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 § 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) 11-13, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urvantsu (US 2023/0018630), hereafter referred to as Urvantsu I in view of Capan (US 8,202,402) and Urvantsu (US 2018/0036648), hereafter referred to as Urvantsu II.
With regard to claim 11 and 12: Urvantsu I teaches a distillation device 101 (abstract, Figure 1A, paragraph [0023]), the device comprising:
A distillation vessel 110 (Figure 1A, paragraph [0023]).
A plurality of sensors 150, 160, and 170 coupled to the distillation vessel 110 (Figure 1A, paragraph [0023]).
A condenser 145 coupled to the distillation vessel 110 (Figure 1A, paragraph [0023]).
And a controller 180 sample (Figure 1A, paragraphs [0023]).
Wherein the controller 180 is configured to generate a distillation curve based on a plurality of values (measurements) obtained from the plurality of sensors during a distillation of a sample (Figure 1A, paragraphs [0023] and [0027]-[0030]).
Urvantsu I is silent to the condenser being a two-phased closed thermosiphon (TPCT), wherein circulation in the TPCT is assisted by gravity.
However, Urvantsu I teaches that the “Condenser 145 may include a tube cooled by air cooling, liquid cooling, thermoelectric cooling (e.g., using Peltier modules, etc.), and/or another type of cooling process during distillation to condense the distilled vapors from sample 112 into a recovery receptable (not shown in FIG. 1).” In view of this teaching, a person having ordinary skill in the art would regard use of any known means for cooling a condenser as being an obvious variation on Urvantsu I.
Capan teaches a device having a distillation condenser comprising a condensing chamber 109 and a cooling unit 108 which surrounds and cools the condensing chamber (Figure 17, Columns 9, 10, and 13). Capan indicates that “In one specific embodiment, cooling unit 108 may be a heat pipe or heat sheet as described above, but configured to transfer heat from the water vapor into the atmosphere,” (Column 13 Lines 25-30). Earlier in the disclosure, Capan describes heat pipes in the form of two-phase closed thermosiphons, including such thermosiphons wherein circulation is assisted by gravity (Column 11 Line 60-Column 12 Line 40). When these two aspects of Capan’s disclosure are considered in combination, they at least suggest that the cooling unit 108 may be a two-phase closed thermosiphon, wherein circulation in the TPCT is assisted by gravity. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize TPCTs, including TPCTs wherein circulation is assisted by gravity, as a suitable means for cooling a distillation condenser.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Urvantsu I in view of Caplan by configuring the condenser 145 to be a TPCT, wherein circulation in the TPCT is assisted by gravity, in order to obtain a predictably functional distillation device having a predictably functional distillation condenser.
Urvantsu I is silent to the controller being configured to control operation of the TPCT to maintain the condenser at a particular temperature during the distillation of the sample.
However, it is known in the art to control the operation of a distillation condenser to maintain it at a particular temperature during distillation. For example, Urvantsu II, drawn to a distillation device similar to that of Urvantsu I (Figure 1, paragraph [0034]), teaches or at least suggests a controller (“automatic analyzer”) which is capable of controlling (regulating) condenser temperature during distillation (paragraph [0063]). It is implicit that controlling condenser temperature would involve maintaining the condenser at a particular temperature. In the alternative, controlling a condenser temperature to maintain it at a particular temperature is an obvious variation on broadly controlling said condenser temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Urvantsu I in view of Urvantsu II by configuring the controller to control operation of the TPCT (i.e. the condenser in the form of a TPCT) to maintain the condenser at a particular temperature during the distillation of the sample, in order to obtain a system which automatically maintains condenser temperature at a desired level.
With regard to claim 13: The condenser 145 in modified Urvantsu I contains an inner condenser tube.
In the course of modifying the condenser of Urvantsu to be a TPCT as described in the rejection of claim 11 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose inner condenser tube to be enclosed in a cooling liquid bath maintained by the TPCT, in order to obtain a condenser wherein the TPCT is capable of effectively cooling the condenser.
Said cooling liquid bath will necessarily be thermostatic on account of the condenser being a TPCT.
With regard to claims 18 and 19: Use of the working fluids defined in claims 18 and 19 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 20 are allowed.
Claims 14-17 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:
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a “A distillation condenser comprising: an inner condenser tube that includes an inlet to receive vapors from a distillation vessel and an outlet to connect to a reception vessel to receive a distilled liquid condensed from the vapors; an outer tube enclosing the inner condenser tube; a heating element coupled to an outside of the outer tube; and a controller configured to control the heating element to heat a working fluid in the outer tube and to cause the distillation condenser to function as a two-phase closed thermosiphon (TPCT) as a result of the heated working fluid.”.
Distillation condensers comprised of: i) an inner condenser tube that includes an inlet to receive vapors from a distillation vessel and an outlet to connect to a reception vessel to receive a distilled liquid condensed from the vapors; and ii) an outer tube enclosing the inner condenser tube and configured to support a flow of coolant fluid for cooling the inner tube, are notoriously well-known in the art. For example, such condensers are taught by Topham (US 3,094,468), see Figure 3, and Urvantsau (US 10,363,495), see Figure 1.
The closest prior art of record with respect to claim 1 is Capan (US 8,202,402), which teaches a distillation condenser comprising a condensing chamber 109 and a cooling unit 108 which surrounds and cools the condensing chamber (Figure 17, Columns 9, 10, and 13). The depiction of said condenser in Figure 17 at least suggests that: i) the condensing chamber 109 can be embodied as an inner tube; and ii) a portion of the cooling unit 108 can be embodied as an outer tube which surrounds the condensing chamber. Regardless, as discussed above, tubular shaped condensers and cooling elements are well known in the art. Thus, to structure the condensing chamber 109 and the portion of the cooling unit 108 surrounding said condensing chamber in the shape of a tube would at least be regarded as obvious by one of ordinary skill.
Capan indicates that “In one specific embodiment, cooling unit 108 may be a heat pipe or heat sheet as described above, but configured to transfer heat from the water vapor into the atmosphere,” (Column 13 Lines 25-30). Earlier in the disclosure, Capan describes heat pipes in the form of two-phase closed thermosiphons (Column 11 Line 60-Column 12 Line 40). When these two aspects of Capan’s disclosure are considered in combination, they at least suggest that the cooling unit 108 may be a two-phase closed thermosiphon.
However, Capan is silent to “a heating element coupled to an outside of the outer tube” wherein said heating element is configured to “heat a working fluid in the outer tube and to cause the distillation condenser to function as a two-phase closed thermosiphon (TPCT) as a result of the heated working fluid.”
When the cooling unit of Capan is a two-phase closed thermosiphon, it is understood that the condensing chamber 109 acts as a heating element which heats working fluid in the cooling element, thereby causing said cooling element to function as a two-phase closed thermosiphon. However, the condensing chamber 109 is positioned within the cooling element 108 rather than outside the cooling element. If the condensing chamber 109 were modified to be coupled to an outside of the cooling element 108, it could not be fairly equated to the claimed inner tube. Furthermore, it is understood that the claimed heating element is distinct from claimed inner tube. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to equate the condensing chamber 109 with both the claimed inner tube and the claimed heating element.
There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art of record which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Capan with “a heating element coupled to an outside of the outer tube” wherein said heating element is configured to “heat a working fluid in the outer tube and to cause the distillation condenser to function as a two-phase closed thermosiphon (TPCT) as a result of the heated working fluid,” as is required by claim 1.
In view of the above, claim 1 and its dependents (claims 2-10) are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Dependent claim 14, and thus its dependents (claims 15-17) contain substantially the same allowable subject matter as claim 1.
Independent claim 20 is allowable for substantially the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mitsuhashi (US 5,385,203) teaches a two-phase thermosiphon cooler that is capable of operating as a condenser.
Holquist (US 2024/0382867) teaches a cooling device comprising a two-phase closed thermosiphon 410 and 420 (Figures4A and 4B). Said device is capable of functioning as a distillation condenser.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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 LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights