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 Arguments
The Amendment filed 18AUG2025 has been entered. No new matter has been entered. Applicant's arguments filed 18AUG2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that TROFIMUK teaches away from precipitation of solids. This is not persuasive, because TROFIMUK teaches not away from precipitation of solids, but that such solids, if they do occur, can be removed by blowdown to avoid fouling of equipment and rendering the material unpumpable.
Note that pH precipitation followed by centrifugation is known in the art (see e.g. BLY (US 20120199524) abstract.
Regarding claim 3, BURKE teaches that the dilution water may be obtained from the process effluent or any other source and as such would be obvious to use the feed stream as a diluent (C5/L45-46).
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) 1,4,7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TROFIMUK (US 9205370) in view of BEASLEY (US 5152887) and NICHOLSON (US 20220281764).
Regarding claim 8, TROFIMUK teaches a process for recovery of processing liquids (title, Figs.) including a process for recovering a processing liquid from a feed stream comprising said processing liquid (e.g. liquid amine gas absorbents), water, and dissolved solids (abstract; C2/L29-31; C3/L10; C5/L9-17), said process comprising:
providing said feed stream (e.g. Fig. 1 #1);
adjusting the pH of said feed stream (C2/L45-48; C6/L6-8), which is capable of inducing solids formation (adjusting the pH is the action step irrespective of the reasons for doing so; see also C5/L9-17 where the material contains dissolved and suspended solids); and,
introducing a portion of said feed stream into a solids-liquid separator (C5/L37-55), which naturally produces a discharge stream containing solids and a clarified stream containing liquid.
TROFIMUK is lacking details including the percent of water in the feed stream. However, differences in concentration […] will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration […] is critical (MPEP 2144.05.II.A). The concentration has not been established to provide any criticality or to provide any unexpected result/benefit over the prior art of record. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USP 215 (CCPA 1980).
TROFIMUK is lacking details including the pH. However, BEASLEY teaches a process for reclaiming a waste gas treatment chemical (title, Figs.) including gas absorbants such as a diethanolamine solution (abstract) and that the pH may be maintained at a pH of 8 or higher in order to reduce corrosion (C1/L67-C2/L2). BEASLEY’s pH range of 8 or higher overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than 9 and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the instantly claimed range from the prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the selected range.
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the pH of the feed stream of TROFIMUK’s method to be within the claimed range as taught by BEASLEY in order to reduce corrosion. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of regeneration of liquid absorbents. See MPEP 2141 III (G).
TROFIMUK is lacking details including the solids-liquid separator. However, NICHOLSON teaches a system and method for treating evaporator blowdown (title, Figs.) including removing suspended solids and other precipitants from evaporator brine through a highly efficient centrifuge including very small suspended solids that typically cannot be retained in a filter (abstract). The centrifuge is a disk stack centrifuge (par. [0006]).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the solids-liquid separator of TROFIMUK to be a disk centrifuge as taught by NICHOLSON in order to efficiently separate solids. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of liquid separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claim 1, TROFIMUK teaches a process for recovery of processing liquids (title, Figs.) including a process for recovering a processing liquid from a feed stream comprising said processing liquid (e.g. liquid amine gas absorbents), water, and dissolved solids (abstract; C2/L29-31; C3/L10; C5/L9-17), said process comprising:
providing a feed stream (e.g. Fig. 1 #1);
adjusting the pH of said feed stream (C2/L45-48; C6/L6-8), which is capable of inducing solids formation (adjusting the pH is the action step irrespective of the reasons for doing so; see also C5/L9-17 where the material contains dissolved and suspended solids);
introducing said feed stream into a first separation zone (Fig. 1 #7; C6/L18) to produce a stream comprising purified processing liquid and a residuum stream comprising solids (C6/L18-21,41-42,46,63-65);
introducing at least a portion of said residuum stream into a solids-liquid separator (C5/L37-55) which naturally produces a discharge stream containing solids and a clarified stream.
TROFIMUK is lacking details including the percent of water in the feed stream. However, differences in concentration […] will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration […] is critical (MPEP 2144.05.II.A). The concentration has not been established to provide any criticality or to provide any unexpected result/benefit over the prior art of record. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USP 215 (CCPA 1980).
TROFIMUK is lacking details including the pH. However, BEASLEY teaches a process for reclaiming a waste gas treatment chemical (title, Figs.) including gas absorbants such as a diethanolamine solution (abstract) and that the pH may be maintained at a pH of 8 or higher in order to reduce corrosion (C1/L67-C2/L2). BEASLEY’s pH range of 8 or higher overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than 9 and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the instantly claimed range from the prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the selected range.
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the pH of the feed stream of TROFIMUK’s method to be within the claimed range as taught by BEASLEY in order to reduce corrosion. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of regeneration of liquid absorbents. See MPEP 2141 III (G).
TROFIMUK is lacking details including the solids-liquid separator. However, NICHOLSON teaches a system and method for treating evaporator blowdown (title, Figs.) including removing suspended solids and other precipitants from evaporator brine through a highly efficient centrifuge including very small suspended solids that typically cannot be retained in a filter (abstract). The centrifuge is a disk stack centrifuge (par. [0006]).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the solids-liquid separator of TROFIMUK to be a disk centrifuge as taught by NICHOLSON in order to efficiently separate solids. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of liquid separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claims 4,9, TROFIMUK teaches the amine performance will decline and corrosion increases rapidly with a decline in pH (C2/L45-48) and that chemical additives including pH adjustment chemicals may be added (C6/L6-7). It is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the pH by introducing a pH adjusting additive having a basic pH in order to limit corrosion and maintain amine performance.
Regarding claim 7, TROFIMUK teaches recycling a portion of said clarified stream to said feed stream (C5/L53-55).
Claim(s) 5,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TROFIMUK (US 9205370) in view of BEASLEY (US 5152887), NICHOLSON (US 20220281764), and CONSTANTZ (US 20090169452).
Regarding claims 5,10, TROFIMUK is silent as to the pH adjusting additive. CONSTANTZ teaches methods of sequestering CO2 (title) including adding a pH adjusting additive including e.g. magnesium hydroxide (par. [0070]) in order to maintain a pH value.
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the pH adjusting additive of TROFIMUK to be magnesium hydroxide as taught by CONSTANTZ in order to maintain a pH value as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of liquid absorbents. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 6,11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TROFIMUK (US 9205370) in view of BEASLEY (US 5152887), NICHOLSON (US 20220281764), and GERMERDONK (US 4133650).
Regarding claims 6,11, TROFIMUK is silent as to the pH adjusting additive. GERMERDONK teaches removing sulfur dioxide from exhaust air (title) including adding pH adjusting additives including carbonates and hydroxides (e.g. sodium and/or potassium hydroxides and carbonates) in order to maintain a buffered pH value (C3/L17-25).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the pH adjusting additive of TROFIMUK to be hydroxides and carbonates as taught by GERMERDONK in order to maintain a pH value as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of liquid absorbents. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding the percentages of hydroxides and carbonates, differences in concentration […] will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration […] is critical (MPEP 2144.05.II.A). The concentration has not been established to provide any criticality or to provide any unexpected result/benefit over the prior art of record. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USP 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, TROFIMUK teaches recycle of flows from a solids-liquid separator (C5/L53-55) to a separation zone including a pump and flash vessel (e.g. Fig. 1 #2,7l C6/L18).
Regarding split flows (e.g. a first portion of a clarified stream and a second portion of a clarified stream), it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide various recycle streams in a separation process in order to maximize separation efficiency.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TROFIMUK (US 9205370) in view of BEASLEY (US 5152887), NICHOLSON (US 20220281764), and BURKE (US 6113786).
Regarding claims 2-3, TROFIMUK does not teach a diluent. However, BURKE teaches anaerobic treatment process with removal of inorganic material (title), where solids are separated with dilution water before centrifugation, which improves the separation (C5/L33-35,41-45,51-55,59-62). Note that the dilution water may be obtained from the process effluent or any other source and as such would be obvious to use the feed stream as a diluent (C5/L45-46).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of TROFIMUK to include a water diluent as taught by BURKE in order to improve the separation of the solids. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 13,19,22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TROFIMUK (US 9205370) in view of BEASLEY (US 5152887) and KONIGSSON (US 9266055).
Regarding claims 13,19,22, TROFIMUK teaches a process for recovery of processing liquids (title, Figs.) including a process for recovering a processing liquid from a feed stream comprising said processing liquid (e.g. liquid amine gas absorbents), water, and dissolved solids (abstract; C2/L29-31; C3/L10; C5/L9-17), said process comprising:
providing a feed stream (e.g. Fig. 1 #1);
adjusting the pH of said feed stream (C2/L45-48; C6/L6-8), which is capable of inducing solids formation (adjusting the pH is the action step irrespective of the reasons for doing so; see also C5/L9-17 where the material contains dissolved and suspended solids);
introducing a portion of a feed stream and/or residuum into a solids-liquid separator (C5/L37-55), which naturally produces to produce a first discharge stream containing solids and a first clarified stream;
introducing a portion of said first clarified stream into a first separation zone (Fig. 1 #7; C6/L18) to produce a stream comprising purified processing liquid and a residuum stream comprising solids (C6/L18-21,41-42,46,63-65).
Note also recycled streams are taught (C5/L53-55) and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art provide the appropriate stream to recycle for improved efficiency.
TROFIMUK is lacking details including the percent of water in the feed stream. However, differences in concentration […] will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration […] is critical (MPEP 2144.05.II.A). The concentration has not been established to provide any criticality or to provide any unexpected result/benefit over the prior art of record. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USP 215 (CCPA 1980).
TROFIMUK is lacking details including the pH. However, BEASLEY teaches a process for reclaiming a waste gas treatment chemical (title, Figs.) including gas absorbants such as a diethanolamine solution (abstract) and that the pH may be maintained at a pH of 8 or higher in order to reduce corrosion (C1/L67-C2/L2). BEASLEY’s pH range of 8 or higher overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than 9 and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the instantly claimed range from the prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the selected range.
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the pH of the feed stream of TROFIMUK’s method to be within the claimed range as taught by BEASLEY in order to reduce corrosion. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of regeneration of liquid absorbents. See MPEP 2141 III (G).
TROFIMUK is lacking details including the solids-liquid separator. However, KONIGSSON teaches exhaust gas and gas scrubber fluid cleaning equipment and method (title, Figs.) including an embodiment of a scrubber loop comprising a first disc centrifuge (Fig. 6 #9) and a second disc centrifuge (Fig. 6 #20’). KONIGSSON teaches that the disc centrifuge is highly efficient (C2/L39-45) and that the second centrifuge may further concentrate a discharged pollutant phase for increased efficiency (C11/L28-35).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the solids-liquid separator of TROFIMUK to be a disk centrifuge as taught by KONIGSSON in order to efficiently separate solids. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of liquid separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claim 16, TROFIMUK teaches the amine performance will decline and corrosion increases rapidly with a decline in pH (C2/L45-48) and that chemical additives including pH adjustment chemicals may be added (C6/L6-7). It is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the pH by introducing a pH adjusting additive having a basic pH in order to limit corrosion and maintain amine performance.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TROFIMUK (US 9205370) in view of BEASLEY (US 5152887), KONIGSSON (US 9266055) and BURKE (US 6113786).
Regarding claims 14-15, TROFIMUK does not teach a diluent. However, BURKE teaches anaerobic treatment process with removal of inorganic material (title), where solids are separated with dilution water before centrifugation, which improves the separation (C5/L33-35,41-45,51-55,59-62). Note that the dilution water may be obtained from the process effluent or any other source and as such would be obvious to use the feed stream as a diluent (C5/L45-46).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of TROFIMUK to include a water diluent as taught by BURKE in order to improve the separation of the solids. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TROFIMUK (US 9205370) in view of BEASLEY (US 5152887), KONIGSSON (US 9266055), and GERMERDONK (US 4133650).
Regarding claims 17-18, TROFIMUK is silent as to the pH adjusting additive. GERMERDONK teaches removing sulfur dioxide from exhaust air (title) including adding pH adjusting additives including carbonates and hydroxides (e.g. sodium and/or potassium hydroxides and carbonates) in order to maintain a buffered pH value (C3/L17-25).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the pH adjusting additive of TROFIMUK to be hydroxides and carbonates as taught by GERMERDONK in order to maintain a pH value as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of liquid absorbents. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding the percentages of hydroxides and carbonates, differences in concentration […] will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration […] is critical (MPEP 2144.05.II.A). The concentration has not been established to provide any criticality or to provide any unexpected result/benefit over the prior art of record. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USP 215 (CCPA 1980).
Telephonic Inquiries
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 LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, VICKIE KIM can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/ Examiner, Art Unit 1777