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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-9, 12, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 4,066,739) and further in view of Miller (US 8,022,014 B2).
With respect to claim 1, the claim requires “A method comprising: supplying a first reaction medium comprising an iodine species and a first catalyst, “Chen teaches aqueous iodine slurry and/or solution as the reaction medium for sulfur-species treatment (Chen, abstract).
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the first catalyst comprises a first deep eutectic solvent, a first ionic liquid, or a first mixture of both;” Chen does not explicitly teach that the first catalyst comprises a first deep eutectic solvent, a first ionic liquid, or a first mixture of both. However, Miller teaches deep eutectic solvents based on choline chloride and metal halides (Miller 7, line 23-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Chen, to have the first catalyst as claimed because Miller teaches that they are not water sensitive (Miller 7, line 23-30).
Claim 1 further requires “contacting the reaction medium with a first sulfur species, wherein the first sulfur species comprises hydrogen sulfide, a sulfur-containing hydrocarbon, or any combination thereof;” Chen teach gases containing H2S (Chen, abstract).
Claim 1 further requires “reacting the first sulfur species with the reaction medium to produce a second sulfur species, hydrogen iodide, or a combination thereof.” Chen teaches recovering elemental sulfur as a product and generating hydrogen iodide (Chen, abstract).
Regarding Claims 2 and 18, the claim requires catalyst that Chen does not explicitly teach. However, Miller teaches metal halide may be selected from the group consisting of aluminum chloride, zinc chloride, tin chloride, iron chloride and combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Chen, to have the first catalyst as claimed because Miller teaches that they are not water sensitive (Miller 7, line 23-30).
With respect to Claims 4 and 20, However, Chen teaches aqueous iodine slurry and/or solution (Chen, abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches iodine dissolved in aqueous iodine slurry and/or solution (Chen 2, line 6).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches dissolved hydrogen sulfide (Chen 4, line 65).
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches that hydriodic acid is decomposed to recover iodine and hydrogen (Chen 2, line 6-10).
With respect to Claim 14, the claim requires “A method comprising: supplying a first reaction medium comprising an iodine species and a first catalyst, “Chen teaches aqueous iodine slurry and/or solution as the reaction medium for sulfur-species treatment (Chen, abstract).
Claim 14 further requires “wherein the first catalyst comprises a first deep eutectic solvent, a first ionic liquid, or a first mixture of both;” Chen does not explicitly teach that the first catalyst comprises a first deep eutectic solvent, a first ionic liquid, or a first mixture of both. However, Miller teaches deep eutectic solvents deep eutectic solvents including choline chloride or chlorcholine chloride reacted with amides, amines, carboxylic acids, alcohols and/or metal halides. In (Miller 4, line 17-21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Chen, to have the first catalyst as claimed because Miller teaches that they may be used to remove cellulosic material used to thicken fracturing fluids (Miller 4, line 21-36).
Claim 14 further requires “contacting the reaction medium with a first sulfur species, wherein the first sulfur species comprises hydrogen sulfide;” Chen teaches gases containing H2S (Chen, abstract).
Claim 14 further requires “reacting the first sulfur species with the reaction medium to produce a second sulfur species, and hydrogen iodide;” Chen teaches hydrogen iodide as intermediate chemicals for hydrogen sulfide and/or mercaptans removal, and for hydrogen and sulfur recovery (Chen, abstract).
Claim 14 further requires “dispersing an aqueous fluid in the first reaction medium; decreasing the solubility of the second sulfur species in the first reaction medium with the dispersed aqueous fluid; and removing the second sulfur species from the first reaction medium hydrogen sulfide and/or mercaptans removal (Chen, abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches hydriodic acid that is decomposed into a hydrogen, iodine, and hydrogen iodide mixture (Chen 2, line 22-27).
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches recovering iodine for recycling and reusing it in the process loop (Chen 2, line 9).
With respect to claim 17, the claim requires “A system comprising: a reaction chamber; a first reaction medium contained within the reaction chamber, wherein the first reaction medium comprises an iodine species.” Chen teaches a reactor between iodine, and hydrogen sulfide and/or mercaptans (Chen 3, line 1-6).
Claim 17 further requires “wherein the first catalyst comprises a first deep eutectic solvent, a first ionic liquid, or a first mixture of both;” Chen does not explicitly teach the first catalyst comprises a first deep eutectic solvent, a first ionic liquid, or a first mixture of both. However, Miller teaches deep eutectic solvents deep eutectic solvents including choline chloride or chlorcholine chloride reacted with amides, amines, carboxylic acids, alcohols and/or metal halides. In (Miller 4, line 17-21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Chen, to have the first catalyst as claimed because Miller teaches they may be used to remove cellulosic material used to thicken fracturing fluids (Miller 4, line 21-36).
Claim 17 further requires “a first sulfur species, wherein the first sulfur species is provided to the reaction chamber, wherein the first sulfur species comprises hydrogen sulfide,” Chen teach gases containing H2S (Chen, abstract).
Claim 17 further requires “wherein the reaction of the first sulfur species with the first reaction medium produces a second sulfur species, hydrogen iodide, or a combination thereof.” Chen teaches hydrogen iodide as intermediate chemicals for hydrogen sulfide and/or mercaptans removal, and for hydrogen and sulfur recovery (Chen, abstract).
Claim(s) 3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 4,066,739) in view of US 8,022,014 to Miller, as applied to claims 1 and 17 and above, and further in view of Hamad (US 8454832 B2).
Regarding Claims 3 and 19, the method of claim 1 has been discussed above.
Claim 3 and 19 further require “ The method of claim 1, supported ionic liquids on a membrane, a supported deep eutectic solvent on a membrane, or a combination thereof.” Chen does not explicitly teach a membrane. However, Hamad teaches supported ionic liquid membrane (Hamad, abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Chen, a supported ionic liquid membrane as Hamad this solves problems encountered with removing aromatics from hydrocarbon mixtures. (Hamad 2, line 46-55).
Claim(s) 5 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (4,066,739) in view of US 8,022,014 to Miller, as applied to claim 1 above and, further in view of Van Der Ham (WO 2015088337 A1).
Regarding claim 5, claim 4 has been discussed above.
Claim 5 further requires “wherein the fluid is dissolved within the first catalyst.” Chen does not explicitly teach the fluid is dissolved within the first catalyst. However, Van Der Ham teaches diatomic halogen compound dissolved in an organic solvent (Van Der Ham 3-4, line 21-5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Chen, Important advantages of the process of the invention include the improved energy efficiency. Also good effective reaction kinetics can be
Obtained and increased flexibility with respect to the used chemicals and the process design (Van Der Ham 4, line 5).
With respect to claim 21, the claim requires “supplying a first reaction medium comprising (i) a metal chloride; a choline salt with chlorine, fluorine, or iodine; a C1-C4 ammonium halide; a C1-C4 triphosphonium halide; a halogen; or any combination thereof,” Chen does not explicitly teach this reaction medium. However, Van Der Ham teaches a diatomic halogen compound reacting with hydrogen sulphide (Van Der Ham, abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Chen, a first reaction medium with the compounds claimed because Van Der Ham teaches the advantages are energy efficiency. Also good effective reaction kinetics can be obtained (Van Der Ham 4, line 1).
Claim 21 further requires “a first catalyst, wherein the first catalyst comprises a first deep eutectic solvent, a first ionic liquid, or a first mixture of both;” Chen does not explicitly teach the first catalyst comprises a first deep eutectic solvent, a first ionic liquid, or a first mixture of both. However, Miller teaches deep eutectic solvents deep eutectic solvents including choline chloride or chlorcholine chloride reacted with amides, amines, carboxylic acids, alcohols and/or metal halides (Miller 4, line 17-21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Chen, to have the first catalyst as claimed because Miller teaches that they may be used to remove cellulosic material used to thicken fracturing fluids (Miller 4, line 21-36).
Claim 21 further requires “contacting the reaction medium with a first sulfur species, wherein the first sulfur species comprises hydrogen sulfide, a sulfur-containing hydrocarbon, or any combination thereof;” Chen teaches hydrogen iodide as intermediate chemicals for hydrogen sulfide and/or mercaptans removal, and for hydrogen and sulfur recovery (Chen, abstract).
Claim 21 further requires “reacting the first sulfur species with the reaction medium to produce a second sulfur species, hydrogen halide, or a combination thereof.” Chen teaches recovering elemental sulfur (Chen, abstract). Chen does not explicitly teach producing hydrogen halide. However, Van Der Ham teaches producing hydrogen halide and sulfur from reacting hydrogen sulphide with said diatomic halogen compound (Van Der Ham, abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Chen, to produce a second sulfur species, hydrogen halide as Van Der Ham teaches improved energy efficiency (Van Der Ham 4, line 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Chen (4,066,739), Miller (US 8,022,014 B2), Van Der Ham (WO 2015088337 A1), and Hamad (US 8454832 B2) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 1 has been discussed above. However, Kim nor the other cited prior art references teach or suggest contacting the hydrogen iodide, the second sulfur species or both with a second reaction medium comprising a second catalyst, wherein the second catalyst comprises a second deep eutectic solvent, a second ionic liquid, or a second mixture of both; separating the hydrogen iodide from the second sulfur species using the second catalyst; and sequestering the second sulfur species from the hydrogen iodide.
Claim 11 contains allowable subject matter due to its dependence on claim 10, which contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 13 contains allowable subject matter due to its dependence on claim 10, which contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 PM.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights