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
This is the response to amendment filed 07/21/2025 for application 17/814953.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, and 27-30 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 27-30 have been added.
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 10-26 have been cancelled.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 07/21/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-11, based upon CANTINS et al. (WO2015196026A1) as set forth in the last Office action because: --facts presented are not germane to the rejection at issue--; the declaration is directed toward BHADRA et al. which is not germane to the present 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CANTINS et al. (WO2015196026A1) in view of CHANCE et al. (USPGPUB 2008/0282887).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, CANTINS et al. teach separation and storage using ITQ-55.
CANTINS et al. teach in paragraph 320 that ITQ-55 can be used for adsorption and/or separation of components where ITQ-55 can provide sufficient selectivity between components.
ITQ-55 can provide for a selectivity for a first fluid component over a second fluid component.
CANTINS et al. teach in paragraphs 321-322 and 329 that ITQ-55 can be used to separate CO2 from hydrocarbons such as methane and natural gas.
ITQ-55 can be used to separated N2 (nitrogen) from methane and natural gas.
CANTINS et al. teach in paragraph 347 that the separation may be done with pressure swing adsorption wherein natural gas is passed, under pressure, through an adsorbent bed wherein part or all the nitrogen will stay in the adsorbent bed.
A product stream that has the nitrogen stay in the adsorbent bed would be depleted in nitrogen.
CANTINS et al. teach in paragraph 368 adsorbent in the form of a monolith parallel channel contactor.
CANTINS et al. recognize zeolite ITQ-55 particles being used as a part of a membrane. The particles having a mean particle size within the range of from 20 nm to 1 μm. CANTINS et al. further teach in paragraph 296 that the ITQ-55 material is particularly appropriate for the separation in adsorption processes of hydrocarbons of 1 or 2 carbon atoms that contain these gases, as well as adsorbent in powdered or pelletized form or in membrane form.
CANTINS et al. recognize in paragraphs 303 and 412 that the particle size of ITQ-55 crystals used in an adsorbent structure or membrane structure can have an impact on the ability of the adsorbent structure or membrane structure to perform a separation. The particle size distribution for zeolite adsorbents is taught in paragraph 370 to be controlled by the method used to synthesize the particles.
Furthermore, CANTINS teaches in paragraphs 309, 311, 317 and 319 that selective separation of fluid components is based on kinetic diameters of the components with methane having larger kinetic diameters than N2.
CANTINS teaches in paragraph 319 that the kinetic diameter of methane is 0.38 nm.
CANTINS further teaches in paragraph 367 that mass transfer is affected by thickness of the adsorbent, channel gap and the cycle time of the process
In the case of selectively adsorption of N2, it appears to be a matter of the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
CANTINS et al. teach in paragraph 385 that associated swing processes may be kinetic separations.
CANTINS et al. teach in paragraph 362 that the adsorption may be a swing adsorption process that includes an adsorption step followed by a desorption step to recover the adsorbed component.
CANTINS et al. teach in paragraphs 347-349, PSA and TSA processes with an adsorbent bed in which higher pressure and lower temperature allows for adsorption. Lowering the pressure and raising the temperature allows for regeneration of the adsorbent bed by desorbing the adsorbed component.
CANTINS et al. teach in paragraphs 353 and 354 that the geometric shapes of the ITQ-55 zeolite may be a monolith with parallel channels.
CANTINS et al. teach in paragraph 351 the swing adsorption processes that may be employed include RCTSA, and RCPSA.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pressure swing adsorptions such as RCPSA are done with repetitions of the following: feed steps, one or more pressure equalization steps, and the pressure depressurization steps in ordered steps in a blow down sequence.
RCPSA is a known process with known steps of those that are claimed.
CHANCE is relied on to teach that RCPSA is a known process and employs multiple pressure swing adsorber units with a monolith adsorbent contactor having substantially parallel channels.
CHANCE et al. teach advantages of a RCPSA system in paragraphs 45-47.
CHANCE et al. teach a process for removing a first gas component from a group that includes N2 from a gas mixture comprising a first gas component and a second gas component. CHANCE et al. teach in paragraph 110 a RCPSA unit that comprises at least one adsorbent contactor with parallel channels.
CHANCE et al. teach in paragraph 113 that pressure equalization steps as a matter of using a RCPSA is known in the art. The pressure equalization steps is also taught in which the contactor pressure is decreased in a series of steps. (blow down and depressurization) CHANCE et al. teach in paragraph 114 that pressure equalization steps may be used to form a gas stream or recompressed.
CANTINS et al. teach in paragraph 352 that the total recovery of the component not adsorbed is greater than about 80 vol%, or greater than about 90 vol%. The component not adsorbed being greater than about 90 vol% would also be expected to be comprising 85 vol% from the feed steam as the source of component is from the feed stream.
CANTINS et al. are silent to the productivity of the first adsorber unit being 58 ton / day/ m3 bed or higher. CANTINS et al. do not teach limits that would teach that the first adsorber unit cannot reach a productivity of the first adsorber unit being 58 ton / day/ m3 bed or higher.
It appears that the adsorber units can be scaled up to allow for a productivity of 58 ton / day/ m3 bed or higher absent evidence to the contrary given that the adsorber units may be made bigger to increase the productivity per day.
Regarding claim 2, CANTINS et al. teach in paragraphs 383-384 that the natural gas streams are fed to separation processes at over 300 psia, or over 500 psia.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, CANTINS et al. teach in paragraphs 489 and 490 that the separation may be performed at a temperature below 300 K and a pressure of 1000 bar or less. CANTINS et al. teach that the ranges would enhance selectivity of nitrogen over methane.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Regarding claim 6, CANTINS et al. do teach in paragraphs 351 that the processes may be done with pressure swing adsorption, including rapid cycle pressure swing adsorption.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pressure swing adsorptions are done with repetitions of the following: feed steps, one or more pressure equalization steps, and the pressure depressurization steps.
Regarding claims 9, CANTINS et al. teach in paragraphs 321-322 and 329 that ITQ-55 can be used to separate CO2 from hydrocarbons such as methane and natural gas.
ITQ-55 can also be used to separate CO2 from nitrogen.
ITQ-55 can also be used to separated N2 (nitrogen) from methane and natural gas.
Regarding claims 27-28, CANTINS et al. teach in paragraph 352 that the total recovery of the component not adsorbed is greater than about 80 vol%, or greater than about 90 vol%. CHANCE et al. further teach in paragraph 110 that a separation with a product stream of 98% methane may be reached.
Regarding claim 29, CANTINS et al. teach in paragraph 364 that RCPSA is typically done with cycle times of less than about 30 seconds.
Regarding claim 30, CANTINS et al. teach in paragraph 368 that thickness of ITQ-55 adsorbent layer is between about 25 to about 300 microns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments based on amendments filed 07/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of different dimensions of ITQ-55 and the steps for how the pressure swing adsorption is employed is what allows the extent of a methane content of 90 vol% of higher.
This is not persuasive as the steps that are described in the present claims of the pressure swing adsorption is what is known in the art in RCPSA (Rapid Cycle Pressure Adsorption).
CHANCE et al. has been added to demonstrate that the steps described is known in the art.
CHANCE et al. further teach that a product with a product stream with 98% methane.
It appears that CHANCE et al. is stating that a product stream of separation with 98% methane can be reached without specific dimensions of ITQ-55.
CANTINS et al. do not teach limits that would teach that the first adsorber unit cannot reach a productivity of the first adsorber unit being 58 ton / day/ m3 bed or higher.
It appears that the adsorber units can be scaled up to allow for a productivity of 58 ton / day/ m3 bed or higher absent evidence to the contrary given that the adsorber units may be made bigger to increase the productivity per day.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DECKMAN et al. (USPGPUB 2008/0282885) teach removal of CO2, N2, or H2S from gas mixtures by swing adsorption.
BHADRA (USPGPUB 2020/0054987) teach rapid cycle pressure swing adsorption which involves feeding, equalization depressurization, counter-current depressurization, counter-current purge, and re-pressurization.
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 MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771