow. The courts have held the following: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the first flow of Judas as modified is capable of being smaller than the second flow.
Regarding claim 10, Judas as modified discloses the method according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein all of the refrigerants of the compressor are flows of refrigerant, for example water, coming from the refrigerant source or a refrigerant cooling system (Pg. 5, Cold water from a cold water source (typically a tower)…A cold water flow 7 is sent to the heat exchanger 11 downstream of the first stage 6A and a cold water flow 9 is sent to the heat exchanger 13 downstream 15 of the second stage 6B; Further, the teachings of judas at least imply wherein all of the refrigerants of the compressor are flows of refrigerant, for example water, coming from the refrigerant source or a refrigerant cooling system as Judas does not disclose any other refrigerants for cooling the compressor flow that do not originate from the cold water source since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 11, Judas as modified discloses the method according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
While Judas as modified may not expressly teach the wherein the first flow is 5 to 15 times smaller than the second flow of the instant claim, Judas as modified teaches the first flow and the second flow. The courts have held the following: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the first flow of Judas as modified is capable of being is 5 to 15 times smaller than the second flow.
Regarding claim 12, Judas as modified discloses the method according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first flow is periodically sent to the heat consuming element (Pg. 5, Part of the water flow 9 is returned to the cold water source with a part of the air flow 7, but another part 15 of the flow 7 and of the flow 9 which is at 350C is sent to the vaporization pool 5 through a regulating valve 17 of the cooling circuit. The regulating valve is controlled by a TIC 21 of the pool 5; Further, the use of the control valve 17 at least implies wherein the first flow is periodically sent to the heat consuming element since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 13, Judas as modified discloses the method according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first flow is continuously sent to the heat consuming element (Pg. 5, Part of the water flow 9 is returned to the cold water source with a part of the air flow 7, but another part 15 of the flow 7 and of the flow 9 which is at 350C is sent to the vaporization pool 5 through a regulating valve 17 of the cooling circuit. The regulating valve is controlled by a TIC 21 of the pool 5; Further, the use of the control valve 17 that is controlled based on the temperature of the vaporization pool 5 at least implies wherein the first flow is continuously sent to the heat consuming element as the flow 15 would be continuously sent to the vaporization pool 5 when the temperature detected by the TIC 21 is within the predetermined range to open the regulating valve 17 since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 18, Judas discloses an apparatus for compressing a gas, associated with a heat consuming element (Fig. 1 vaporization pool 5; Pg. 3, the compressor is used to compress a gas originating from or destined for the cryogenic separation apparatus; Pg. 4, To meet occasional needs, the liquid is pumped by pump 3 and then vaporized in a vaporization pool 5 by indirect heat exchange with hot water. Hot water can also be heated by steam injection as in known processes. The vaporized gas thus produced is sent to a network or to a customer's consumer process. The hot water comes from the intermediate and final refrigerants of a circuit of cooling used to cool the gas exiting the different compression stages of a two-stage compressor 6A, 6B, which can be the main air compressor of the air separation apparatus from which the cryogenic liquid originates), the apparatus comprising:
a compressor having at least two stages, including a first compression stage and a final compression stage configured to compress a gas downstream of the first compression stage (Fig. 1, compressor 6, first stage 6A, second stage 6B; Pg. 4, Filtered gaseous air is compressed in the first stage 6A, cooled by indirect heat exchange with the cooling water circuit in a heat exchanger 11, and then sent to a second stage 6B);
an intermediate cooler configured to cool the gas downstream of the intermediate or first compression stage (Fig. 1, heat exchanger 11, Pg. 4, Filtered gaseous air is compressed in the first stage 6A, cooled by indirect heat exchange with the cooling water circuit in a heat exchanger 11, and then sent to a second stage 6B);
a final cooler configured to cool the gas downstream of the final compression stage (Fig. 1, heat exchanger 13; Pg. 4, After compression to its final pressure in this stage, the air is cooled in the heat exchanger 13 against cooling water);
means for dividing a refrigerant coming from a refrigerant source or a refrigerant cooling system, into a first flow and a second flow (See annotated Fig. 1 of Judas below, means for dividing A, cold water flow 7, cold water flow 9; Pg. 5, Cold water from a cold water source (typically a tower)…A cold water flow 7 is sent to the heat exchanger 11 downstream of the first stage 6A and a cold water flow 9 is sent to the heat exchanger 13 downstream 15 of the second stage 6B);
a first duct configured to send the first flow to cool the intermediate cooler only (See annotated Fig. 1 of Judas below, first duct B send the flow 7 only to heat exchanger 11);
a second duct configured to send the second flow to cool the final cooler only (See annotated Fig. 1 of Judas below, second duct C send the flow 7 only to heat exchanger 13);
a first removal duct configured to remove the first heated flow from the intermediate cooler (See annotated Fig. 1 of Judas below, first removal duct D is depicted to remove the first heated flow (i.e., flow 7 after being sent through heat exchanger 11) from heat exchanger 11);
a second removal duct configured to remove the second heated flow from the final cooler (See annotated Fig. 1 of Judas below, second removal duct E is depicted to remove the second heated flow (i.e., flow 9 after being sent through heat exchanger 13) from heat exchanger 13);
means for at least periodically sending the first heated flow to provide heat to the heat consuming element thereby producing a first at least periodically cooled flow (Fig. 1, regulating valve 17; See annotated Fig. 1 of Judas below, first at least periodically cooled flow F);
means for sending the second heated flow to mix with the first at least periodically cooled flow, directly without passing through the heat consuming element or a cooling apparatus (See annotated Fig. 1 of Judas below, means for sending G; Pg. 5, Part of the water flow 9 is returned to the cold water source with a part of the air flow 7, but another part 15 of the flow 7 and of the flow 9 which is at 350C is sent to the vaporization pool 5 through a regulating valve 17 of the cooling circuit. The regulating valve is controlled by a TIC 21 of the pool 5; Further, Judas discloses sending a portion of the flow 9 directly back to the source which is mixed with the flow that exits the vaporization pool 5 that includes the portion of the flow 7 that was sent to the vaporization pool 5); and
means for sending the mixture formed to the refrigerant source or to a refrigerant cooling system (See annotated Fig. 1 of Judas below, means for sending H; Pg. 5, The hot water in the pool cools down to a temperature of 15°C and is returned to the cold water source, possibly after pumping by the pump 23 of the circuit).
Judas teaches the claimed invention except for “wherein the first and second heated flows being at temperatures that differ by at least 30°C”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the first and second heated flows being at temperatures that differ by at least 30°C”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of “wherein the first and second heated flows being at temperatures that differ by at least 30°C”, 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). MPEP 2144.05.
PNG
media_image1.png
686
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Judas
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judas as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alekseev et al. (US Patent No. 9,435,229) hereinafter Alekseev.
Regarding claim 2, Judas as modified discloses the method according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Judas as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the first heated flow has undergone a temperature increase of between 30°C and 80°C, in the intermediate cooler.
Alekseev teaches wherein the first heated flow has undergone a temperature increase of between 30°C and 80°C, in the intermediate cooler (Fig. 2, intercooler 202, first heat carrier stream 311, heated first heat carrier stream 312; Col. 7, lines 10-14, The intercooler 202 is operated using a first heat carrier stream 311 as coolant which enters at a temperature of 315 to 340 K. This is heated in the first intercooler 202 by indirect heat exchange with the feed air stream to about 395 to 435 K).
Judas as modified fails to teach wherein the first heated flow has undergone a temperature increase of between 30°C and 80°C, in the intermediate cooler, however Alekseev teaches that it is a known method in the art of interstage compressor cooling to include wherein the first heated flow has undergone a temperature increase of between 30°C and 80°C, in the intermediate cooler. This is strong evidence that modifying Judas as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient cooling to the air flow while accumulating waste heat to be utilized in other system processes to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Judas as modified by Alekseev and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing sufficient cooling to the air flow while accumulating waste heat to be utilized in other system processes to improve overall system efficiencies. Further, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 3, Judas as modified discloses the method according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Judas as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the second heated flow has undergone a temperature increase of between 5°C and 15°C in the final cooler.
Alekseev teaches wherein the second heated flow has undergone a temperature increase of between 5°C and 15°C in the final cooler (Fig. 2, aftercooler 203, second heat carrier stream 15, heated second heat carrier stream 316; Col. 7, lines 24-27 and 38-39, The aftercooler 203 is cooled by a second heat carrier stream 15 which has a temperature of 290 to 310 K. In the exemplary embodiment, the first and second heat carrier streams (311, 15) are formed by a water stream…The temperature of the heated second heat carrier stream 316 is 315 to 340 K).
Judas as modified fails to teach wherein the second heated flow has undergone a temperature increase of between 5°C and 15°C in the final cooler, however Alekseev teaches that it is a known method in the art of interstage compressor cooling to include wherein the second heated flow has undergone a temperature increase of between 5°C and 15°C in the final cooler. This is strong evidence that modifying Judas as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient cooling to the air flow while accumulating waste heat to be utilized in other system processes to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Judas as modified by Alekseev and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing sufficient cooling to the air flow while accumulating waste heat to be utilized in other system processes to improve overall system efficiencies. Further, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judas as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rega (EP 2 873 938), hereinafter Rega.
Regarding claims 14-17 Judas as modified discloses a method for separating air by cryogenic distillation (Pg. 3, the compressor is used to compress a gas originating from or destined for the cryogenic separation apparatus), the method comprising the steps of:
compressing air (Pg. 4, Filtered gaseous air is compressed in the first stage 6A, cooled by indirect heat exchange with the cooling water circuit in a heat exchanger 11, and then sent to a second stage 6B), and
cooling the compressed air (Pg. 4, After compression to its final pressure in this stage, the air is cooled in the heat exchanger 13 against cooling water);
purifying the compressed air (Pg. 4, After compression to its final pressure in this stage, the air is cooled in the heat exchanger 13 against cooling water before being sent to a scrubber where it is purified of water and carbon dioxide); and
separating the compressed air by distillation, thereby forming an oxygen- and/or nitrogen-enriched fluid (Pg. 4, A cryogenic liquid such as nitrogen, argon, oxygen, hydrogen or carbon monoxide, is stored in a storage 1. The cryogenic liquid comes from a cryogenic distillation separation apparatus, which is an air separation apparatus for nitrogen, argon, and oxygen, or an apparatus for separating a mixture of hydrogen and of carbon monoxide, such as a synthesis gas; Pg. 5, The air is then cooled in a heat exchanger (not shown) to its dew point temperature and is sent into an air separation column, such as the medium pressure column of a double column; Further, Judas as modified at least implies an oxygen- and/or nitrogen-enriched fluid is formed by the distillation since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)),
wherein at least one portion of the air is compressed according to the method as claimed in Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above);
wherein all of the air is compressed according to the method as claimed in Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above; Further, Judas as modified at least implies wherein all of the air is compressed according to the method as claimed in Claim 1 as no other source of compressed air is disclosed by Judas since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
However, Judas as modified does not explicitly disclose purifying the compressed air in a purification unit by pressure and/or temperature swing adsorption; and
wherein the purification unit is regenerated by a regeneration gas;
wherein the heat consuming element is a heater configured to heat at least one portion of the regeneration gas upstream of the purification unit and the first heated flow supplies all of the heat necessary for taking the regeneration gas to a temperature suitable for regenerating the purification unit; or
wherein the heat consuming element is a heater configured to heat at least one portion of the regeneration gas upstream of the purification unit and the first heated flow supplies only some of the heat necessary for taking the regeneration gas to a temperature suitable for regenerating the purification unit, the rest of the heat needed being provided by an additional heater.
Rega teaches purifying the compressed air in a purification unit by pressure and/or temperature swing adsorption (Fig. 2, adsorption vessels E01, E02); and
wherein the purification unit is regenerated by a regeneration gas (Fig. 2, nitrogen 21; Pg. 3, paragraph 14-15, Two modes of warming the regeneration nitrogen are possible. According to the first mode, valve V2 is open and valve V3 is closed and the nitrogen 21 from the air separation is heated first by compression heat from the feed air in heater H 1 via the water loop 15, 17 and then by an electrical heater H2 to bring the nitrogen to the final regeneration temperature of 140°C);
wherein the heat consuming element is a heater configured to heat at least one portion of the regeneration gas upstream of the purification unit and the first heated flow supplies all of the heat necessary for taking the regeneration gas to a temperature suitable for regenerating the purification unit (Fig. 2, nitrogen 21, heater H1, conduit 23; Pg. 3, paragraph 18, According to a second mode, the nitrogen 29 is divided in two, one part being heated in exchanger H1 only and the second part by the electrical heater H2 only, the first and second parts being mixed to form the regeneration stream. The advantage of this is to reduce the total pressure drop; Further, the Examiner’s BRI is that the heater is only required to provide all of the heat to at least one portion of the regeneration gas); or
wherein the heat consuming element is a heater configured to heat at least one portion of the regeneration gas upstream of the purification unit and the first heated flow supplies only some of the heat necessary for taking the regeneration gas to a temperature suitable for regenerating the purification unit, the rest of the heat needed being provided by an additional heater (Fig. 2, nitrogen 21, heater H1, electrical heater H2, conduit 23, conduit 25; Pg. 3, paragraph 14-15, Two modes of warming the regeneration nitrogen are possible. According to the first mode, valve V2 is open and valve V3 is closed and the nitrogen 21 from the air separation is heated first by compression heat from the feed air in heater H 1 via the water loop 15, 17 and then by an electrical heater H2 to bring the nitrogen to the final regeneration temperature of 140°C).
Judas as modified fails to teach purifying the compressed air in a purification unit by pressure and/or temperature swing adsorption; and wherein the purification unit is regenerated by a regeneration gas; wherein the heat consuming element is a heater configured to heat at least one portion of the regeneration gas upstream of the purification unit and the first heated flow supplies all of the heat necessary for taking the regeneration gas to a temperature suitable for regenerating the purification unit; or wherein the heat consuming element is a heater configured to heat at least one portion of the regeneration gas upstream of the purification unit and the first heated flow supplies only some of the heat necessary for taking the regeneration gas to a temperature suitable for regenerating the purification unit, the rest of the heat needed being provided by an additional heater, however Rega teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic air separation units to include purifying the compressed air in a purification unit by pressure and/or temperature swing adsorption; and wherein the purification unit is regenerated by a regeneration gas; wherein the heat consuming element is a heater configured to heat at least one portion of the regeneration gas upstream of the purification unit and the first heated flow supplies all of the heat necessary for taking the regeneration gas to a temperature suitable for regenerating the purification unit; or wherein the heat consuming element is a heater configured to heat at least one portion of the regeneration gas upstream of the purification unit and the first heated flow supplies only some of the heat necessary for taking the regeneration gas to a temperature suitable for regenerating the purification unit, the rest of the heat needed being provided by an additional heater. This is strong evidence that modifying Judas as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient cooling to the air flow while accumulating waste heat to be utilized in other system processes to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Judas as modified by Rega and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing sufficient cooling to the air flow while accumulating waste heat to be utilized in other system processes to improve overall system efficiencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dubettier-Grenier et al. (US Patent No. 9,360,251) discloses a similar method for compressing a gas used in a cryogenic air separation plant.
Dee et al. (US Patent No. 8,601,833) discloses a similar method for compressing a gas used in a cryogenic air separation plant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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 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 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 August 07th, 2026
Prosecution Insights