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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “-unit” appears to be in error for “unit”; “were” appears to be in error for “where”; the indentation prior to “c.” appears to be missing; and “non-mechanical” appears to be in error for “non-mechanical pump”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 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 17 recites the limitation “a method for the direct cooling”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the direct cooling”. It is recommended to omit “the” prior to “direct cooling”. Claim 17 also recites “where the cooling stream is a combination of a vaporized motive fluid stream with at least a portion of an effluent gas stream from the unit operation”. This is unclear. It appears that in the context of reciting “a combination” the word “and” should replace “with” for improved clarity. Additionally, after the preamble, Applicant does not refer to “the cooling stream”; instead, Applicant uses a plurality of related, but not identical, terms for both “vaporized motive fluid stream” and “effluent gas stream from the unit operation”, as well as for “combined” stream(s). Applicant should collect all terms related to “vaporized motive fluid stream” and all terms related to “effluent gas stream from the unit operation” throughout the claims and amend for consistency. For example, “vaporized motive fluid stream”, “vaporized fluid”, and “vaporized motive fluid” are all used in claim 17 to presumably refer to the same substance. Similarly, “effluent gas stream from the unit operation”, “unit operation effluent”, and “unit operation effluent stream” are all used to presumably refer to the same substance. Most seriously, “the cooling stream”, “the combined stream”, and “combined” are all used to refer to the same substance. Once the streams are combined, Applicant should amend to refer to “the cooling stream” throughout. Additionally, limitation (d) refers to adjusting “the temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It appears “a temperature” is what is intended to be adjusted. Additionally, the equation set forth for the temperature is not tied back to the adjustment of the temperature, thus it is not clear whether the temperature is adjusted according to the equation or not. Additionally, “the ratio of the mass flow rate of the effluent to the mass flow rate of the vaporized motive fluid” lacks appropriate antecedent basis. Additionally, “the target temperature of the gas stream exiting the non-mechanical pump” lacks appropriate antecedent basis. Is the gas stream exiting the non-mechanical pump the cooling/combined stream? It appears Applicant should recite “a target temperature” and relate “the gas stream” back to the cooling/combined stream. Addtionally, variable RR(Suc/Mot)mass is not defined by the claim. Additionally, the terms "about" and “approximately” in claim 17 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms "about" and “approximately” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To expedite prosecution, Examiner has interpreted any range than overlaps the claimed range on either end as meeting “about” or “approximately”. Examiner has attempted to address the claim as best it can be understood as presented, below.
Claim 18 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 18 recites the limitation “a method for the direct cooling”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the direct cooling”. It is recommended to omit “the” prior to “direct cooling”. Claim 18 also recites “were the cooling stream is a combination of a vaporized motive fluid stream with at least a portion of an effluent gas stream from the unit operation”. This is unclear. It appears that in the context of reciting “a combination” the word “and” should replace “with” for improved clarity. Additionally, after the preamble, Applicant does not refer to “the cooling stream”; instead, Applicant uses a plurality of related, but not identical, terms for both “vaporized motive fluid stream” and “effluent gas stream from the unit operation”, as well as for “combined” stream(s). Applicant should collect all terms related to “vaporized motive fluid stream” and all terms related to “effluent gas stream from the unit operation” throughout the claims and amend for consistency. For example, “vaporized motive fluid stream”, “vaporized fluid”, and “vaporized motive fluid” are all used in claim 1 to presumably refer to the same substance. Similarly, “effluent gas stream from the unit operation”, “unit operation effluent”, and “unit operation effluent stream” are all used to presumably refer to the same substance. Most seriously, “the cooling stream”, “the combined stream”, and “combined” are all used to refer to the same substance. Once the streams are combined, Applicant should amend to refer to “the cooling stream” throughout. Claim 18 also recites the limitation “the jet compressor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is the same or different from “a non-mechanical pump”. Additionally, claim 18 refers to “the vaporizer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Additionally, limitation (e) refers to adjusting “the ratio” of “the mass flow rates”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It appears “a ratio” of “a mass flow rate” of effluent to “a mass flow rate” of vaporized motive stream in the cooling stream is what is intended to be adjusted. Additionally, the equation set forth for the ratio is not tied back to the adjustment of the ratio, thus it is not clear whether the ratio is adjusted according to the equation or not. Additionally, “the target temperature of the gas stream exiting the non-mechanical pump” lacks appropriate antecedent basis. Is the gas stream exiting the non-mechanical pump the cooling/combined stream? It appears Applicant should recite “a target temperature” and relate “the gas stream” back to the cooling/combined stream. Examiner has attempted to address the claim as best it can be understood as presented, below. Additionally, “the liquid bypassing the vaporizer and jet compressor” cannot be understood. What liquid bypassing what vaporizer and what jet compressor? Additionally, variable RR(Suc/Mot)mass is defined by two different relationships that appear to be mutually exclusive. Additionally, the terms "about" and “approximately” in claim 18 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms "about" and “approximately” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To expedite prosecution, Examiner has interpreted any range than overlaps the claimed range on either end as meeting “about” or “approximately”. Examiner has attempted to address the claim as best it can be understood as presented, below.
Claim 19 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 19 recites the limitation “a method for the direct cooling”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the direct cooling”. It is recommended to omit “the” prior to “direct cooling”. Claim 19 also recites “where the cooling stream is a combination of a vaporized motive fluid stream with at least a portion of an effluent gas stream from the unit operation”. This is unclear. It appears that in the context of reciting “a combination” the word “and” should replace “with” for improved clarity. Additionally, after the preamble, Applicant does not refer to “the cooling stream”; instead, Applicant uses a plurality of related, but not identical, terms for both “vaporized motive fluid stream” and “effluent gas stream from the unit operation”, as well as for “combined” stream(s). Applicant should collect all terms related to “vaporized motive fluid stream” and all terms related to “effluent gas stream from the unit operation” throughout the claims and amend for consistency. For example, “vaporized motive fluid stream”, “vaporized fluid”, and “vaporized motive fluid” are all used in claim 19 to presumably refer to the same substance. Similarly, “effluent gas stream from the unit operation”, “unit operation effluent”, and “unit operation effluent stream” are all used to presumably refer to the same substance. Most seriously, “the cooling stream”, “the combined stream”, and “combined” are all used to refer to the same substance. Once the streams are combined, Applicant should amend to refer to “the cooling stream” throughout. Claim 19 also recites the limitation “the jet compressor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is the same or different from “a non-mechanical pump”. Additionally, claim 19 refers to “the vaporizer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Additionally, limitation (e) refers to adjusting “the temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It appears “a temperature” is what is intended to be adjusted. Additionally, the equation set forth for the temperature is not tied back to the adjustment of the temperature, thus it is not clear whether the temperature is adjusted according to the equation or not. Additionally, “the ratio of the mass flow rate of the effluent to the mass flow rate of the vaporized motive fluid” lacks appropriate antecedent basis. Additionally, “the target temperature of the gas stream exiting the non-mechanical pump” lacks appropriate antecedent basis. Is the gas stream exiting the non-mechanical pump the cooling/combined stream? It appears Applicant should recite “a target temperature” and relate “the gas stream” back to the cooling/combined stream. Additionally, “the liquid bypassing the vaporizer and jet compressor” cannot be understood. What liquid bypassing what vaporizer and what jet compressor? Additionally, the terms "about" and “approximately” in claim 19 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms "about" and “approximately” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To expedite prosecution, Examiner has interpreted any range than overlaps the claimed range on either end as meeting “about” or “approximately”. Examiner has attempted to address the claim as best it can be understood as presented, below.
Normally a claim which fails to comply with the first and/or second paragraph of §112 will not be analyzed as to whether it is patentable over the prior art since to do so would of necessity require speculation with regard to the meets and bounds of the claimed subject matter, In re Steele, 308 F .2d 859, 862-63, 134 USPQ 292, (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F .2d 1382, 1385, 496 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). As a courtesy to Applicant, Examiner has mapped prior art to claim 17, but in view of the cumulative errors in claims 18 and 19, no attempt was made to apply prior art. Currently, it appears that the primary reference would read on the majority of the limitations of claims 18 and 19, possibly with the addition of the reference to Cross (cited by Applicant). Examiner notes, however, that if the adjustment is tied to the appropriate equation(s) and the fixed load is linked to the appropriate initial range, it appears that the prior art may not read on claims 17-19. Applicant is encouraged to schedule an interview with the Examiner to discuss Applicant’s proposed amendments to ensure that the relevant issues are addressed and the prior art overcome.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zendejas-Martinez (US 7,608,129: cited by Applicant) in view of Davis (US 4,430,865: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 17, Zendejas-Martinez discloses a method for the direct cooling of a unit operation under a fixed heat load to a lower temperature (see at least column 3, lines 29-39: the reactor is for a specific product, thus may be considered to be under a fixed heat load, and is cooled to a lower temperature: Examiner also notes that the method is merely “for […]”) wherein the unit operation is cooled with a cooling stream routed from a non-mechanical pump (see at least column 3, lines 29-39; column 5, lines 53-61: an ejector is a non-mechanical pump) where the cooling stream is a combination of a vaporized motive fluid stream with at least a portion of an effluent gas stream from the unit operation (see at least column 3, lines 29-39; column 5, lines 53-61: the cooling stream is a combination of the vaporized natural gas make-up fluid as a motive fluid and a recycled effluent gas from the reactor #10), wherein the direct cooling method comprises:
a. circulating a portion of the unit operation effluent having a temperature higher than that of the vaporized motive fluid stream with the non-mechanical pump where the vaporized fluid is provided as a motive force (see at least column 5, lines 53-61; Figures 1-4, effluent stream #84 is circulated through ejector #94 and/or #80 using natural gas from source #72 as motive force; see also column 7, line 62 through column 8, line 17: the effluent stream is provided at a higher temperature than the natural gas stream);
b. providing the vaporized motive fluid stream to the non-mechanical pump at a temperature lower than that of the unit operation effluent (see at least column 5, lines 53-61; Figures 1-4, natural gas from source #72 as motive force is provided through ejector #94 and/or #80; see also column 7, line 62 through column 8, line 17: the natural gas stream is provided at a lower temperature than the effluent stream);
c. combining the unit operation effluent and the vaporized motive fluid in said non-mechanical pump (see at least column 5, lines 53-61; Figures 1-4: the natural gas from source #72 and the effluent stream #84 are combined in ejector #94 and/or #80), wherein the combined stream has a temperature in the range between the temperature of the unit operation effluent and the vaporized motive fluid stream (see at least column 7, line 62 through column 8, line 17: the effluent stream is provided at a higher temperature than the natural gas stream, thus the combined stream will have an intermediate temperature)
d. adjusting the temperature of the vaporized motive stream to be combined with the unit operation effluent stream in the non-mechanical pump (see at least column 6, lines 20-31: the mass flow rates of the effluent and natural gas motive stream and thus the temperature(s) are adjusted/adjustable via valves #78/#98/#92/#96).
Zendejas-Martinez does not disclose the unit operation effluent having a temperature in the range of approximately 50-500°F; the vaporized motive fluid stream is at a temperature in the range of about -452°F to about 50°F; or wherein the combined stream has a temperature in the range of about -50°F to about 300°F.
However, temperatures of effluent stream, motive fluid stream, and combined stream are results effective variables dependent on the unit operation acted upon, the composition of the effluent stream, the composition of the motive fluid, and the composition of the combined stream, as evidenced by Davis (see column 1, lines 46-54: too large a temperature differential between operating conditions and cooling gas will result in damage to system components).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method of Zendejas-Martinez with the unit operation effluent having a temperature in the range of approximately 50-500°F; the vaporized motive fluid stream is at a temperature in the range of about -452°F to about 50°F; and wherein the combined stream has a temperature in the range of about -50°F to about 300°F, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Zendejas-Martinez is silent regarding wherein the temperature is determined by: TMot=TC-RR(SucMot)mass*CEff*(TEff-TC)CMot where, Recycle Ratio.sub.mass is the ratio of the mass flow rate of the effluent to the mass flow rate of the vaporized motive fluid and is selected by the operator; C.sub.Mot is the specific heat of the vaporized motive fluid; C.sub.Eff is the specific heat of the unit operation effluent stream entering the non-mechanical pump; T.sub.C is the temperature of the combined fluid or the target temperature of the gas stream exiting the non-mechanical pump; T.sub.Mot is the temperature of the vaporized motive fluid; T.sub.Eff is the temperature of the unit operation effluent stream entering the non-mechanical pump..
Examiner notes however, that “wherein the temperature is determined by […]” does not further manipulate the method, including the step of “adjusting the temperature […]”. However, to the extent that Applicant may consider (and amend) to link the determination to the adjustment, Examiner notes that “wherein the temperature is determined by […]” appears to be inherent, but to the extent that Applicant may argue that it is not inherent, Examiner notes that an engineer in the design phase of a cooling operation for a unit operation would as a routine practice take steps to obtain values on which to determine ratios which would improve efficiency. These steps would examine a variety of parameters which would be beneficial to the process and would naturally include an analysis of inputs such as stream temperatures, specific heats, and flow rates, and outputs such as cooling stream temperature. Such considerations are part and parcel with any design process. It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zendejas-Martinez with wherein the temperature is determined by: TMot=TC-RR(SucMot)mass*CEff*(TEff-TC)CMot where, Recycle Ratio.sub.mass is the ratio of the mass flow rate of the effluent to the mass flow rate of the vaporized motive fluid and is selected by the operator; C.sub.Mot is the specific heat of the vaporized motive fluid; C.sub.Eff is the specific heat of the unit operation effluent stream entering the non-mechanical pump; T.sub.C is the temperature of the combined fluid or the target temperature of the gas stream exiting the non-mechanical pump; T.sub.Mot is the temperature of the vaporized motive fluid; T.sub.Eff is the temperature of the unit operation effluent stream entering the non-mechanical pump, as an engineering expedient in order to obtain a more efficient cooling process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
