DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-16, 22-25, 40 and 41 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The entirety of the limitation of claim 12 can be found in claim 11, upon which claim 12 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 11-16, 22-25 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baksh USPA 2009/0320679 A1.
Regarding claims 11-13, Baksh discloses a method of removing C5+ or C6+ hydrocarbons from a gas feed stream during an adsorption step of an adsorption cycle (paragraphs 80 and 103), wherein the C5+ or C6+ compounds comprise one or more of pentane, hexane, benzene, heptane, octane, nonane, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, or neopentane (paragraphs 80 and 103), and wherein the method comprises: directing the gas feed stream having an initial mole fraction of the C5+ or C6+ hydrocarbons toward one or more adsorbent beds of one or more adsorber units, the one or more adsorbent beds comprising: a first adsorbent layer to remove C5+ or C6+ hydrocarbons from the gas feed stream, the first adsorbent layer comprising a water stable adsorbent (figure 5; paragraph 64: layer 1 is alumina, which is water stable); a second adsorbent layer downstream from the first adsorbent layer to remove additional C5+ or C6+ hydrocarbons, the second adsorbent layer comprising a microporous adsorbent (figure 5; paragraph 64: layer 2 is activated carbon, which is microporous); and a third adsorbent layer downstream from the second adsorbent layer, the third adsorbent layer comprising one or more zeolites or an additional microporous adsorbent (figure 5; paragraph 64: layer 3 is zeolite); wherein the gas feed stream has a reduced mole fraction of aromatics and/or aliphatic C8+ or C9+ hydrocarbons when the gas feed stream reaches the third adsorbent layer (paragraph 101).
Baksh does not disclose that the aromatics and or aliphatic C8+ or C9+ hydrocarbons is maintained for at least 90% of the duration of the adsorption step, and wherein the reduced mole fraction is no more than about 90% of the initial mole fraction, or wherein the reduced mole fraction prior to reaching the third adsorbent layer that is no more than about 500 ppm. Nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the amount of contaminant removed by each layer is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal contaminant reduction. MPEP 2144.05. Baksh discloses utilizing certain amounts of adsorbent in each layer (paragraph 97), which would affect the amount of contaminants removed in each layer. It would have been obvious to optimize the amount of adsorbent in each layer, which in turn would optimize the amount of contaminant removed in each layer. Furthermore, maintaining the desired amount of contaminant reduction in each layer for the majority of the adsorption step is well-known in the art and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Regarding claims 14-16, Baksh discloses a fourth adsorbent layer downstream from the first adsorbent layer and upstream from the second adsorbent layer (figure 5: there are 6 layers, so the first layer could be considered the bottom layer 1 and the second layer could be considered the top layer 2, in which case any of the bottom layers 2 and 3 or the top layer 1 could be considered the 4th layer). Baksh discloses the use of the high-silica zeolite adsorbent, ZSM-5, as one of these layers (claim 17).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Baksh discloses that the one or more zeolites comprise zeolite 5A (paragraphs 22 and 106).
Regarding claim 24, Baksh discloses that the one or more zeolites comprise zeolite 13X (paragraph 106).
Regarding claim 25, Baksh discloses the use of various zeolites (paragraph 106), but does not disclose zeolite 4A. Nevertheless, this is a well-known zeolite adsorbent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize zeolite 4A, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 40, Baksh does not disclose that the microporous adsorbent exhibits a ratio of its micropore surface area to its BET surface area of at least about 5%. Baksh does disclose optimizing the surface area depending on feed gas compositions and operating conditions (paragraph 103). Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the micropore surface area and BET surface area, and thus the ratio between the two, are considered to be general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal adsorption. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baksh USPA 2009/0320679 A1 in view of Schmidt USPN 5,746,788.
Baksh is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 41, Baksh discloses that the microporous adsorbent is activated carbon (paragraph 64), but does not disclose that the microporous adsorbent comprises amorphous SiO2. Schmidt discloses combining activated carbon with amorphous SiO2 for suitably removing benzene from a gas (see Schmidt column 3, line 64 – column 4, line 2; column 11, lines 30-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baksh, to include amorphous SiO2 with the activated carbon, as disclosed by Schmidt, since this is a known suitable adsorbent and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776