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 .
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.
Regarding claims 1-6, in claim 1, last paragraph, the recitation “a narrower temperature rising range” uses comparative term “narrower” but in the context of the claim it’s unclear what the range is narrower than, a comparative term would need to be claimed in relation to the range that it is narrower than in order to have clear metes and bounds. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al (US 4,695,349) taken in combination with Horigome et al (US 4,615,769).
Regarding claim 1, Becker teaches distillation method in a distillation system (title, abstract) comprising a supplying step (a) of supplying a distillation column (2) with a liquid that is a process fluid; a pressure-temperature increasing step (c) of increasing pressure and temperature of a fluid, used to heat the liquid, with a compressor (7) and supplying the fluid to a reboiler (13); a heating step (d) of exchanging heat in the reboiler (13) between the liquid, which has been supplied to the distillation column (2), and the fluid, which has been increased in pressure and temperature, to heat the liquid and acquire overhead vapor and to condense the fluid; a condensing step (implicit) of delivering the overhead vapor heated in the heating step to a condenser (5) and condensing the overhead vapor into a condensate through heat exchange; a distillate removing step (e); and a discharged liquid removing step that removes residual liquid from the distillation column (h), wherein the fluid holds condensation heat of the overhead vapor, is increased in pressure and temperature by the compressor (7), and then transfers the condensation heat to the liquid and condenses in the reboiler (13) (see Fig 1, C3:L60-C5:L19).
However, Becker does not teach the distillation column is a batch type distillation column.
It is established to transition a batch-type process to a continuous process, see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(E), therefore the reverse would also be routine to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the same heat pump powered distillation process of Becker in a batch-type distillation process with the expected result of distilling.
However, Becker a pressure-regulating step that regulates pressure of the distillation column (2) to distill the liquid with heat generated by a heat pump operated over a narrower temperature rising range in the pressure-temperature increasing step.
Horigome teaches a distillation system and method without a loss of energy saving effect (title, abstract), Horigome uses a compressor 7 to compress low boiling components in top line outlet 3 of distillation column 2, a portion of the low boiling components in line 8 is adiabatically compressed to elevated temperature higher than bottom of the distillation column and fed from line 12 to reboiler 13, this prevents excessive heat supply to the distillation column and the amount is varied and controlled to control temperature of the distillation column (See Fig, C5:L36-C6:L46), the system uses a cascade-controlled operation to control temperature and pressure in the column and feed composition (C8:L5-20), and in the examples pressures and temperatures at points A, B, C, D and E (Fig) are controlled to allow stable distillation and energy savings (see Examples 1-3, C9-C10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further improve temperature and pressure control of the system in Becker by integrating cascade controls and multiple temperature and measurement sensors to provide a forward cascade control in the process of Becker as taught by Horigome to have a stable distillation and energy savings.
Regarding claims 2-3, adding and removing internals to the distillation columns of both Becker and Horigome was routine skill and constructional design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art and would affect separation efficiency, however the skilled artisan would expect both methods and systems to operate without unexpected results.
Regarding claims 5-6, in modified Becker as set forth above, Becker further teaches the heat pump loop in lines 15/17/19 comprises pressure decreasing step across valve 18 and heat pump mechanism 20 in association with the two heat exchangers 6/9 (Fig 1, C3:L60-C5:L19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: considering claim 4, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed distillation method using the heat exchange fluid exchanging heat between reboiler and overhead vapor as claimed, wherein the method further comprises a pressure-decreasing step that decreases the pressure of the fluid, which is condensed in the heating step, with a pressure reducing valve; and an indirect heat pump mechanism in which the fluid is a working fluid, the working fluid receives condensation heat of the overhead vapor condensed by the condenser, the working fluid that receives the condensation heat is increased in pressure and temperature by the compressor, condensed by the reboiler, decreased in pressure in the pressure-decreasing step and decreased in temperature, and a liquid portion of the working fluid obtained through gas-liquid separation in a drum is supplied to the condenser.
Becker et al (US 4,695,349) is regarded as the closest relevant prior art, Becker teaches distillation method in a distillation system (title, abstract) comprising a supplying step (a) of supplying a distillation column (2) with a liquid that is a process fluid; a pressure-temperature increasing step (c) of increasing pressure and temperature of a fluid, used to heat the liquid, with a compressor (7) and supplying the fluid to a reboiler (13); a heating step (d) of exchanging heat in the reboiler (13) between the liquid, which has been supplied to the distillation column (2), and the fluid, which has been increased in pressure and temperature, to heat the liquid and acquire overhead vapor and to condense the fluid; a condensing step (implicit) of delivering the overhead vapor heated in the heating step to a condenser (5) and condensing the overhead vapor into a condensate through heat exchange; a distillate removing step (e); and a discharged liquid removing step that removes residual liquid from the distillation column (h), wherein the fluid holds condensation heat of the overhead vapor, is increased in pressure and temperature by the compressor (7), and then transfers the condensation heat to the liquid and condenses in the reboiler (13), teaches the heat pump loop in lines 15/17/19 comprises pressure decreasing step across valve 18 and heat pump mechanism 20 in association with the two heat exchangers 6/9 (see Fig 1, C3:L60-C5:L19). However, Becker does not teach, wherein the method further comprises a pressure-decreasing step that decreases the pressure of the fluid, which is condensed in the heating step, with a pressure reducing valve; and an indirect heat pump mechanism in which the fluid is a working fluid, the working fluid receives condensation heat of the overhead vapor condensed by the condenser, the working fluid that receives the condensation heat is increased in pressure and temperature by the compressor, condensed by the reboiler, decreased in pressure in the pressure-decreasing step and decreased in temperature, and a liquid portion of the working fluid obtained through gas-liquid separation in a drum is supplied to the condenser.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 19/106,997 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘997 application are directed to substantially related distillation apparatus and method claims, with features of dependent and independent claims combined in different manners, however both are substantially directed to overlapping subject matter of controlling batch type distillation system and methods utilizing a reboiler/condenser heat pump exchange, which are obvious modification thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further citations to distillation methods utilizing heat recovery/heat pump including Erickson (US 4,357,153), Idenden (US 4,395,310), Ahlberg (US 4,559,108), Grethlein (US 4,961,826), Ohtsu (US 5,252,187), Sechrist (US 2010/0101273), Townsend (US 2010/0108487), Sadler (US 9,045,697), Ernst (US 10,688,407).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights