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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 6th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tanaka teaches a control strategy contrary to the claimed invention, asserting that there is a regulation of internal pressure to maintain temperature, as opposed to the claimed invention’s permitting pressure to vary as a consequence of vapor outflow control. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Tanaka teaches controlling a temperature of a fluid in a reclaimer vessel by allowing a fixed volume of a vapor output stream to exit the reclaimer vessel (¶0113 “In this operation when the on-off valve V5 is narrowed down to control the pressure such that the first reference temperature T1 is maintained at a target temperature, the pressure of the reclaimer 106a may gradually increase and reach the upper limit value of the prescribed operation pressure of the reclaimer 106a.” (emphasis added)). Applicant argues that Tanaka does not read on the claimed limitation because Tanaka teaches regulation of pressure to maintain a target temperature “rather than the claimed permitting pressure to vary as a consequence of vapor outflow control.” (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed May 6th, 2026) However, regardless of the intent of the invention (venting vapor to control the pressure which affects temperature or venting vapor to control the temperature which affects pressure), the outcome is the same and the instant application is therefore not patentably distinct over the prior art. Although the pressure of Tanaka is also a variable which can be controlled, this does not prevent the invention of Tanaka from reading on the limitation of “controlling a temperature of a fluid in a reclaimer vessel by allowing a fixed volume of a vapor output stream to exit the reclaimer vessel, thereby causing pressure within the reclaimer vessel to vary.”
Applicant argues that Tanaka does not teach or suggest a “vapor-centric approach” wherein one regulates the temperature directly by adjusting vapor outflow while allowing pressure to fluctuate and asserts that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that temperature, pressure, and vapor output are all related variables without the context of Applicant’s disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrian (US 2019/0060779 A1), and further in view of Tanaka (US 2020/0368674 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Andrian teaches a method for reclaiming one or more amine agents (¶0006 “In certain embodiments, the disclosed technology includes a method for reclaiming one or more amine agents”) the method comprising: controlling a temperature of a fluid in a reclaimer vessel (¶0006 “In certain embodiments, the disclosed technology includes a method for reclaiming one or more amine agents, the method comprising: controlling temperature of a fluid in a vessel”), wherein the fluid comprises one or more degradation products that have been formed from reaction of one or more amine agents with one or more acid gas components (¶0006 “wherein the fluid comprises one or more degradation products that have been formed from reaction of the one or more amine agents with one or more gases (e.g., one or more acid gases”) and the vapor output stream comprises one or more amine agents (¶0040 “Water and amine agent vapors form due to the elevated temperature and exit vessel 108 through outlet 110.”). Andrian does not teach wherein the temperature of the fluid in the reclaimer vessel is controlled by allowing a fixed amount of water vapor output stream to exit the reclaimer vessel, thereby causing pressure within the reclaimer vessel to vary.
However, Tanaka teaches an acid gas removal apparatus with a reclaimer (¶0002 “The present invention relates to an acid gas removal apparatus including a reclaiming device”), wherein the temperature of the reclaimer vessel is controlled by allowed a fixed volume of a vapor output stream to exit the reclaimer vessel (¶0020 “regulation of the pressure with the reclaimer control device is performed by regulating a throttle valve installed in the recovered vapor discharge pipe.”), thereby causing pressure within the reclaimer vessel to vary (¶0017 “the reclaimer control device performs pressure control of regulating the pressure in the reclaimer such that a reference temperature is maintained” ; ¶0107 “For this reason, when the temperature decreases, the pressure is regulated (specifically, the on-off valve V5 is narrowed down) to increase the internal pressure, which causes the pressure to increase” (emphasis added)).
Andrian and Tanaka are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of acid gas removal and sorbent regeneration. 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 as taught by Andrian to further include the reclaimer control device as taught by Tanaka in order to control the temperature within the reclaimer vessel while allowing for the pressure to vary to ensure a specific concentration of the vapor output stream is met (in the case of Andrian, the vapor output stream contains amine agents). While efficient recovery of the amine agents is beneficial from an energy perspective, adjusting the concentration of the vapor output can also ensure that the recovered amine agent is within a specific concentration for the purpose of resale or recycling, increasing the cost effectiveness of the system as well.
Regarding claim 2, Andrian and Tanaka teach the method as applied to claim 1 above. Andrian further teaches wherein at least one of the one or more degradation products of the fluid is bis(hydroxyetyhlethoxy)-urea (BHEEU) (¶0006 “wherein the fluid comprises one or more degradation products” ; ¶0025 “As used herein, the term “degradation product” refers to chemical species that form from reaction with an amine agent. It will be appreciated that degradation products as a term of art includes, for example, both products of a reaction of an amine agent and another species during gas sweetening (e.g., BHEEU)”).
Regarding claim 3, Andrian and Tanka teach the method as applied to claim 1 above. Andrian further teaches wherein the one or more amine agents are selected from the group consisting of: diglycolamine (DGA), 2-2-aminoethoxyethanol, monoethanolamine (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA), diisopropanolamine (DIPA), triethanolamine (TEA), methyldiethanolamine (MDEA), 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP), piperazine (PZ), and combinations thereof (¶0021 “In certain embodiments of systems and methods disclosed herein, the one or more amine agents comprises at least one of diglycolamine (DGA), monoethanolamine (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA), diisopropanolamine (DIPA), triethanolamine (TEA), methyldiethanolamine (MDEA), 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP), and piperazine (PZ).”).
Regarding claim 4, Andrian and Tanaka teach the method as applied to claim 1 above. Andrian further teaches wherein the one or more acid gas components are selected from the group consisting of: carbon dioxide (CO2), carbonyl sulfide (COS), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon disulfide (CS2), and combinations thereof (¶0006 “wherein the fluid comprises one or more degradation products that have been formed from reaction of the one or more amine agents with one or more gases (e.g., one or more acid gases (e.g., wherein the one or more acid gases comprises at least one of CO2, COS, CO, H2S, and CS2)).”).
Regarding claim 5, Andrian and Tanaka teach the method as applied to claim 4 above. Andrian further teaches wherein the vapor output stream further comprises carbon dioxide (CO2) (; ¶0047 “Systems and methods disclosed herein are used to covert degradation products reversibly formed from one or more amine agents into reclaimed, useable amine agent. Degradation products are formed from reaction of an amine agent with one or more acid gases. For example, the one or more gases may comprise at least one of CO2, COS, CO, H2S, and CS2.” ; when the acid gas used is CO2, it will be a part of the degradation products and will therefore be present in the vapor output stream).
Regarding claim 6, Andrian and Tanaka teach the method as applied to claim 1 above. Andrian further teaches wherein the temperature of the fluid is maintained between about 355⁰F to about 365⁰F (¶0021 “the temperature of the fluid is decreased, increased, or both, during the period of time, in order to maintain the temperature within between about 355⁰F and about 365⁰F.”).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights