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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the single column refluxed absorber separated from a reboiler” which is considered new matter as the limitation does not have support in the specification. While the specification provides support for a lack of a reboiler, there is no support for the column to be “separated from a reboiler” and further as shown below the limitation is indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “a single column refluxed absorber that is separated from a reboiler” which is considered new matter as the limitation does not have support in the specification. While the specification provides support for a lack of a reboiler, there is no support for the column to be “separated from a reboiler” and further as shown below the limitation is indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “a single column refluxed absorber that is separated from a reboiler” which is considered new matter as the limitation does not have support in the specification. While the specification provides support for a lack of a reboiler, there is no support for the column to be “separated from a reboiler” and further as shown below the limitation is indefinite.
Claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the single column refluxed absorber separated from a reboiler” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what “separate from a reboiler” means in the context of the invention. For the purpose of examinator, this limitation is interpreted that the bottom stream does not pass to a reboiler as disclosed in the specification.
Claim 8 recites “a single column refluxed absorber that is separated from a reboiler” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what “separate from a reboiler” means in the context of the invention. For the purpose of examinator, this limitation is interpreted that the bottom stream does not pass to a reboiler as disclosed in the specification.
Claim 14 recites “a single column refluxed absorber that is separated from a reboiler” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what “separate from a reboiler” means in the context of the invention. For the purpose of examinator, this limitation is interpreted that the bottom stream does not pass to a reboiler as disclosed in the specification.
Claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA (Figure 2) and further in view of Qualls (US PG Pub 20150253071), hereinafter referred to as Qualls.
With respect to claim 1, AAPA (Figure 2) teaches a method for natural gas processing, the method comprising: introducing a natural gas feed to a single column refluxed absorber (natural gas feed 204 is introduced into refluxed 203 column 205, AAPA specification paragraph 16); introducing an external rich reflux gas feed to the single column refluxed absorber (rich reflux stream 203, paragraph 16); processing the natural gas feed and the external rich reflux gas feed in the single column refluxed absorber to produce a first bottoms stream (206) and a first overhead stream (224), wherein the first bottoms stream and the first overhead stream are separate streams upon expulsion from the single column refluxed absorber (the streams leave the column at different locations); and outputting the first bottoms stream from the single column refluxed absorber as a single stream (single bottoms stream 206 enters reboiler 207, AAPA specification paragraph 16).
AAPA does not teach the single column refluxed absorber separated from a reboiler first bottoms stream is output to the heat exchanger as a single stream; however, the bottom stream (206) is output first to a reboiler (207) and then to a heat exchanger (210) which in the context of the claims is not considered to be outputting the bottom stream to a heat exchanger because the stream is passed first to the reboiler1.
Qualls (Figure 2) teaches that when a bottom stream (602) is passed from a first column (650) to a second column that the stream (602) is passed to a heat exchanger (582) from the bottom of the column before being passed to the second column (660) second, separate reboiler stream is formed from the column at a position higher than the bottom (as seen in the figure) and passed to a reboiler (654) providing reboil to the column (paragraph 45).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Qualls to have had a separate reboiler stream formed as a side stream in AAPA such that there is a single bottom stream that does not pass to the reboiler but goes to the second column (211) via the heat exchanger (210, AAPA Specification Paragraph 16) since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known elements for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known ways of providing transfer from one column to another and reboil, it would have been obvious to have modified AAPA based on the configuration of Qualls for the predictable result of providing both reboil to the column as well as heating of the bottom fluid during transfer between the columns. This modification results in a single bottom stream being removed from the absorber column passed to the heat exchanger (210) without passing through the reboiler and as such as best understood in view of the indefiniteness the limitation of “separated from a reboiler” is met by the modification above.
With respect to claim 2, AAPA as modified teaches wherein the first bottoms stream is output from the heat exchanger to a stabilizer column, and wherein the first bottoms stream comprises all liquid withdrawn via a bottoms outlet of the single column refluxed absorber for downstream processing and is delivered directly to the heat exchanger (as modified the stream passed from the column to the heat exchanger 210 and then to a stabilizer 211, paragraph 16, and as it is from the only bottom stream that leaves the column as the reboiler stream is a side stream, all the bottoms liquid leaving the bottoms outlet passes directly to the heat exchanger from the column).
With respect to claim 3, AAPA as modified teaches wherein the first bottoms stream is processed in the stabilizer column to produce a second bottoms stream and a second overhead stream (after the heat exchanger 210 the bottom stream as modified goes to stabilizer 211, AAPA Specification Paragraph 16, which produces a bottom stream, the stream that passes to 213 and an overhead scream 217).
With respect to claim 4, AAPA as modified teaches wherein a heavy’s rich reflux stream is formed from the second overhead stream (second overhead stream is cooled and separated in 228 which produces a heavies stream which passes through heat exchanger 230, and ultimately used as reflux 203, AAPA Specification Paragraph 16).
With respect to claim 5, AAPA as modified teaches wherein the heavies rich reflux stream is pumped to the single column refluxed absorber to be introduced into the single column refluxed absorber as the external rich reflux gas feed (a pump 232 is used to pass the reflux stream, AAPA Specification Paragraph 16)
With respect to claim 6, AAPA as modified teaches wherein a heavies rich reflux stream is formed using the first bottoms stream downstream from the heat exchanger, the heavies rich reflux stream being introduced into the single column refluxed absorber as the external rich reflux gas feed (the bottom stream is ultimately passed to 211 which is used to form the reflux stream from 228 that passes through 230 and back as reflux 203, AAPA Specification Paragraph 16, which means that the first bottom stream used to form the heavies rich reflux stream).
With respect to claim 8, AAPA (Figure 2) teaches a system for processing natural gas, the system comprising: a single column refluxed absorber (column 205, AAPA specification paragraph 16) comprising a natural gas feed inlet at a lower elevation than an external rich reflux gas feed inlet (natural gas inlet for stream 204 and reflux inlet for stream 203, AAPA specification paragraph 16, where it can be seen that the natural gas inlet feed is at a lower point on the column), the single column refluxed absorber configured to expulse a single bottoms stream (206); and a heat exchanger downstream from the single column refluxed absorber (heat exchange 210), such that the bottoms stream is output from the single column refluxed absorber (bottoms stream 206 enters reboiler 207, AAPA specification paragraph 16).
AAPA as modified does not teach the single column refluxed absorber is separated from a reboiler, single bottoms stream is output to the heat exchanger; however, the bottom stream (206) is output first to a reboiler (207) and then to a heat exchanger (210) which in the context of the claims is not considered to be outputting the bottom stream to a heat exchanger because the stream is passed first to the reboiler2.
Qualls (Figure 2) teaches that when a bottom stream (602) is passed from a first column (650) to a second column that the stream (602) is passed to a heat exchanger (582) from the bottom of the column before being passed to the second column (660) second, separate reboiler stream is formed from the column at a position higher than the bottom (as seen in the figure) and passed to a reboiler (654) providing reboil to the column (paragraph 45).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Qualls to have had a separate reboiler stream formed as a side stream in AAPA such that there is a single bottom stream that does not pass to the reboiler but goes to the second column (211) via the heat exchanger (210, AAPA Specification Paragraph 16) since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known elements for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known ways of providing transfer from one column to another and reboil, it would have been obvious to have modified AAPA based on the configuration of Qualls for the predictable result of providing both reboil to the column as well as heating of the bottom fluid during transfer between the columns. This modification results in a single bottom stream being removed from the absorber column passed to the heat exchanger (210) without passing through the reboiler and as such as best understood in view of the indefiniteness the limitation of “separated from a reboiler” is met by the modification above.
With respect to claim 9, AAPA as modified teaches a stabilizer column downstream from the first heat exchanger (211, AAPA Specification Paragraph 16), such that the single bottoms stream is output from the heat exchanger into the stabilizer column (as modified the stream from 210 passes to the stabilizer column 211, paragraph 16) the stabilizer column configured to produce a natural gas by processing the single bottoms stream (overhead stream 217 would be natural gas).
With respect to claim 10, AAPA as modified teaches wherein the natural gas is further produced by processing a rich solvent (rich solvent 212 is passed into 211, AAPA Specification Paragraph 17, and thus would be used to produce the natural gas).
With respect to claim 11, AAPA as modified teaches wherein a rich reflux is produced downstream from the stabilizer column using the natural gas (rich reflux 103 is formed from the overhead 217 of 211, AAPA specification paragraph 16).
With respect to claim 12, AAPA as modified teaches wherein the rich reflux is introduced as an external rich reflux to the single column refluxed absorber using the external rich reflux gas feed inlet (the inlet where 203 enters the column would be the feed inlet).
With respect to claim 13, AAPA as modified teaches wherein an external rich reflux is pumped into the single column refluxed absorber using the external rich reflux gas feed inlet (pump 232 is used to pass the reflux 203 into the column, AAPA specification paragraph 17).
With respect to claim 14, AAPA (Figure 2) teaches a system for processing natural gas, the system comprising: a single column refluxed absorber (Column 205, AAPA specification paragraph 16) comprising a natural gas feed inlet at a lower elevation than an external rich reflux gas feed inlet (natural gas inlet for stream 204 and reflux inlet for stream 203, AAPA specification paragraph 16) the single column refluxed absorber configured to expulse a single bottoms stream via a bottoms outlet (206), the single bottoms stream produced by processing natural gas received via the natural gas feed inlet and an external rich reflux received via the external rich reflux gas feed inlet (those are the two inlet stream and thus the bottom stream would be formed of those); and a heat exchanger downstream from the bottoms outlet of the single column refluxed absorber (heat exchange 210).
AAPA does not teach such that the single bottoms stream is a single is stream received by the first heat exchanger from the bottoms outlet of the single column refluxed absorber; however, the bottom stream (206) is output first to a reboiler (207) and then to a heat exchanger (210) which in the context of the claims is not considered to be outputting the bottom stream to a heat exchanger because the stream is passed first to the reboiler3.
Qualls (Figure 2) teaches that when a bottom stream (602) is passed from a first column (650) to a second column that the stream (602) is passed to a heat exchanger (582) from the bottom of the column before being passed to the second column (660) second, separate reboiler stream is formed from the column at a position higher than the bottom (as seen in the figure) and passed to a reboiler (654) providing reboil to the column (paragraph 45).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Qualls to have had a separate reboiler stream formed as a side stream in AAPA such that there is a single bottom stream does not pass to the reboiler but goes to the second column (211) via the heat exchanger (210, AAPA Specification Paragraph 16) since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known elements for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known ways of providing transfer from one column to another and reboil, it would have been obvious to have modified AAPA based on the configuration of Qualls for the predictable result of providing both reboil to the column as well as heating of the bottom fluid during transfer between the columns. This modification results in a single bottom stream being removed from the absorber column passed to the heat exchanger (210) without passing through the reboiler and as such as best understood in view of the indefiniteness the limitation of “separated from a reboiler” is met by the modification above.
With respect to claim 15, AAPA as modified teaches a stabilizer column downstream from the first heat exchanger (211 AAPA Specification Paragraph 16), the stabilizer configured to receive the single bottoms stream from the heat exchanger (the stream from the heat exchanger 210 is passed to the stabilizer, paragraph 16).
With respect to claim 16, AAPA as modified teaches stabilizer column configured to produce a natural gas by processing the single bottoms stream (overhead stream 217 would be natural gas).
With respect to claim 17, AAPA as modified teaches wherein a rich reflux is formed from the natural gas (rich reflux 103 is formed from the overhead 217 of 211, AAPA specification paragraph 16).
With respect to claim 18, AAPA as modified teaches wherein the rich reflux is input as the external rich reflux to the single column refluxed absorber (the inlet where 203 enters the column would be the feed inlet).
With respect to claim 19, AAPA as modified teaches wherein a heavies treated natural gas is formed from the natural gas (the overhead stream 217 is ultimately used to form a heavies traded natural gas which passes through 240 AAPA specification paragraph 16)
With respect to claim 20, AAPA as modified teaches as modified teaches wherein the natural gas is further produced using a rich solvent (rich solvent 212 is passed into 211, AAPA Specification Paragraph 17, and thus would be used to produce the natural as).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA/Qualls and further in view of Mak et al. (US PG Pub 20080264100), hereinafter referred to as Mak.
With respect to claim 7, AAPA as modified does not teach wherein the first overhead stream is output from the single column refluxed absorber through a condenser for partial separation of the first overhead stream into heavies-treated natural gas.
Mak teaches (Figure 2) that to form reflux for a column that the overhead from the column (8) is condensed in part in a heat exchanger (paragraph 35) and separated to form a reflux stream (12) and a lean vapor stream (paragraph 35).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have, either instead of or in addition to the reflux 203 of AAPA, to have sent the overhead stream (224) to a heat exchanger where part of the stream condenses (which would make said heat exchanger thus a condenser) and is separated into a vapor stream and a condensed portion which is used as reflux back to the column (205) of AAPA based on the teaching of Mak since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby condensing the overhead stream would both provide a reflux from the columns own stream but provide an even leaner overhead stream with less heavier hydrocarbons than the column produces in the unseparated overhead stream. Thus, after the condenser, the separated vapor stream would be a heavies-treated natural gas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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). Applicant has not provided on page 1 any specific argument as to why impermissible hindsight has been provided.
In regards to all three independent claims, applicant makes no specific arguments to the rejection provided, and only addresses how in regards to the decision on appeal dated 4/29/2024; however, none of the arguments address the specific previous rejection or how the additional limitation addresses the modification of AAPA Figure 2 by Qualls. As modified, there is a separate side stream which passes to a reboiler independent of the stream passed to the side stream. 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). Applicant’s arguments only address AAPA Figure 2 and not Qualls.
As the rejection of claim 1 is maintained, so is the rejection of claim 7 rendering applicants arguments moot in regard to claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See Decision on appeal, 6/23/2025, page 5.
2 See Decision on appeal, 6/23/2025, page 5.
3 See Decision on appeal, 6/23/2025, page 5.
Prosecution Insights