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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed 6/20/25 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
The amendments to claim 9 are sufficient to overcome the previous 112 rejection.
The amended claims overcame the cited prior art. However, after further consideration and search, the claims are not in condition for allowance.
A Final Rejection follows.
FINAL REJECTION
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.
Claims 1-9 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothermel et al. US Publication 2015/0290575 in view of Herb et al. US Publication 2006/0288867.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Rothermel teaches a gas treatment system comprising (Figures 2 and 3):
a) a first container 206 that houses a first porous metal-organic framework (MOF) 322 ([0072]) capable of adsorbing a first gas from the inlet side 208;
b) a second container that houses a second MOF to collect a second gas, as indicated in paragraph [0034] where two containers may operate in parallel;
c) a first gas detector that may be placed downstream of the first container configured to detect the saturation of the first gas and may determine the concentration of the varied phases in the hydrocarbon, the concentration of hydrocarbons within the production fluid, the concentration of other processed fluids, including trace gas contaminants, within the production fluid, in addition to a number of other parameters. ([0051]); wherein
d) the detectors and analyzers output the information regarding the state of the first container ([0051]-[0052]).
Rothermel does not teach the first and second container are connected in series with the gas detector disposed in between.
However, serially connected treatment vessels are common and further common to have a sensor in between as shown in Herb. Herb teaches vessels A, B, C, and D which can switch to a serial connection via line 3 and valves 13, 23, 33, and 43 ([0063]). A flow meter can be disposed in between thus acknowledging that detection means in between serially connected vessels are known. It would thus be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement detection means in between two serially connected vessels in order to determine the flow, composition, or pressure and thus optimize the downstream vessels’ configuration.
Regarding claim 3, Rothermel discloses a valve 224 upstream of the first container for opening and closing allowing feed gas to flow into the container. There further comprises control optimization for pressures and temperatures and output means for the detected values ([0052]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the control system is able to detect heavy hydrocarbons and/or the saturation point of the adsorbers by monitoring for erratic pressure changes in the flow ([0065]-[0066], [0081]).
Regarding claim 6, Rothermel does not explicitly teach wherein a housing capacity of the first porous metal-organic framework in the first container and a housing capacity of the second porous metal-organic framework in the second container are set according to the composition ratio of the first gas and the second gas contained in the mixed gas.
However, the volume of the adsorbent containers is considered a result effective variable and would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set it based on composition ratio of the first gas and the second gas contained in the mixed gas.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Rothermel teaches gas detectors downstream of the containers [0052] but does not explicitly teach a gas detector is provided at a flow path between the two containers. Rothermel does suggest that flow measuring devices may be placed in pipelines to determining mass flow rate quantity for control optimization and monitor contaminants that would enter the columns ([0052]).
Thus, it would be obvious to place a detection means between the containers in order to monitor the flow and saturation between the towers to provide efficient and safe operations.
Regarding claim 9, Rothermel teaches that flow measuring devices may be placed in pipelines to determining mass flow rate quantity for control optimization and monitor contaminants that would enter the columns, thus placed in a flow path connected to the first container ([0052]).
Regarding claim 15, Rothermel teaches valves 222 and 218 that may be opened and closed by a control system. The monitoring means is able to detect the saturation state of the gas and thus it would be obvious to control the valves in accordance ([0052]).
Regarding claim 16, Rothermel does not explicitly teach a third container that houses the first porous metal-organic framework; and a fourth container that houses the second porous metal-organic framework, wherein the third container and the fourth container comprise a second line provided in parallel with the first container and the second container, and further comprises a second valve unit for opening and closing the flow path of the second line, when it is determined that the second valve unit is in the closed state and at least one of the first container and the second container is saturated, the control device performs a control of putting the second valve unit into an open state, and then performs a control of putting the first valve unit into a closed state.
However, Herb teaches a series of four adsorbent towers in parallel with valves 12, 22, 32, and 42 and pressure gages 28, 38, and 48 that control flow on lines between each of the four towers. The flow may be monitored by a flow meter and flow control valve thus allowing means for routing flow to an appropriate tower (Herb [0129]).
Thus, in light of Rothermel and Herb, it would be obvious to include a third and fourth tower system with flow lines in between in order to direct the flow of the gas feed into towers based on its saturation levels.
Regarding claim 17, the control system is able to detect heavy hydrocarbons and/or the saturation point of the adsorbers by monitoring for erratic pressure changes in the flow in the first container ([0065]-[0066], [0081]).
Regarding claim 18, Rothermel discloses a valve 224 upstream of the first container for opening and closing allowing feed gas to flow into the container. There further comprises control optimization for pressures and temperatures and output means for the detected values ([0052]).
Rothermel does not explicitly teach a pressure gauge provided on the side of the corresponding container rather than the valve and measuring the pressure of the corresponding container is provided on the corresponding container.
However, Herb teaches pressure gages 18, 28, 38, and 48 provided upstream the containers to measure and control the flow pressure ([0108]).
Regarding claim 19, Rothermel teaches different types of adsorbents may be provided in the towers thus targeting a different component in the gas ([0033]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772