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 Status
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that there would have been no expectation that filtering would be effective to remove contaminants, since Ferrara’s methodology produces solubilized contaminants. In addition, the applicant argues that the proposed modification of the method of combined Matza and Ferrara to filter solubilized materials reflects an improper hindsight reconstruction, not a technically rational combination.
However, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Matza teaches a method for decontaminating an industrial equipment such as oil refineries, natural gas processing plants, petrochemical facilities, and port terminals [0013] comprising the steps of injecting a decontamination composition into the industrial equipment at an injection point [0021], wherein the decontamination composition comprises a solvent composition including methyl soyate [0013 and 0014], and a diluent such as diesel fuel, biodiesel fuel, heavy aromatic naphtha, crude oil, water, or combination thereof [0020], allowing the decontamination composition to come in contact with the contaminant material disposed on the industrial equipment, wherein the contact removes the contaminant material (e.g., disaggregated) from the industrial equipment [0021 and 0024], and removing the contaminant material from the industrial equipment [0026]. Moreover, Matza teaches that once the contaminant materials have been disaggregated, the contaminant materials may reside in the solvent composition and may therefore be flowable within the solvent composition, and that the contaminant materials residing within the solvent composition may be removed from the industrial equipment by any suitable means [0026].
The reference of Ferrara was presented to show that it was known in the art to cleaning an industrial comprising a volumetric flowrate while the equipment is in operation with a cleaning solution comprising solvents and chemical products [0063-0064] (e.g., diesel fluid [0224] and surfactants [0092]), the cleaning method comprising the steps of varying the fresh feed rate, including the possibility to reach the technical minimum [0160], and introducing in the cleaning solution while the equipment remains in operation [0164].
The reference of Jansen was presented to show a method for cleaning an industrial equipment with a solvent composition [0004, 0020, and 0027-0031], and managing contaminant material removed from the industrial equipment (figure 1, #10) by filtering the contaminant material through filters (figure 1, #46) disposed downstream from the industrial equipment for the purpose of removing contaminants present in the composition and reusing the solvent composition (see figure 1, and [0030-0031, and 0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Matza/Ferrara with the step of managing the contaminant material removed from the industrial equipment by filtering the contaminant material through feed filters disposed downstream from the industrial equipment, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of removing contaminant material present in the composition, and/or reusing and/or recycling the solvent composition as disclosed by Jansen (figure 1, and [0030-0031, and 0048] of Jansen), since Matza teaches that once the contaminant materials have been disaggregated from the equipment, the contaminant materials may reside in the solvent composition and may therefore be flowable within the solvent composition, and that the contaminant materials residing within the solvent composition may be removed from the industrial equipment by any suitable means ([0026] of Matza).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In addition, the applicant argues that the Office action’s proposed modification-particularly, the addition of filtration to the methodology of Matza as modified by Ferrara would fundamentally change Ferrara’s principle of operation.
However, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As previously discussed above, Matza teaches that once the contaminant materials have been disaggregated, the contaminant materials may reside in the solvent composition and may be flowable within the solvent composition, and that the contaminant materials residing within the solvent composition may be removed from the industrial equipment by any suitable means [0026], and that the reference of Ferrara was presented to show that it was known in the art to cleaning an industrial comprising a volumetric flowrate while the equipment is in operation with a cleaning solution, the cleaning method comprising the step of varying the fresh feed rate, including the possibility to reach the technical minimum [0160], and introducing in the cleaning solution while the equipment remains in operation [0164].
Furthermore, the applicant argues that Jensen does not cure the lack of motivation, and that the issue is not solely whether a reference teaches filtration but rather, whether one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to further modify Matza as modified by Ferrara to include filtration.
However, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Matza/Ferrara with the step of managing the contaminant material removed from the industrial equipment by filtering the contaminant material through feed filters disposed downstream from the industrial equipment, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of removing contaminant material present in the composition, and/or reusing and/or recycling the solvent composition as disclosed by Jansen (figure 1, and [0030-0031, and 0048] of Jansen), since Matza teaches that once the contaminant materials have been disaggregated from the equipment, the contaminant materials may reside in the solvent composition and may therefore be flowable within the solvent composition, and that the contaminant materials residing within the solvent composition may be removed from the industrial equipment by any suitable means ([0026] of Matza).
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0312160 to Matza (hereinafter “Matza”) in view of US 2017/0037327 to Ferrara (hereinafter “Ferrara”), and in further view of US 2016/0107205 to Jansen et al. (hereinafter “Jansen”).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Matza teaches a method for decontaminating an industrial equipment such as oil refineries, natural gas processing plants, petrochemical facilities, and port terminals [0013] comprising the steps of injecting a decontamination composition into the industrial equipment at an injection point [0021], wherein the decontamination composition comprises a solvent composition including methyl soyate [0013 and 0014], and a diluent such as diesel fuel, biodiesel fuel, heavy aromatic naphtha, crude oil, water, or combination thereof [0020] (reads on “carrier fluid”, since applicant’s specification discloses that “the solvent composition may be diluted with the carrier fluid”, and that the carrier fluid may comprise similar components such as diesel fuel, biodiesel fuel, fuel oil, heavy aromatic naphtha, crude oil, water, or any combinations thereof (applicant’s specification paragraph 0018)), allowing the decontamination composition to come in contact with the contaminant material disposed on the industrial equipment, wherein the contact removes the contaminant material (e.g., disaggregated) from the industrial equipment [0021 and 0024], and removing the contaminant material from the industrial equipment [0026]. Moreover, Matza teaches that once the contaminant materials have been disaggregated, the contaminant materials may reside in the solvent composition and may therefore be flowable within the solvent composition, and that the contaminant materials residing within the solvent composition may be removed from the industrial equipment by any suitable means [0026].
Matza does not teach that the solvent composition may be added to the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) in an amount between 1wt% to about 20wt%.
However, the amount of the solvent composition added to the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) is a result effective variable. For example, if the amount of the solvent composition added to the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants from the equipment, while if the amount of the amount of the solvent composition added to the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) is too high, it wastes the solvent composition. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate amount of solvent composition added to the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) with predictable results, 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 involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Matza does not teach that the industrial equipment comprises a total volumetric flowrate while operating, the step of reducing the total volumetric flowrate, and that the step of injecting the decontamination composition into the industrial equipment is performed while the industrial equipment remains in operation.
Ferrara teaches a method for cleaning an industrial equipment such as a petroleum equipment comprising a volumetric flowrate while operating with a cleaning solution which can comprise solvents and chemical products [0063-0064] (e.g., diesel fluid [0224] and surfactants [0092]) comprising the steps of keeping the petroleum plant under production operation conditions, with the fresh feed inserted [0159], varying the fresh feed rate, including the possibility to reach the technical minimum [0160], introducing in the cleaning solution while the equipment remains in operation [0164].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Matza with the steps of reducing the total volumetric flowrate of the industrial equipment while in operation, and injecting the decontamination composition into the industrial equipment while the industrial equipment remains in operation, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Ferrara teaches that it is effective to decontaminate an industrial equipment such as petroleum equipment with the steps of reducing the total volumetric flowrate of the industrial equipment while in operation, and injecting the decontamination composition into the industrial equipment while the industrial equipment remains in operation, for reducing the maintenance shutdown time as disclosed by Ferrara ([0007, 0159, 0160, 0164 and 0239] of Ferrara).
Matza/Ferrara does not teach that the decontamination composition is injected into the industrial equipment at about 1% to about 10% concentration of the total volumetric flow rate.
However, the amount of the decontamination composition injected into the total volumetric flow rate is a result effective variable. For example, if the amount of the decontamination composition injected into the total volumetric flow rate is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants from the equipment, while if the amount of the decontamination composition injected into the total volumetric flow rate is too high, it wastes the decontamination composition. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate amount of the decontamination composition injected into the total volumetric flow rate with predictable results, 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 involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Matza/Ferrara does not teach the step of managing the contaminant material removed from the industrial equipment by filtering the contaminant material through feed filters disposed downstream from the industrial equipment.
Jansen teaches an industrial cleaning process [0004]. Jansen teaches the steps of cleaning an industrial equipment (figure 1, #10) with a solvent composition [0004, 0020, and 0027-0031], and managing contaminant material removed from the industrial equipment (figure 1, #10) by filtering the contaminant material through filters (figure 1, #46) disposed downstream from the industrial equipment for the purpose of removing contaminants present in the composition and reusing the solvent composition (see figure 1, and [0030-0031, and 0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Matza/Ferrara with the step of managing the contaminant material removed from the industrial equipment by filtering the contaminant material through feed filters disposed downstream from the industrial equipment, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of removing contaminant material present in the composition, and/or reusing and/or recycling the solvent composition as disclosed by Jansen (figure 1, and [0030-0031, and 0048] of Jansen), and since Matza teaches that once the contaminant materials have been disaggregated, the contaminant materials may reside in the solvent composition and may therefore be flowable within the solvent composition, and that the contaminant materials residing within the solvent composition may be removed from the industrial equipment by any suitable means ([0026] of Matza).
Regarding claim 2, Matza/Ferrara/Jansen does not teach that the total volumetric flow rate is reduced to an amount between 5,000 BPD and about 30,000 BPD.
However, the volumetric flow rate is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the volumetric flow rate is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants from the equipment, while if the volumetric flow rate is too high, it wastes decontamination composition. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate ratio of surfactant to the oil-contaminated sand with predictable results, 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 involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 3, Matza/Ferrara/Jansen further teaches that the industrial equipment comprises heat exchangers, and/or distillation columns ([0013] of Matza).
Regarding claim 4, Matza/Ferrara/Jansen does not teach that the method is effective for decontaminating a crude distillation column and/or a vacuum distillation column.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Matza/Ferrara/Jansen for decontaminating a crude distillation column and/or a vacuum distillation column, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Matza teaches that the method is effective for decontaminating industrial equipment such as distillation columns in general ([0013] of Matza).
Regarding claim 5, Matza/Ferrara/Jansen further teaches that the solvent composition further comprises an aprotic solvent ([0015] of Matza) and a third solvent ([0016] of Matza), and a cationic surfactant ([0017] of Matza).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Matza does not teach that the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) is housed in a feed tank, wherein the injection point is between the feed tank and the industrial equipment.
However, Ferrara teaches the use of a tank (figure 2, #320) for delivering the chemicals used for decontaminating the equipment, wherein the injection point is between the feed tank and the industrial equipment (see figure 2, and [0291]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Matza/Ferrara/Jansen wherein the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) is housed in a feed tank, wherein the injection point is between the feed tank and the industrial equipment, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Ferrara teaches that it is effective to use a tank for containing the chemicals used for cleaning the industrial equipment, wherein the injection point is between the feed tank and the industrial equipment ([0291] of Ferrara).
Regarding claim 21, Matza further teaches that methyl soyate is present in the solvent composition in an amount between about 20 wt.% and about 40 wt.% [0014].
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Matza teaches a method for decontaminating industrial equipment [0013] comprising the steps of injecting a decontamination composition into the industrial equipment at an injection point [0021], wherein the decontamination composition comprises a solvent composition including methyl soyate [0013 and 0014], and a diluent such as diesel fuel, biodiesel fuel, heavy aromatic naphtha, crude oil, water, or combination thereof [0020] (reads on “carrier fluid”, since applicant’s specification discloses that “the solvent composition may be diluted with the carrier fluid”, and that the carrier fluid may comprise similar components such as diesel fuel, biodiesel fuel, fuel oil, heavy aromatic naphtha, crude oil, water, or any combinations thereof (applicant’s specification paragraph 0018)), allowing the decontamination composition to come in contact with the contaminant material disposed on the industrial equipment, wherein the contact removes the contaminant material (e.g., disaggregated) from the industrial equipment [0021 and 0024], and removing the contaminant material from the industrial equipment [0026]. Furthermore, Matza teaches that the decontamination composition can be heated, and that the heat can be added by any suitable means [0022]. Moreover, Matza teaches that once the contaminant materials have been disaggregated, the contaminant materials may reside in the solvent composition and may therefore be flowable within the solvent composition, and that the contaminant materials residing within the solvent composition may be removed from the industrial equipment by any suitable means [0026].
Matza does not teach that the solvent composition may be added to the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) in an amount between 1wt% to about 20wt%.
However, the amount of the solvent composition added to the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) is a result effective variable. For example, if the amount of the solvent composition added to the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants from the equipment, while if the amount of the amount of the solvent composition added to the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) is too high, it wastes the solvent composition. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate amount of solvent composition added to the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) with predictable results, 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 involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Matza does not teach that the industrial equipment comprises a total volumetric flowrate while operating, the step of reducing the total volumetric flowrate, that the step of injecting the decontamination composition into the industrial equipment is performed while the industrial equipment remains in operation, and that heating the decontamination composition is performed via a recycled stream of the industrial equipment.
Ferrara teaches a method for cleaning petroleum equipment comprising a volumetric flowrate while operating with a cleaning solution which can comprise solvents and chemical products [0063-0064] (e.g., diesel fluid [0224] and surfactants [0092]) comprising the steps of keeping the petroleum plant under production operation conditions, with the fresh feed inserted [0159], varying the fresh feed rate, including the possibility to reach the technical minimum [0160], introducing in the cleaning solution while the equipment remains in operation [0164]. In addition, Ferrara teaches that the chemicals used for cleaning the equipment are pumped to heat exchangers (figure 2, #2, 4-6), and that the plant feed is pumped to the feed line and sent to heat exchangers (figure 2, #2, 4-6) to be preheated, wherein before being sent to other petroleum plants and/or to storage tanks the distillates give their sensible heat to the cold crude entering the plant in the heat exchangers (figure 2, #4-6, 9 and 10) [0286].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Matza with the steps of reducing the total volumetric flowrate of the industrial equipment while in operation, and injecting the decontamination composition into the industrial equipment while the industrial equipment remains in operation, wherein heating the decontamination composition is performed via a recycled stream of the industrial equipment with a reasonable expectation of success, since Matza teaches that the decontamination composition can be heated by any suitable means [0022], and Ferrara teaches that it is effective to decontaminate an industrial equipment such as petroleum equipment with the steps of reducing the total volumetric flowrate of the industrial equipment while in operation, and injecting the decontamination composition into the industrial equipment while the industrial equipment remains in operation for reducing the maintenance shutdown time as disclosed by Ferrara ([0007, 0159, 0160, 0164 and 0239] of Ferrara).
Matza/Ferrara does not teach that the decontamination composition is injected into the industrial equipment at about 1% to about 10% concentration of the total volumetric flow rate.
However, the amount of the decontamination composition injected into the total volumetric flow rate is a result effective variable. For example, if the amount of the decontamination composition injected into the total volumetric flow rate is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants from the equipment, while if the amount of the decontamination composition injected into the total volumetric flow rate is too high, it wastes the decontamination composition. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate amount of the decontamination composition injected into the total volumetric flow rate with predictable results, 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 involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Matza/Ferrara does not teach the step of managing the contaminant material removed from the industrial equipment by filtering the contaminant material through feed filters disposed downstream from the industrial equipment.
Jansen teaches an industrial cleaning process [0004]. Jansen teaches the steps of cleaning an industrial equipment (figure 1, #10) with a solvent composition [0004, 0020, and 0027-0031], and managing contaminant material removed from the industrial equipment (figure 1, #10) by filtering the contaminant material through filters (figure 1, #46) disposed downstream from the industrial equipment for the purpose of removing contaminants present in the composition and reusing the solvent composition (see figure 1, and [0030-0031, and 0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Matza/Ferrara with the step of managing the contaminant material removed from the industrial equipment by filtering the contaminant material through feed filters disposed downstream from the industrial equipment, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of removing contaminant material present in the composition, and/or reusing and/or recycling the solvent composition as disclosed by Jansen (figure 1, and [0030-0031, and 0048] of Jansen), and since Matza teaches that once the contaminant materials have been disaggregated, the contaminant materials may reside in the solvent composition and may therefore be flowable within the solvent composition, and that the contaminant materials residing within the solvent composition may be removed from the industrial equipment by any suitable means ([0026] of Matza).
Regarding claim 13, Matza/Ferrara/Jansen does not teach that the total volumetric flow rate is reduced to an amount between 5,000 BPD and about 30,000 BPD.
However, the volumetric flow rate is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the volumetric flow rate is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants from the equipment, while if the volumetric flow rate is too high, it wastes decontamination composition. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate ratio of surfactant to the oil-contaminated sand with predictable results, 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 involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 14, Matza/Ferrara/Jansen further teaches that the industrial equipment comprises heat exchangers, and/or distillation columns ([0013] of Matza).
Regarding claim 15, Matza/Ferrara/Jansen further teaches that the industrial equipment can comprise a delayed coking pilot plant (reads on “coke unit”) ([0327] of Ferrara).
Regarding claim 16, Matza/Ferrara/Jansen further teaches that the solvent composition further comprises an aprotic solvent ([0015] of Matza) and a third solvent ([0016] of Matza), and a cationic surfactant ([0017] of Matza).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Matza does not teach that the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) is housed in a feed tank, wherein the injection point is between the feed tank and the industrial equipment.
However, Ferrara teaches the use of a tank (figure 2, #320) for delivering the chemicals used for decontaminating the equipment, wherein the injection point is between the feed tank and the industrial equipment (see figure 2, and [0291]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Matza/Ferrara/Jansen wherein the diluent (reads on “carrier fluid”) is housed in a feed tank, wherein the injection point is between the feed tank and the industrial equipment, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Ferrara teaches that it is effective to use a tank for containing the chemicals used for cleaning the industrial equipment, wherein the injection point is between the feed tank and the industrial equipment ([0291] of Ferrara).
Regarding claim 20, Matza/Ferrara/Jansen does not teach the step of heating the decontamination composition via a recycled stream of the industrial equipment, wherein the recycled stream comprises diesel.
However, since Matza teaches that the decontamination composition can be heated by any suitable means [0022], and Ferrara teaches that the decontamination composition can be heated [0052], that the decontamination composition from the tank (figure 2, #320) is pumped to heat exchangers (figure 2, #2, 4-6), and that during the normal production cycle, the plant feed coming from a tank (figure 2, #28) is pumped to the feed line by means of pump (figure 2, #1) and sent to heat exchangers (figure 2, #2, 4-6) to be preheated, wherein before being sent to other petroleum plants and/or to storage tanks the distillates give their sensible heat to the cold crude entering the plant in the heat exchangers (figure 2, #4-6, 9 and 10) ([0286] of Ferrara), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Matza/Ferrara/Jansen with the step of heating the decontamination composition via a recycled stream of the industrial equipment, wherein the recycled stream comprises diesel with a reasonable expectation of success, since Matza teaches that the decontamination composition can be heated by any suitable means ([0022] of Matza), and Ferrara teaches that distillates can give their sensible heat to the feed entering the plant in the heat exchangers (figure 2, #4-6, 9 and 10 of Ferrara) ([0286] of Ferrara), saving energy.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0312160 to Matza (hereinafter “Matza”) in view of US 2017/0037327 to Ferrara (hereinafter “Ferrara”), and US 2016/0107205 to Jansen et al. (hereinafter “Jansen”), and in further view of US 2013/0239991 to Denvir et al. (hereinafter “Denvir”).
Regarding claim 10, Matza/Ferrara/Jansen does not teach the step of monitoring the differential pressure of the feed filters, wherein the differential pressure is altered by the amount of contaminant material removed from the industrial equipment.
Denvir teaches a method for treating a system [0003] comprising the step of measuring the pressure differential across a filter, wherein the pressure differential aids in monitoring the filter to determine when the filter is fouled and needs to be replaced [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Matza/Ferrara/Jansen with the step of monitoring the differential pressure of the feed filters, wherein the differential pressure is altered by the amount of contaminant material removed from the industrial equipment, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Denvir teaches that it was known in the art to measure the pressure differential across a filter, wherein the pressure differential aids in monitoring the filter to determine when the filter is fouled and needs to be replaced ([0028] of Denvir).
Regarding claim 11, Matza/Ferrara/Jansen does not teach the step of replacing the filter.
Denvir teaches a method for treating a system [0003] comprising the step of monitoring and replacing the filter when it becomes fouled [0028 and 0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Matza/Ferrara/Jansen with the step of replacing the filter, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Jansen teaches that contaminants trapped in the filters may be disposed of together with the filter media ([0048] of Jansen), and Denvir teaches that it was known in the art to replace a filter when it becomes fouled to prevent the filter material from becoming a secondary source of contamination that could result in further colonization of clean parts of the system ([0053] of Denvir).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714