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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 22, 26, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malisoff (US 1,968,842 in IDS) in view of Baerheim et al. (US 2008/02777354).
Regarding claim 22, Malisoff teaches an apparatus comprising a bulk storage tank (1) capable of housing a static hydrocarbon, a solvent feed tank (4) separate from the bulk storage tank, a conduit connecting the solvent feed tank to the bulk storage tank capable of performing the function of supplying a treatment mixture to the bulk storage tank, a sump unit (fitting on bottom leading to 5) located on the bottom half of the bulk storage tank, and a tank capable of holding naphthenic acid (tank 5) (Fig. 1 and P3/L37-64).
Malisoff fails to teach the various tanks are provided with a corrosion coating that minimizes corrosion of the tanks. Baerheim teaches that providing corrosion coating on various tanks that hold oil/hydrocarbons/chemicals is well known for tanks as they prevent the corrosion of said tanks during use thereby increasing the life of the tanks ([0019] and [0045]). As such, it would have been obvious to provide a corrosion control coating as claimed in order to prevent corrosion of the tanks while in use thereby increasing the lifespan of the tanks.
It is noted that the claims are apparatus claims and the specific material worked upon or the exact method steps performed via the apparatus are not given patentable weight ("[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). Further, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Malisoff teaches all claimed structure and is capable of using the different functions claimed depending on how the apparatus is operated on various fluids.
Regarding claim 26, the sump unit of Malisoff is capable of removing the various types liquids as claimed.
Regarding claim 37, Malisoff is capable of adjusting various feed and solvent mixture ratios as claimed.
Claim(s) 22, 28-31, and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers (US 2,911,360) in view of Malisoff (US 1,968,842 in IDS) and Baerheim et al. (US 2008/02777354).
Regarding claim 22, Myers teaches an apparatus capable of performing a process comprising a bulk storage tank (11) capable of housing a static hydrocarbon, a solvent feed tank (17) separate from the bulk storage tank, a conduit (13 15 16) connecting the solvent feed tank to the bulk storage tank capable of performing the function of supplying a treatment mixture to the bulk storage tank, and a sump unit for removal of the stratified solvent/compound mixture (means to drain off alcoholic soap), and naphthenic acid is recovered a product, which would imply some sort of vessel or tank for holding the naphthenic acid (Fig. 1 and C4/L50-C5/L72).
It is noted that exact structure including tanks/sump is not taught, only method steps for performing said method steps. As such, one skilled in the art would expect the actual apparatus to be as claimed with the various tanks and sump, or it would have been obvious as such tanks and sumps are known in the art (see Malisoff Fig. 1) and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the specific means taught in Malisoff as the means to perform the method steps in Myers with a reasonable expectation of success as the tanks and sump perform the same function in both Myers and Malisoff.
Myers and Malisoff fail to teach the various tanks are provided with a corrosion coating that minimizes corrosion of the tanks. Baerheim teaches that providing corrosion coating on various tanks that hold oil/hydrocarbons/chemicals is well known for tanks as they prevent the corrosion of said tanks during use thereby increasing the life of the tanks ([0019] and [0045]). As such, it would have been obvious to provide a corrosion control coating as claimed in order to prevent corrosion of the tanks while in use thereby increasing the lifespan of the tanks.
As discussed above, the claims are apparatus claims and the specific material worked upon or the exact method steps performed via the apparatus are not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 28-31, Myers teaches a solvent recovery unit capable of recovering the solvent via the use of acids and stratification (C3/L26-33). It is submitted that the specific type of acid used is an intended use and Myers is capable of using said acids. Further, stratification of the liquid would be done in a vessel or tank and would be considered a settling tank.
Regarding claims 35-36, Myers teaches all claimed structural elements and is capable of moving the specific fluid through the system as claimed.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers (US 2,911,360) in view of Malisoff (US 1,968,842 in IDS) and Baerheim et al. (US 2008/02777354) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Weisman (US 3,718,319).
Regarding claim 23, Myers teaches that the process for using the apparatus is performed at elevated temperatures but fails to teach how the fluid being treated is heated. Weisman teaches that in in controlling the temperature in a tank where temperature of the fluids inside can be controlled, a heating system having coils would be provided inside said tank (C2/L48-C3/L2). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide heating coils as claimed in order to heat the fluid in the tank to aid in the separation and desired reactions. It is noted that the term heating coils would be understood in the art as coils that have a heating fluid therein (hot oil or steam).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers (US 2,911,360) in view of Malisoff (US 1,968,842 in IDS) and Baerheim et al. (US 2008/02777354) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Bajpayee et al. (US 2013/0082003).
Regarding claim 24, Myers teaches that using the apparatus to treat a fluid should be done at elevated temperatures by fails to teach heating the solvent via a heat exchanger. Bajpayee teaches that in a solvent loop, it is beneficial to have a heat exchanger to heat the solvent prior to mixing with the fluid being treated while also capturing the heat from the heated solvent after the treatment process ([0037] and [0060]). As such, it would have been obvious to use a heat exchanger as claimed in order to heat the solvent to a desired temperature and later capturing the heat to make the process more efficient and ensure that the treatment process is performed at the desired temperature.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malisoff (US 1,968,842 in IDS) in view of Baerheim et al. (US 2008/02777354), and further in view of Bader (US 10,280,103).
Regarding claim 25, Malisoff teaches that a means is used (7) to blend the different fluids in the bulk storage tank. Malisoff fails to teach the blending means being a sparging unit comprising a plurality of vortexing nozzles. Bader teaches that other known means for mixing a solvent with a fluid in order to provide a reaction would be various nozzles such as a vortex nozzle (C11/L62-C12/L9). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a different equivalent known blending/mixing means for hydrocarbon based fluids and solvents, such as vortex nozzles as claimed, in order to thoroughly blend/mix the solvent with the fluid being treated thereby aiding in the desired reactions.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malisoff (US 1,968,842 in IDS) in view of Baerheim et al. (US 2008/02777354), and further in view of Hunter (WO 2017/165963).
Regarding claim 27, Malisoff fails to teach providing a plurality of electrical probes as claimed. Hunter teaches that it is beneficial to provide electrical probes in order to generate a current thereby promoting treatment/separation of a hydrocarbon liquid ([0069] and [0126]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide the electrical probes as claimed in order to aid in the treatment and separation of a hydrocarbon stream.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers (US 2,911,360) in view of Malisoff (US 1,968,842 in IDS) and Baerheim et al. (US 2008/02777354) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Hassan et al. (US 2011/0266198).
Regarding claim 32, Myers teaches a settling/stratifying means and acid addition as part of the solvent recovery unit but fails to teach the settling unit having shearing mixers. Hassan teaches that it is beneficial to include shearing mixers as part of a treatment of a hydrocarbon stream and a reagent in order to increase rates of mass transfer that enable the desired reactions ([0129]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to include sharing mixers as part of the setting means in order to increase rates of mass transfer that enable the desired reactions in the liquids being treated.
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers (US 2,911,360) in view of Malisoff (US 1,968,842 in IDS) and Baerheim et al. (US 2008/02777354) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Chen (US 5,182,024 in IDS).
Regarding claims 33-34, Myers fails to teach the solvent recovery unit comprises reverse osmosis membranes. Chen teaches that it is common to use reverse osmosis membranes the purify various solvents, such as ethanol (C1/L1-14 and C2/L55-64). As such, one skilled in the art would use a known means of recovering various alcoholic solvents, such as reverse osmosis membranes, as reverse osmosis membranes are known means to purify and recover alcoholic solvents and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 38 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777