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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (371 of PCT/CN2020/115855, filed 09/17/2020) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 17 December 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 11 and 14 have addressed the Claim Objections of Claims 11 and 14; these objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 11-14 and 16 have addressed the rejections of Claims 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite; these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 11 with respect to the rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEN et al. (CN 108328761 A) are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that as amended Claim 11 now requires the limitation “a separation accuracy of D85=0.1 µm” which is not “a conventional technical means in the art and is not an expected/inherent result from the practice of the claimed method” (pg. 6, last paragraph). Applicant then provides a FIG. 1(a) and a FIG. 1(b) presumably in support of an argument that the claimed fluidized bed separation process enables the “separation medium itself [to] mechanically trap particles” and for “the oil droplets attached to its surface [to] also become efficient dynamic capture sites under flow conditions” due to the presence of micro eddies on the surface of oil droplets “significantly enhanc[ing] the migration efficiency and adsorption capacity of the particles” (pg. 6-7, FIG. 1(a)). FIG. 1(b) apparently shows that “this mechanism effectively maintains the chemical stability inside the oil droplet, avoiding degradation such as viscosity increase and density change due to excessive particle loading, thereby ensuring the effectiveness of the oil droplet as a "dynamic capture unit" in long-term operation” under higher shear (pg.7, FIG. 1(b)).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Even if arguendo Applicant’s presented evidence is factual and accurate, the description/analysis of particle behavior is merely describing the properties and mechanism of said claimed filter material particulates under the fluidized bed conditions claimed, of which the prior art explicitly teaches. Even though the prior art fails to explicitly cite a separation accuracy of D85 of 0.1 µm, the prior art does explicitly teach each and every other limitation of independent Claim 11. “[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.” (Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP §2112 II). In this case, while the Examiner appreciates Applicant’s carefully reasoned explanation of the granular bed’s capturing mechanism and efficiency, such a discovery does not overcome the fact that the prior art simply teaches the claimed method steps by which said fluidized granular bed is generated. The instant limitation of “a separation accuracy of D85 of 0.1 µm” is inherent.
Furthermore, while the Examiner again appreciates Applicant’s explanation, such arguments have no nexus with the instantly claimed limitation. There is nothing in the evidence that pertains to a separation accuracy of D85 much less a separation accuracy D85 having a value of 0.1 µm. Applicant or patent owner bears the burden of establishing a nexus between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140, 40 USPQ 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Nexus is presumed when the applicant or patent owner shows that the asserted objective evidence of record is tied to a certain product and that product includes the claimed features, and is coextensive with them. See Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373, 2019 USPQ2d 483355 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 373 (2020). See MPEP 716.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEN et al. (CN 108328761 A; published 27 July 2018; machine translation provided and referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 11, CHEN discloses a method for treating the washing water of methanol-to-olefin processes (abstract); said washing water contains high oil content and entrained catalyst fine grains (pg. 5, bottom). The washing water is first subjected to a micro-rotational flow separator 5; the separated washing water is then treated by a fluidized bed separator 7 (pg. 6, top; pg.8-9; FIG. 2). Fluidized bed separator 7 experiences up to 0.30 MPa pressure drop (pg. 7, bottom). Washing water is also used to backwash and fluidize/boil the fluidized bed separator (pg. 6, top) with optional nitrogen gas mixed into the backwashing water (pg. 6, middle) at an overall flow rate of 50-90 m3/hr (pg. 6, bottom); such an action releases intercepted catalyst and clears dirt contained in the fluidized bed material thereby ensuring continuous and stable operation (pg. 6, top, middle). Subsequently, the resultant mixture generated by backwashing is processed through a three-phase separation, and the filter material is returned to the bed layer, the backwashing liquid containing entrained catalyst is discharged from the top of the separator, and backwash gas is released through a gas outlet (pg. 6-7; pg. 8-9). Afterward, the fluidized bed separator is switched to a normal working state (pg. 8, middle).
Regarding the limitation “separation accuracy is D85 = 0.1 µm”, even though the prior art fails to explicitly cite a separation accuracy of D85 of 0.1 µm, the prior art does explicitly teach each and every other limitation of independent Claim 11. “[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.” (Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP §2112 II). In this case, while Applicant may certainly claim the mechanism by which a fluidized granular bed operates, such a discovery does not overcome the fact that the prior art simply teaches the claimed method steps by which said fluidized granular bed is generated. The instant limitation of “a separation accuracy of D85 of 0.1 µm” is inherent.
Regarding Claim 15, CHEN discloses the method of Claim 11. CHEN further discloses the granular bed medium is a polymorphous-shaped filter material having grain diameter 0.2 to 3 mm with a higher waste containing rate for lower spherical index and smaller grain size and a higher rotational regeneration efficiency for higher spherical index and larger particle size (pg. 4, middle).
[AltContent: textbox (BUFFER
TANK)][AltContent: textbox (COOLER)][AltContent: textbox (STRIPPING
TOWER)][AltContent: textbox (WATER WASHING
TOWER)][AltContent: textbox (MICRO-ROTATIONAL
FLOW SEPARATOR)][AltContent: textbox (FLUIDIZED BED
SEPARATOR)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al. (CN 108328761 A) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of CHANG et al. (CN 109456431 A; machine translation provided and referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 12, CHEN discloses the method of Claim 11. CHEN discloses that the washing water after fluidized bed separator 7 is temporarily stored in buffer tank 8 and is either then sent to a stripping tower 10 for stripping or sent to a cooler 9 for recycle to water washing tower 4 (pg. 8-9). However, CHEN is deficient in explicitly disclosing sending a part of the washing water treated by the fluidized bed separator to a reboiler under a
propylene rectification column of an olefin separating device as a heat source for partial recovery of residual heat of the washing water, and returning it to the water washing tower after heat exchange.
CHANG discloses a closed-loop production method for polyolefins utilizing a methanol-to-olefin process (abstract). Washing water from an olefin separation device is sent through a three-phase separator; recovered washing water is recycled back to the olefin separation device via a reboiler under a propylene rectification tower. (pg. 17, bottom). Advantageously, such a recycle enables the recovery of waste heat from the recycled washing water (pg. 17, bottom). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the reboiler under a propylene rectification tower taught by CHANG for the cooler in the recycle line of the method taught by CHEN.
Regarding Claim 13, modified CHEN makes obvious the method of Claim 12. CHEN further discloses the working temperature of the methanol-to-olefin washing water is 85 °C or higher, the content of solid catalyst particles is 0.1 to 1.0 g/L, an average particle diameter of the solid catalyst particles is 0.5 to 5 µm, and the water washing oil content is 200 to 700 mg/L (pg. 4, middle).
Regarding Claim 14, modified CHEN makes obvious the method of Claim 13. CHEN further discloses after treatment by the fluidized bed separator, the water content in the oil phase is reduced to less than 10%, the oil content is reduced below 30 mg/L, and the suspended solids content is reduced to less than 20 mg/L (pg. 4, middle).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al. (CN 108328761 A) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of KOJIMA et al. (US 2006/0283806 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, CHEN discloses the method of Claim 11. CHEN further discloses the washing water enters from the bottom of the fluidized bed separator at 10 to 20 m/hr flowrate (likely m3/hr given context; pg. 4, bottom). CHEN further discloses the backflushing liquid is discharged after gravity settling, and the lower layer waste is then dehydrated for recovery/recycling (pg. 4, bottom). However, CHEN is deficient in explicitly disclosing pressure filtration for dewatering the water-containing waste.
KOJIMA discloses a wastewater treatment process (abstract). KOJIMA further discloses that sludge generated after solid-liquid separations is typically subject to dewatering using a pressure filtration dewatering apparatus; such a practice is so common as to be considered routine in dewatering/wastewater treatment fields (p0006). The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP §2143.01 D). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize pressure filtration as taught by KOJIMA for the dewatering step disclosed by CHEN.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 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, 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777