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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to a method of removing hydrogen sulfide, vapor phase thiols, carbonyl sulfide, classified in B01D2257/304.
II. Claims 13-21, drawn to a system, classified in B01D53/02.
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used for wastewater treatment or carbonization.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The above noted inventions designated by Groups I and II have acquired a separate status in the art as evidenced by their different classification, they have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and a completed search of both inventions would necessitate different fields of search. For at least these reasons, a concerted search of both groups of inventions would impose an undue burden upon the office.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Blake Ronnebaum on 12/23/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-21 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation “M(µ3-O)” in the formular in claim 1 renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what “µ3” stand for and it is also unclear if “O” stand for oxygen. Additionally, “M” is not defined.
The limitations “R-SH”, in claim 1 renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if R is hydrocarbon or hydrogen.
The limitations “RSSR”, in claim 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if R is hydrocarbon or hydrogen and S is sulfur.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Veal et al. US 11779902.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Veal et al. teaches methods for the treatment hydrocarbon streams by the removal of mercaptan sulfur compounds. The reference teaches extraction and sweetening of mercaptan sulfur (thiols) from hydrocarbon streams, aqueous liquids, and gases. The reference uses an activated carbon composition with a basic iron (III) acetate complex bonded to the internal surface of the activated carbon (Col. 2, lines 55-64). The iron complex is further defined as [Fe3(m3-O)]. This reads on the claimed formula where M is Fe. The central shared oxygen atom is the base out of plane ligand and the other (trans) out of plane position is occupied by an orbital with two unpaired Fe electrons (Col. 5, lines 1-3). The activated carbon with the surface complex of the reference reads on that of the claims.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the reference does not form sulfur oxides but instead teaches that the R-SH thiols are converted directly to RSSR disulfides (Col. 9, lines 45-48).
Regarding claim 4, the Veal et al. reference teaches the formula for the tri nuclear iron complex as containing the acetate anion group, [Fe3(μ−O)(OAc)6(H2O)3] which is being bonded to the activated carbon surface (See Col. 4, lines 43-47). The “OAc” is the acetate also defined as “CH3CO2” (See Col. 4, line 50). The structure is bound to the activated carbon (Col. 3, line 47) and the ligands without covalent bonds are capable of being exchanged onto the Fe atoms (Col. 5, lines 3-14). This indicates that the ligands can be donated and the claimed formula of claim 4 is taught by the reference.
Regarding claim 5, the reference teaches that the activated carbon substrate with a bound iron complex, can be used to quantitatively, through oxidation, convert the reactive mercaptan (R-S-H) sulfur compounds (See Col. 7, lines 57-65), into disulfide (R-S-S-R) non-reactive hydrocarbon soluble sulfur compounds, without the need of an aqueous caustic phase. For example, the conversion of butyl mercaptan (C4H9SH) directly into butyl disulfide (C8H18S2). This indicates that the activated carbon surface has the CH3CO2- group which is an unsaturated olefin and the hydrogen group is extracted from the R-S-H group to convert it into R-S-S-R.
Regarding claim 6, the reference teaches washed lignite activated carbon (Col. 6, line 8).
Regarding claim 7, pre-filtration/treatment is taught (Col. 8, line 10).
Regarding claim 8, Veal et al. teaches regenerating the activated carbon using a low boiling hydrogen carbon solvent (Col. 11, line 66).
Regarding claim 11, the reference teaches not adding an aqueous caustic phase (Col. 3, line 39-45).
Regarding claim 12, the reference teaches using the composition to treat sulfur containing hydrocarbon streams in the absence of an oxygen injection (Col. 10, lines 3-8).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veal et al. US 11779902, in view of Savage et al. US 5454933.
Regarding claim 9, Veal et al. does not teach using xylene or toluene to regenerate the activated carbon complex after capturing sulfur compounds. The reference teaches regeneration using a hydrocarbon solvent but is silent on which specific solvents are used (Col. 11, line 66).
Savage et al. teaches capturing sulfur compounds using an adsorbent (Col. 1, lines 58-60). The adsorbent is activated carbon (Col. 2, line 34). The spent activated carbon is regenerated using toluene to desorb the sulfur compounds (Col. 2, lines 38-41). The reference clarifies that both toluene and xylene can be used by toluene is preferred (Col. 3 lines 58-66).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use the toluene regenerating solvent of Savage to desorb sulfur compounds from the spent activated carbon complex of Veal. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP §2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5.
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.
/SYED T IQBAL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736