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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7 Jan. 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Wen does not teach the technical feature.
This is not found persuasive because the technical feature (the method of claim 1) is taught by Kitamura US 2013/0233015 in view of Baburao US 2010/0242731 and Su US 2005/0132883 (as detailed below in the rejection of claim 1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 16-23 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.
The claims contain an extraordinary number of indefiniteness issues. Applicant must review the claims to correct all indefiniteness issues.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the coabsorbed compounds". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cold rich solvent stream" multiple times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the cold rich solvent”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hot depleted solvent stream". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the complementary fraction ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hot desorbed gas effluent". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the desorbed gas stream" multiple times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flash separation in step g)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gaseous compound stream". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the optional flash separation in step e)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reheated rich solvent streams". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the reheated rich solvent stream".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gaseous compounds". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the exit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the thermal integration steps". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the separation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gaseous compounds". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the rich solvent (108)”. It is unclear if the limitation refers to “a solvent enriched in compounds for removal, called "rich solvent" (103)” or “a rich solvent stream (108)”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the separation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the compounds". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because antecedent basis is established twice previously for “absorption of compounds” and “a solvent enriched in compounds”.
Claim 1 recites “in desorbed gas form (111)”. It is unclear if the limitation refers to “the desorbed gas stream (111)”.
Claim 1 recites “b) a step of optional separation of the rich solvent (103) in a medium-pressure flash vessel (2) to desorb the coabsorbed compounds (106) and give a cold rich solvent (104)”. Claim 1 further recites “c) a step of heat exchange between a fraction (104A) of the cold rich solvent stream (104) and the hot depleted solvent stream (110) in a heat exchanger (3A)”. Because the solvent 104 is given during the optional separation step and is subsequently used during the heat exchange step, it is unclear if the separation step b) is optional or required. For examination purposes the step will be interpreted as optional and features, such as the solvent 104 will be interpreted as not necessarily coming from the optional step.
Claim 1 recites “e) a step of optional separation in a low-pressure flash vessel (4) of the reheated rich solvent streams (105A) and (105B) at the exit of the thermal integration steps, enabling the separation of the gaseous compounds (107), and a rich solvent stream (108)”. Claim 1 further recites limitations involving features of the optional step such as “to the gaseous compound stream (107) from the optional flash separation in step e)”. Because features of the optional step are further recited, it is unclear if the separation step e) is optional or required. For examination purposes the step will be interpreted as optional and features recited in the optional step as optional throughout the claim.
Claims 2-13 and 16-22 depend upon claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the cold rich solvent stream". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the cold rich solvent”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the total rich solvent stream". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the cold rich solvent”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the separation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the separation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the separation" multiple times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the same pressure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the heating". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the separation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the aim". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the gas". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because antecedent basis is established twice previously for “A method for treating gas” and “a stream of gas for treatment”.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura et al. US 2013/0233015 (hereafter Kitamura) and further in view of Baburao et al. US 2010/0242731 (hereafter Baburao) and Su et al. US 2005/0132883 (hereafter Su).
Regarding claim 1, Kitamura teaches a method (Fig 1) for treating gas by chemical, physical or hybrid absorption of compounds for removal (¶16), comprising at least:
a) a step of absorption (absorption tower 101) of said compounds for removal in an absorber (101) by contacting a stream of gas (111) for treatment with a solvent stream, called "depleted solvent" (319), to give a treated gas (112) and a solvent enriched in compounds for removal, called "rich solvent" (301);
c) a step of heat exchange (103) between a fraction (302) and the hot depleted solvent stream (319) in a heat exchanger (103) to give a reheated rich solvent stream (320), and a cooled depleted solvent stream (319);
d) a step of heat exchange (104) between the complementary fraction (303) and the hot desorbed gas effluent (310) corresponding to the desorbed gas stream (310) from the separation (102) in a heat exchanger (104) to give a reheated rich solvent stream (306), and a cooled desorbed gas stream (311);
f) a step of regeneration (108) of the rich solvent (319) by heating in a reboiler (108) to give a biphasic regenerated solvent (stream from reboiler 108);
h) a final cooling (106) of the cooled depleted solvent (319) to give a fully cooled depleted solvent stream (319 from cooler 106) ready to be fed again to the absorber (101) in the form of a depleted solvent stream (319 from cooler 106).
The limitations:
b) a step of optional separation of the rich solvent (103) in a medium-pressure flash vessel (2) to desorb the coabsorbed compounds (106) and give a cold rich solvent (104);
e) a step of optional separation in a low-pressure flash vessel (4) of the reheated rich solvent streams (105A) and (105B) at the exit of the thermal integration steps, enabling the separation of the gaseous compounds (107), and a rich solvent stream (108)
are optional and therefore are not required to be taught by the prior art in order to teach claim 1.
Kitamura does not teach:
d) a step of heat exchange between the complementary fraction (104B) of the cold rich solvent stream (104) and the hot desorbed gas effluent (112) corresponding to the desorbed gas stream (111) from the flash separation in step g) and to the gaseous compound stream (107) from the optional flash separation in step e) in a heat exchanger (3B) to give a reheated rich solvent stream (105B), and a cooled desorbed gas stream (113);
f) a step of regeneration of the rich solvent (108) by heating in a reboiler (5) to give a biphasic regenerated solvent (109);
g) a step of separation in a low-pressure flash vessel (6) of the biphasic regenerated solvent (109), enabling the separation of a hot depleted solvent stream (110) and a gaseous stream comprising the compounds for removal in desorbed gas form (111);
Baburao teaches a method for treating a gas (Fig 2) comprising an absorber (¶56) and a step of heat exchange between a fraction (201) of the cold rich solvent stream (201) and the hot depleted solvent stream (213) in a heat exchanger (209). Baurao further teaches:
f) a step of regeneration (211) of the rich solvent (204) by heating in a reboiler (211) to give a biphasic regenerated solvent (212);
g) a step of separation (206) in a low-pressure flash vessel (206) of the biphasic regenerated solvent (212), enabling the separation of a hot depleted solvent stream (208) and a gaseous stream comprising the compounds for removal in desorbed gas form (207).
Baburao teaches where the regeneration and separation allows for reboiling and separation of the solvent (¶64-65).
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 reboiler (108) of Kitamura by incorporating the reboiler (211) and flash vessel (206) of Baburao in order to allow for reboiling and separation of the solvent (¶64-65).
Su teaches a method for treating gas (Fig 3), comprising a step of absorption (A). Su further teaches:
d) a step of heat exchange (80c) with the hot desorbed gas effluent (effluent to 80c) corresponding to the desorbed gas stream (32c) from the flash separation in step g) (3c) and to the gaseous compound stream (36c) from the optional flash separation in step e) (C) in a heat exchanger (80c) to give a cooled (¶92) desorbed gas stream (stream from 80c to 81c);
g) a step of separation in a low-pressure flash vessel (3c) of the biphasic regenerated solvent (40), enabling the separation of a hot depleted solvent stream (stream between 3c and A) and a gaseous stream (32c) comprising the compounds for removal in desorbed gas form (32c).
Su teaches where the regenerator separates the gas and liquid in the stream (¶93) and combining the gaseous stream (32c) with the gaseous compound stream (36c) allows the streams to be further processed in the same units (80c, 81c).
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 (Fig 1) of Kitamura by incorporating the steps of heat exchange (80c) and separation (3c) in order to separate the gas and liquid in the stream (¶93) and in order to combine the gaseous stream with the gaseous compound stream for the streams to be further processed in the same units.
The modification would have resulted in
d) a step of heat exchange between the complementary fraction (104B) of the cold rich solvent stream (104) and the hot desorbed gas effluent (112) corresponding to the desorbed gas stream (111) from the flash separation in step g) and to the gaseous compound stream (107) from the optional flash separation in step e) in a heat exchanger (3B) to give a reheated rich solvent stream (105B), and a cooled desorbed gas stream (113)
because the desorbed gas stream (stream between 108 and 102 of Kitamura; 207 of Baburao; 32c of Su) from the flash separation in step (206 of Baburao; 3c of Su) and to the gaseous compound stream (310 of Kitamura; 205 of Baburao; 36c of Su) would be combined before the heat exchanger (104 of Kitamura; 80c of Su).
Regarding claim 3, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 1. All the limitations of claim 3 further modify the optional step b), therefore the Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su combination of claim 1 teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 1. Kitamura further teaches wherein the solvent is a chemical solvent comprising at least one amine (¶24).
Regarding claim 13, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 1. Kitamura further teaches wherein the gas for treatment is selected from a biogas, a natural gas, a synthesis gas (syngas), or industrial flue gases, for example coal power station, incinerator or blast furnace flue gases (¶23).
Regarding claim 19, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 1. All the limitations of claim 19 further modify the optional step b), therefore the Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su combination of claim 1 teaches the limitations of claim 19.
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eisenberg et al. US 4,152,217 (hereafter Eisenberg).
Regarding claim 2, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Kitamura teaches the fraction (302), but does not teach how much the fraction represents of the total rich solvent stream (301, which is divided between fractions 302 and 303).
Kitamura does not teach wherein the fraction (104A) of the cold rich solvent stream sent to the heat exchanger (3A) represents between 0.5% and 50% by weight of the total rich solvent stream.
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 fraction (302) of Kitamura by having the fraction represent between 0.5% and 50% by weight of the total rich solvent stream in order to balance the heating requirement of streams 302 and 303, where the heating of heat exchangers 103 and 104 are dictated by the flow in streams 319 and 310, respectively.
Eisenberg teaches a method for treating gas (Fig 1) comprising absorption (2), a fraction (5), and a complementary fraction (4), where the fraction percentage is controlled to affect the vapor temperature at the top of the column (col 3 lines 21-66).
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 fraction (302) of Kitamura by having the fraction represent between 0.5% and 50% by weight of the total rich solvent stream in order to affect the vapor temperature at the top of the column (Eisenberg col 3 lines 21-66).
Regarding claim 18, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Kitamura teaches the fraction (302), but does not teach how much the fraction represents of the total rich solvent stream (301, which is divided between fractions 302 and 303).
Kitamura does not teach wherein the fraction (104A) of the cold rich solvent stream sent to the heat exchanger (3A) represents between 5% and 40% by weight of the total rich solvent stream.
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 fraction (302) of Kitamura by having the fraction represent between 5% and 40% by weight of the total rich solvent stream in order to balance the heating requirement of streams 302 and 303, where the heating of heat exchangers 103 and 104 are dictated by the flow in streams 319 and 310, respectively.
Eisenberg teaches a method for treating gas (Fig 1) comprising absorption (2), a fraction (5), and a complementary fraction (4), where the fraction percentage is controlled to affect the vapor temperature at the top of the column (col 3 lines 21-66).
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 fraction (302) of Kitamura by having the fraction represent between 5% and 40% by weight of the total rich solvent stream in order to affect the vapor temperature at the top of the column (Eisenberg col 3 lines 21-66).
Claims 4-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taniguchi et al. US 2014/0345465 (hereafter Taniguchi).
Regarding claim 4, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 1.
The limitations of claim 4 further modify the optional step e), therefore the Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su combination of claim 1 teaches the limitations modifying the optional step of wherein the separation in the low-pressure flash vessel in step e) is performed at a pressure of between 0 and 9 bar.
Kitamura does not teach wherein the separation in the low-pressure flash vessel in step g) is performed at a pressure of between 0 and 9 bar.
Taniguchi teaches a method of treating gas comprising an absorption step (20) and a step of separation (91) in a flash vessel, where the pressure controls the gas-liquid balance inside the flash vessel (¶44).
MPEP 2144.05 II states that where a variable is known to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable.
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 flash vessel pressure of step g (206 of Baburao; 3c of Su) by optimizing the flash vessel pressure such as to between 0 and 9 bar in order to affect the gas-liquid balance inside the flash vessel (Taniguchi ¶44).
Regarding claim 5, Kitamura in view of Baburao, Su, and Taniguchi teach all the limitations of claim 4.
The limitations of claim 5 further modify the optional steps b) and e), therefore the Kitamura in view of Baburao, Su, and Taniguchi combination of claim 4 teaches the limitations modifying the optional steps of wherein the separation in the low-pressure flash vessels in steps e) is performed at the same pressure of between 1 and 4 bar and the separation in the medium-pressure flash vessel in step b) is performed at a pressure of between 5 and 10 bar.
Kitamura does not teach wherein the separation in the low-pressure flash vessels in step g) is performed at the same pressure of between 1 and 4 bar.
Taniguchi teaches a method of treating gas comprising an absorption step (20) and a step of separation (91) in a flash vessel, where the pressure controls the gas-liquid balance inside the flash vessel (¶44).
MPEP 2144.05 II states that where a variable is known to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable.
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 flash vessel pressure of step g (206 of Baburao; 3c of Su) by optimizing the flash vessel pressure such as to between 1 and 4 bar in order to affect the gas-liquid balance inside the flash vessel (Taniguchi ¶44).
Regarding claim 6, Kitamura in view of Baburao, Su, and Taniguchi teach all the limitations of claim 4.
Kitamura does not teach wherein the heating in the reboiler in step f) and the separation in the low-pressure flash vessel in step g) are performed at a pressure strictly of between 0 and 1 bar.
The claim 4 combination teaches wherein the heating in the reboiler in step f) (108 of Kitamura; 211 of Baburao) and the separation in the low-pressure flash vessel in step g) (206 of Baburao; 3c Su) are performed at substantially the same pressure (as shown in Baburao Fig 2 where the reboiler and flash vessel are connected by conduit 212 without further pressure altering components.
Taniguchi teaches a method of treating gas comprising an absorption step (20) and a step of separation (91) in a flash vessel, where the pressure controls the gas-liquid balance inside the flash vessel (¶44).
MPEP 2144.05 II states that where a variable is known to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable.
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 flash vessel pressure of step g (206 of Baburao; 3c of Su) by optimizing the flash vessel pressure such as to between 0 and 1 bar in order to affect the gas-liquid balance inside the flash vessel (Taniguchi ¶44).
The modification would have resulted in wherein the heating in the reboiler in step f) and the separation in the low-pressure flash vessel in step g) are performed at a pressure strictly of between 0 and 1 bar.
Regarding claim 20, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 1.
The limitations of claim 20 further modify the optional step e), therefore the Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su combination of claim 1 teaches the limitations modifying the optional step of wherein the separation in the low-pressure flash vessel in step e) is performed at a pressure of between 0 and 9 bar.
Kitamura does not teach wherein the separation in the low-pressure flash vessel in step g) is performed at a pressure of between 1 and 4 bar.
Taniguchi teaches a method of treating gas comprising an absorption step (20) and a step of separation (91) in a flash vessel, where the pressure controls the gas-liquid balance inside the flash vessel (¶44).
MPEP 2144.05 II states that where a variable is known to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable.
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 flash vessel pressure of step g (206 of Baburao; 3c of Su) by optimizing the flash vessel pressure such as to between 1 and 4 bar in order to affect the gas-liquid balance inside the flash vessel (Taniguchi ¶44).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Baburao, Su, and Taniguchi as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Mak US 2012/0227441 (hereafter Mak).
Regarding claim 7, Kitamura in view of Baburao, Su, and Taniguchi teach all the limitations of claim 6.
Kitamura does not teach wherein the temperature in the reboiler is between 70 and 100°C.
Mak teaches a method of treating gas comprising an absorption step (¶2, ¶9-11) and a step of separation (flash, ¶11) in a flash vessel, where the temperature at a specified pressure is used to produce CO2 rich vapor (¶11).
MPEP 2144.05 II states that where a variable is known to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable.
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 temperature of the reboiler (5 of Kitamura; 211 of Baburao) by optimizing the temperature such as to between 70 and 100°C in order to allow for CO2 rich vapor to be produced in the flash vessel (Mak ¶11).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Baburao, Su, and Taniguchi as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Mak US 2012/0227441 (hereafter Mak).
Regarding claim 8, Kitamura in view of Baburao, Su, and Taniguchi teach all the limitations of claim 4.
Kitamura does not teach wherein the operating pressure in the reboiler is between 1 and 9 bar, and wherein the temperature in the reboiler is between 100 and 140°C.
The claim 4 combination teaches wherein the heating in the reboiler in step f) (108 of Kitamura; 211 of Baburao) and the separation in the low-pressure flash vessel in step g) (206 of Baburao; 3c Su) are performed at substantially the same pressure (as shown in Baburao Fig 2 where the reboiler and flash vessel are connected by conduit 212 without further pressure altering components.
Taniguchi teaches a method of treating gas comprising an absorption step (20) and a step of separation (91) in a flash vessel, where the pressure controls the gas-liquid balance inside the flash vessel (¶44).
MPEP 2144.05 II states that where a variable is known to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable.
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 flash vessel pressure of step g (206 of Baburao; 3c of Su) by optimizing the flash vessel pressure such as to between 0 and 9 bar in order to affect the gas-liquid balance inside the flash vessel (Taniguchi ¶44).
Mak teaches a method of treating gas comprising an absorption step (¶2, ¶9-11) and a step of separation (flash, ¶11) in a flash vessel, where the temperature at a specified pressure is used to produce CO2 rich vapor (¶11).
MPEP 2144.05 II states that where a variable is known to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable.
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 temperature of the reboiler (5 of Kitamura; 211 of Baburao) by optimizing the temperature such as to between 100 and 140°C in order to allow for CO2 rich vapor to be produced in the flash vessel (Mak ¶11).
The modification would have resulted in wherein the operating pressure in the reboiler is between 1 and 9 bar, and wherein the temperature in the reboiler is between 100 and 140°C.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kaseda et al. US 2018/0001253 (hereafter Kaseda).
Regarding claim 10, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 9.
Kitamura further teaches where the solvent composition is not particularly limited and can comprise amines such as a secondary amine (¶24).
Kitamura does not teach wherein the solvent comprises a mixture of tertiary and secondary amines.
Kaseda teaches a method of treating gas wherein the solvent comprises a mixture of tertiary and secondary amines in order to absorb CO2 (¶20).
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 amine solvent (¶24) of Kitamura by incorporating wherein the solvent comprises a mixture of tertiary and secondary amines (¶20) of Kaseda in order to absorb CO2 (¶20).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiba et al. US 2016/0136566 (hereafter Chiba).
Regarding claim 11, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Kitamura does not teach a step i) of final condensation of the desorbed gas stream (113) with the aim of limiting the water losses in the method, so as to give a stream (114) of cooled desorbed compounds, at a temperature of between 20 and 60°C.
Chiba teaches a method of treating gas comprising an absorber (¶12) and further comprising a step i) of final condensation (45, 46 in Fig 1) of the desorbed gas stream (7) with the aim of limiting the water losses in the method, so as to give a stream (8) of cooled desorbed compounds, at a temperature in order to condense water to a desired degree and have the desorbed gas stream at a desired outlet temperature (¶38, ¶46, ¶54, ¶59-63).
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 desorbed gas stream (315) of Kitamura by incorporating the final condensation (45, 46) of Chiba in order to condense water and cool the gas stream (¶38, ¶46, ¶54, ¶59-63).
MPEP 2144.05 II states that where a variable is known to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable.
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 final condensation (45, 46) of Chiba in the desorbed gas stream (315) of Kitamura by optimizing the temperature such as to between 20 and 60°C in order effect water condensation and gas stream outlet temperature (Chiba ¶38, ¶46, ¶54, ¶59-63).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Symes US 2017/0341015 (hereafter Symes).
Regarding claim 12, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Kitamura further teaches the absorption step (101) but does not state the operating pressure.
Kitamura does not teach wherein the operating pressure in the absorption step a) is between 1 and 80 bar.
Symes teaches a method for treating gas comprising the absorption step (10) wherein the operating pressure in the absorption step a) is between 1 and 80 bar (¶32, 5 to 20 bar) in order to absorb the acid gases with amines (¶32).
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 operating pressure of the absorption step (101) of Kitamura to be the pressure between 5 and 20 bar (¶32) of Symes in order to absorb the acid gases with amines (¶32).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Singh et al. US 2018/0001259 (hereafter Singh) and Iijima et al. US 2013/0206010 (hereafter Iijima).
Regarding claim 16, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Kitamura does not teach:
in a) the solvent stream has a temperature of between 20 and 60°C,
in c) the cooled depleted solvent stream has a temperature of between 45 and 90°C,
in d) the reheated rich solvent stream has a temperature of between 60 and 170°C and the cooled desorbed gas stream has a temperature of between 45 and 90°C,
in f) regeneration of the rich solvent is at a temperature between 70 and 180°C,
in g) the separation of the hot depleted solvent stream is at a temperature between 70 and 180°C, and the gaseous stream is at a temperature between 70 and 180°C, and
in h) the fully cooled depleted solvent stream at a temperature between 20 and 60°C.
The limitations:
in b) the cold rich solvent has a temperature of between 40 and 80°C,
in e) the separation of the gaseous compounds is performed at a temperature of between 60 and 170°C, and the temperature of the rich solvent stream is between 60 and 170°C,
are optional and therefore are not required to be taught by the prior art in order to teach claim 16.
Singh teaches a method of gas treatment comprising absorption (¶7-8) where in a) the solvent stream (stream from tank 43 to absorber 18) has a temperature of between 40 and 60°C where the temperature is suitable for the absorption reaction (¶46-47).
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 temperature of the solvent stream (319) of Kitamura by incorporating the 40 to 60°C temperature (¶46) of Singh to be suitable for the absorption reaction (¶46-47).
Kitamura further teaches where the solvent stream (319) has a higher temperature (via cooler 106) than the cooled depleted solvent stream (stream between cooler 109 and cooler 106).
Singh further teaches where the solvent stream (43) has a higher temperature (via cooler 72) than the cooled depleted solvent stream (68).
Singh teaches where the regeneration occurs at a temperature between 90 and 140C (¶40) and where the rich solvent stream 56 is heated at exchanger 52, cooled at exchanger 46, then finally cooled at exchanger 72 to a temperature between 40 and 60C (¶46-47).
Singh does not teach the intermediate temperatures of the hot depleted solvent stream (70) or the cooled depleted solvent stream (68).
Iijima teaches a method of gas treatment comprising absorption (¶1-3, Fig 2) the cooled depleted solvent stream (between step c heat exchanger 23 and the final cooling heat exchanger CW) is 55C.
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 temperature of the cooled depleted solvent stream (Kitamura 319; Baburao 210; Singh 68) to be between 45 and 90°C in order to balance the heating demands of the rich solvent fraction (Kitamura 104A with heat exchanger 3A; Baburao 201 with heat exchanger 209; Singh 42 with heat exchanger 46) and the cooling of the final cooling (Kitamura 106; Singh 72). As taught by Iijima, it is known in the art that the cooled depleted solvent stream can be between 45 and 90C.
Singh teaches where the temperature of the optional low pressure flash vessel (Singh 44; equivalent to Kitamura 102) operates at between 90 and 140 C (Singh ¶40).
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 temperature of the reheated rich solvent stream (Kitamura 306) and cooled desorbed gas stream (Kitamura 311; Su stream from heat exchanger 80c) to be between 60 and 170°C and 45 and 90°C, respectively, in order to balance the heating exchange requirements of the reheated rich solvent stream and cooled desorbed gas stream (where the two fluids pass through indirect heat exchange 104), in order to ensure the optional low pressure flash vessel operates as the temperature sufficient for gas desorption (Singh ¶40; where the temperature of the reheated rich solvent stream affects the flash vessel temperature), and in order to balance the cooling requirements of final condenser (Kitamura 105; Singh 62) to ensure water condensation.
Singh teaches where the temperature of the optional low pressure flash vessel (Singh 44; equivalent to Kitamura 102) operates at between 90 and 140 C (Singh ¶40), the solvent is heated (Singh boiling heat exchanger 52; equivalent to reboiler 108 of Kitamura; equivalent to reboiler 211 of Baburao), and then separated in a low pressure flash vessel (Singh boiling heat exchanger 52; equivalent to vessel 206 of Baburao; equivalent to vessel 3c of Su).
Iijima teaches where the biphasic regenerated solvent (15) is at 120C (Fig 2) and the hot depleted solvent stream (L2 going to pump 53) is at 100C (Fig 2).
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 temperature of the regeneration (reboiler 108 of Kitamura; reboiler 211 of Baburao; boiling heat exchanger 52 of Singh) to be between 70 and 180C in order to heat the rich solvent after desorption (Kitamura 102; Baburao 204; Su C; Signh 44; Iijima 18), where the desorption can occur between 90 and 140 C (Singh ¶40) and where the separation step immediately after the regeneration can occur between 100 and 120 C (Iijima Fig 2). The regeneration temperature allows for solvent regeneration/separation.
Iijima teaches where the separation (51 in Fig 2) is at a temperature between 100C (hot depleted solvent stream T2 in Fig 2) and 120C (biphasic regenerated solvent 15, T1 in Fig 2).
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 separation (Baburao 206; Su 3c; Singh 52; Iijima 51) of the hot depleted solvent stream (Baburao 212; Su 40; Singh 56; Iijima 15) to be between 70 and 180°C and the temperature of the gaseous stream (Baburao 207; Su 32c; Singh tops from boiling heat exchanger 51; Iijima tops from vessel 51 going to compressor 52) between 70 and 180°C in order to separate the biphasic regenerated solvent. The temperature of the separation affects the gas-liquid equilibrium.
Singh teaches where the fully cooled depleted solvent stream (43) is between 40 and 60C in order to be suitable for the absorption reaction (¶46).
Iijima teaches where the temperature of the cooled depleted solvent (T5 in Fig 2) before final cooling (CW) and the temperature of the rich solvent (17) is 50C (T3), thus the fully cooled depleted solvent (solvent between CW and absorber 16) would be around 50C.
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 temperature of the fully cooled depleted solvent (Kitamura 319; Baburao 210) to be between 20 and 60C of Singh (40 to 60C ¶46) and/or Iijima (between 50 and 55C as shown in Fig 2) in order to be suitable for the absorption reaction (Singh ¶46).
Regarding claim 17, Kitamura in view of Baburao, Su, Singh, and Iijima teach all the limitations of claim 16.
Kitamura does not teach:
in c) the cooled depleted solvent stream has a temperature of between 60 and 90°C.
in d) the reheated rich solvent stream has a temperature of between 100 and 130°C and the cooled desorbed gas stream has a temperature of between 60 and 90°C,
in g) the separation of the hot depleted solvent stream is at a temperature between 110 and 140°C, and the gaseous stream is at a temperature between 110 and 140°C.
The limitations:
in e) the separation of the gaseous compounds is performed at a temperature of between 100 and 130°C, and the temperature of the rich solvent stream is between 100 and 130°C, and
are optional and therefore are not required to be taught by the prior art in order to teach claim 17.
Kitamura further teaches where the solvent stream (319) has a higher temperature (via cooler 106) than the cooled depleted solvent stream (stream between cooler 109 and cooler 106).
Singh further teaches where the solvent stream (43) has a higher temperature (via cooler 72) than the cooled depleted solvent stream (68).
Singh teaches where the regeneration occurs at a temperature between 90 and 140C (¶40) and where the rich solvent stream 56 is heated at exchanger 52, cooled at exchanger 46, then finally cooled at exchanger 72 to a temperature between 40 and 60C (¶46-47).
Singh does not teach the intermediate temperatures of the hot depleted solvent stream (70) or the cooled depleted solvent stream (68).
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 temperature of the cooled depleted solvent stream (Kitamura 319; Baburao 210; Singh 68) to be between 60 and 90°C in order to balance the heating demands of the rich solvent fraction (Kitamura 104A with heat exchanger 3A; Baburao 201 with heat exchanger 209; Singh 42 with heat exchanger 46) and the cooling of the final cooling (Kitamura 106; Singh 72).
Singh teaches where the temperature of the optional low pressure flash vessel (Singh 44; equivalent to Kitamura 102) operates at between 90 and 140 C (Singh ¶40).
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 temperature of the reheated rich solvent stream (Kitamura 306) and cooled desorbed gas stream (Kitamura 311; Su stream from heat exchanger 80c) to be between 100 and 130°C and 60 and 90°C, respectively, in order to balance the heating exchange requirements of the reheated rich solvent stream and cooled desorbed gas stream (where the two fluids pass through indirect heat exchange 104), in order to ensure the optional low pressure flash vessel operates as the temperature sufficient for gas desorption (Singh ¶40; where the temperature of the reheated rich solvent stream affects the flash vessel temperature), and in order to balance the cooling requirements of final condenser (Kitamura 105; Singh 62) to ensure water condensation.
Iijima teaches where the separation (51 in Fig 2) is at a temperature between 100C (hot depleted solvent stream T2 in Fig 2) and 120C (biphasic regenerated solvent 15, T1 in Fig 2).
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 separation (Baburao 206; Su 3c; Singh 52; Iijima 51) of the hot depleted solvent stream (Baburao 212; Su 40; Singh 56; Iijima 15) to be between 110 and 140°C and the temperature of the gaseous stream (Baburao 207; Su 32c; Singh tops from boiling heat exchanger 51; Iijima tops from vessel 51 going to compressor 52) between 110 and 140°C in order to separate the biphasic regenerated solvent. The temperature of the separation affects the gas-liquid equilibrium.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Singh et al. US 2018/0001259 (hereafter Singh) and Iijima et al. US 2013/0206010 (hereafter Iijima).
Regarding claim 21, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Kitamura does not teach wherein in g) the separation of the hot depleted solvent stream is at a temperature between 70 and 180°C.
Singh teaches where the desorption occurs at 90-140C (¶40) and the rich solvent stream (56) is heated and separated (52). Thus, the separation (52) occurs at greater than 90-140C.
Iijima teaches where the separation (51 in Fig 2) is at a temperature between 100C (hot depleted solvent stream T2 in Fig 2) and 120C (biphasic regenerated solvent 15, T1 in Fig 2).
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 separation (Baburao 206; Su 3c; Singh 52; Iijima 51) of the hot depleted solvent stream (Baburao 212; Su 40; Singh 56; Iijima 15) to be between 70 and 180°C in order to separate the biphasic regenerated solvent. The temperature of the separation affects the gas-liquid equilibrium.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mak US 2012/0227441 (hereafter Mak).
Regarding claim 22, Kitamura in view of Baburao and Su teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Kitamura does not teach wherein the temperature in the reboiler is between 70 and 100°C.
Mak teaches a method of treating gas comprising an absorption step (¶2, ¶9-11) and a step of separation (flash, ¶11) in a flash vessel, where the temperature at a specified pressure is used to produce CO2 rich vapor (¶11).
MPEP 2144.05 II states that where a variable is known to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable.
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 temperature of the reboiler (5 of Kitamura; 211 of Baburao) by optimizing the temperature such as to between 70 and 100°C in order to allow for CO2 rich vapor to be produced in the flash vessel (Mak ¶11).
Prior Art
Applicant is made aware of the following prior art:
Ogawa et al. US 2012/0118162;
Eksilioglu et al. US 2011/0020203;
Rochelle et al. US 2015/0246298.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights