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 amendment filed January 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 85-88 remain pending in the application. Claim 92 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed January 2nd, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 85 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12083471 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 85 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed January 2nd, 2026, with regards to the rejection of claim 92, which has since been cancelled and incorporated into claim 85, under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fowler does not relate to a retrofitting process and any motivation to combine the teachings of Sharma and Fowler would be based on impermissible hindsight. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 2nd, 2025, Sharma teaches that it is considered well-known to use internally insulated adsorption vessels (¶0009 “Many heavy hydrocarbon adsorbents are operated in thermal swing adsorption processes with a relatively fast cycle time and with internally insulated vessels to minimize the use of desorption gas.”). Sharma is silent to the configuration of such insulation and does not teach wherein the step of retrofitting further comprises installing internal insulation. However, Fowler teaches an adsorbent bed assembly for the separation of gaseous mixtures (Abstract “The disclosure provides for an adsorbent bed assembly for separation of gaseous mixtures.”) that comprises both inner and outer layers of compressible insulation (Fig. 17, insulation layers 150 and 152) in order to minimize heat loss and prevent gas within the adsorbent bed from bypassing the adsorbent material (¶0070 “Inner compressible insulation layer 150 and outer compressible insulation layer 152 may function to minimize heat loss from the modules of adsorbent material 136, to eliminate the occurrence of gas within adsorbent bed assembly 100 from bypassing around the modules of adsorbent material”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Sharma to further include the insulation material as taught by Fowler to eliminate excess heat loss and prevent any gas from bypassing the adsorbent. Furthermore, Fowler teaches that the insulation layers may be adhered to the adsorbent material to hold said material in place (¶0059 “In some aspects, adsorbent material 136 is engaged with outer compressible insulation that is positioned on the outer diameter thereof, inner compressible material insulation that is positioned on the inner diameter thereof, or combinations thereof … inner and outer compressible insulation layers 150 and 152 may be adhered with adsorbent material 136”). With the inclusion of the insulation material as taught by Fowler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the adsorbent bed of Sharma to include a similar configuration as Fowler. With this modification, it would be obvious that the step of retrofitting the adsorbent would further include installing the internal insulation as the materials would be adhered to one another.
Applicant argues that there is no reasonable expectation for success for applying the insulation of Fowler to the system of Sharma because Fowler includes anti-telescoping devices. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although Fowler’s apparatus as a whole includes anti-telescoping devices, these components are not essential to the functionality or the installation of the insulation material. In ¶0059 of Fowler it is explicitly disclosed how the insulation materials interact with the adsorbent material with no mention of the anti-telescoping devices whatsoever. The anti-telescoping devices are not a crucial component to the installation of or the use of the insulation material.
The Applicant additionally argues that Fowler does not constitute analogous art because it is not directed towards the presently claimed method in its entirety. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Fowler is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Fowler and the instant application are classified in B01D53 and are therefore in the same field.
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 85-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0184329 A1 to Sharma et al. (hereinafter referred to as Sharma), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2020/0346162 A1 to Fowler et al. (hereinafter referred to as Fowler).
Regarding claim 85, Sharma teaches a method of removing water from a gas feed stream comprising hydrocarbons and water during an adsorption step of an adsorption cycle (¶0001 “This invention relates generally to process for removing contaminants from a natural gas feed stream”), the method comprising: directing the gas feed stream having an initial water mole fraction toward an adsorbent bed (Fig. 1, acid lean natural gas feed 22 is passed to adsorbent vessels 26), the adsorbent bed comprising: a first adsorbent layer comprising an adsorbent that is preferentially selective for C6+ hydrocarbons (¶0033 “As used herein “heavy hydrocarbons” means C5+ hydrocarbons” ; ¶0040 “the first adsorbent particles 28 in the vessels 26 of the dehydration unit 24 is removed and replaced with second adsorbent particles 40 having a selectivity for heavy hydrocarbons.” ; As can be seen in Fig. 2A, Sharma teaches an embodiment in which the second adsorbent particles 40 are at the top of the adsorbent bed and therefore would read on the limitation of “the first adsorbent layer” of the instant application) and comprises one or more of an amorphous silica adsorbent, an amorphous silica-alumina adsorbent, or a high-silica zeolite adsorbent (¶0041 “The second adsorbent particles 40 may be activated alumina, high silica zeolite, silica gel, activated carbon, molecular sieve or zeolite adsorbent”); and a second adsorbent layer downstream from the first adsorbent layer, the second adsorbent layer comprising a zeolite (¶0037 “The first adsorbent particles 28 may be a molecular sieve such as a zeolite molecular sieve” ; Fig. 2A, adsorbent particles 28 are downstream from adsorbent particles 40), the method further comprising: prior to directing the gas feed stream toward the adsorbent bed, retrofitting the adsorbent bed (¶0008 “According to the processes of the present invention, the existing dehydration unit, have a first adsorbent for water, is retrofitted with a second adsorbent to also remove heavy hydrocarbons.”) by removing and replacing at least a portion of a previously present adsorbent with one or more of the first adsorbent layer or the second adsorbent layer (Abstract “A portion of the dehydration adsorbent is removed from the vessels of the dehydration unit and is replaced with an adsorbent for heavy hydrocarbons.”). Sharma teaches that it is considered well-known to use internally insulated adsorption vessels (¶0009 “Many heavy hydrocarbon adsorbents are operated in thermal swing adsorption processes with a relatively fast cycle time and with internally insulated vessels to minimize the use of desorption gas.”). Sharma is silent to the configuration of such insulation and does not teach wherein the step of retrofitting further comprises installing internal insulation.
However, Fowler teaches an adsorbent bed assembly for the separation of gaseous mixtures (Abstract “The disclosure provides for an adsorbent bed assembly for separation of gaseous mixtures.”) that comprises both inner and outer layers of compressible insulation (Fig. 17, insulation layers 150 and 152) in order to minimize heat loss and prevent gas within the adsorbent bed from bypassing the adsorbent material (¶0070 “Inner compressible insulation layer 150 and outer compressible insulation layer 152 may function to minimize heat loss from the modules of adsorbent material 136, to eliminate the occurrence of gas within adsorbent bed assembly 100 from bypassing around the modules of adsorbent material”). Furthermore, Fowler teaches that the insulation layers may be adhered to the adsorbent material to hold said material in place (¶0059 “In some aspects, adsorbent material 136 is engaged with outer compressible insulation that is positioned on the outer diameter thereof, inner compressible material insulation that is positioned on the inner diameter thereof, or combinations thereof … inner and outer compressible insulation layers 150 and 152 may be adhered with adsorbent material 136”).
Sharma and Fowler are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas separation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Sharma to further include the insulation material as taught by Fowler to eliminate excess heat loss and prevent any gas from bypassing the adsorbent. With the inclusion of the insulation material as taught by Fowler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the adsorbent bed of Sharma to include a similar configuration as Fowler. With this modification, it would be obvious that the step of retrofitting the adsorbent would further include installing the internal insulation as the materials would be adhered to one another.
Regarding claim 86, Sharma and Fowler teach the method as applied to claim 85 above. Sharma further teaches wherein the gas feed stream is a natural gas feed stream (Fig. 1, natural gas feed stream 14).
Regarding claim 87, Sharma and Fowler teach the method as applied to claim 85 above. Sharma further teaches forming a liquefied natural gas product from the gas feed stream after leaving the adsorbent bed (Fig. 1, liquified natural gas 12 is formed after passing through adsorbent vessel 26).
Claim 88 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma and Fowler as applied to claim 85 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2012/0222552 A1 to Ravikovitch et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ravikovitch).
Regarding claim 88, Sharma and Fowler teach the method as applied to claim 85 above. Sharma further teaches forming a natural gas liquified feed stream from the gas feed stream after leaving the adsorbent bed (Fig. 1, liquified natural gas 12 is formed after passing through adsorbent vessel 26). Sharma does not disclose the exact composition of said natural gas liquid feed stream and, more specifically, does not teach that the natural gas stream comprises C2+ or C3+ hydrocarbons.
However, Ravikovitch teaches an adsorption process for the separation of heavy hydrocarbons from natural gas streams (Abstract "In particular, the present invention relates to a pressure-temperature swing adsorption process for the separation of C2+ hydrocarbons from natural gas streams to obtain a high purity methane product stream."), wherein a C2+ or C3+ natural gas liquid feed stream is formed from the gas feed stream after passing through an adsorbent bed (110090 "A stream of natural gas being conducted via line 10 to a swing adsorption process unit of the present invention A was modeled to flow into the feed input end of an adsorbent bed within the process unit."; Fig. 1 depicts three separate products, C2, C3, and C4+, formed from a recovery process unit R after passing through an adsorption process unit A). Ravikovitch further teaches that the PTSA processes can be used to produce high purity gas product streams that meet commercial specifications for resale (10017 "Such PTSA processes can optionally produce several relatively low pressure streams, including but not limited to sales quality ethane and propane streams. This can greatly reduce the number of cryogenic separation units required for full fractionation and recovery of all NGL components and, in some cases disclosed herein, can eliminate the need for cryogenic separation units to obtain high purity gas product streams that meet commercial and/or pipeline specifications.").
Sharma, Fowler, and Ravikovitch are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas separation. 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 Sharma and Fowler to further include the recovery process unit as taught by Ravikovitch to allow for the recovery of high purity C2, C3, and C4+ natural gas liquid feed streams. The utilization of the recovery process unit would yield product streams that meet commercial and/or pipeline specifications that would allow for subsequent resale of said high purity products.
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 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