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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 14–25 in the reply filed on Jun. 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
The entire claim set is objected because of inconsistently used terms such as “desolventized liquid” in claim 2 and “stream of desolventized liquid” as recited in claim 1, please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Additionally, the subsequently recited terms need to include the article “the”. For example, in claim 2, the term “solvent” should be “the solvent”. Please fix similar issues throughout the claim set to ensure all terms are consistently used. Similar issue with step d), step f), etc.
The limitation of “the stripping mediums” in claim 3 should be “the first and second stripping mediums”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1–13 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the limitation of “a stream of solvent laden” in step (e) seems unfinished, and it is therefore unclear what is the complete form. Claim 1 is also indefinite because it is unclear if the second recited “a stream of partially desolventized liquid in step (e) is the same as that recited in step (b). Similar issue with the limitation of “a stream of desolventized liquid” recited in (f), it is unclear if this term is the same as that recited in step (b).
Claims 2–13 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 7 is indefinite because the term “the solvent extraction plant” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation after “even preferably” meant to further limit.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Applicant Admitted Prior Art—Fig. 1 of the instant Spec. (“AAPA”)1 in view of Good et al., US 3,503,854 A (“Good”).
Regarding claim 1:
AAPA discloses that a continuous process (Fig. 1, Spec. [0009]) for improving the efficiency of solvent vapors absorption system (Fig. 1 is the current state-of-the art solvent vapors adsorption system 100, Spec. Fig. 1, [0009]), said solvent vapors absorption system including at least a scrubber (scrubber 101, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]), a medium vacuum stripper (stripper 102, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]), said continuous process comprising the following steps:
a) providing a stream of air/solvent vapors (air/solvent vapors stream 103, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]) resulting from one or more item(s) of a solvent extraction facility processing vegetable oleaginous material (Spec. [0009]),
b) providing a stream of a liquid (partially desolventized liquid introduced at the top 105, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]) circulating in said solvent vapors absorption system (101 Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]),
said liquid being in at least three different forms i.e., a desolventized liquid, a partially desolventized liquid (105, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]) and a solvent laden liquid (106, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]),
c) providing a first stream of stripping medium (striping medium 111, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]),
d) contacting counter-currently (see Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]), within the scrubber (101, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]), the stream of air/solvent vapors (103 of AAPA) to the desolventized liquid stream (105 of AAPA) to obtain a stream of solvent laden (106, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]) and a stream of desolventized air (107, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]),
e) contacting counter-currently (see Fig. 1, Spec. [0010]), within said medium vacuum stripper (102, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]), said stream of solvent laden liquid (106 of AAPA, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]) with the stream of the first stripping medium (111, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]) to obtain a stream of partially desolventized liquid (112, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]) and a first stream of solvent and water vapors (113 Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]).
AAPA does not disclose the claimed limitation of “a deep vacuum stripper”. AAPA does not disclose a second stream of stripping medium. AAPA also does not disclose a step of f) contacting counter-currently within the deep vacuum stripper, the stream of partially desolventized liquid to the second stream of stripping medium to obtain a second stream of solvent and water vapors, and a stream of desolventized liquid which is used in step d).
In the analogous art of stripping system for removing residual solvent-extracted oil, Good discloses a two-stage stripping system for removing residual solvent from solvent extracted oil in which both stages are operated at sub-atmospheric pressure, with the first stage have relatively high pressure and second stage with relatively lower pressure, Good Fig. 1, col. 1, ll. 11–20. Good discloses a deep vacuum stripper (Good’s lower section of stripper 20, Good Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 21–24), a second stream of stripping medium (Good’s sparge steam line 11, Good Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 24–29), the stream of partially desolventized liquid (Good’s liquid miscella reaches upper collection port 18, Good Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 14–18) enters Good’s lower section of stripper 20 via valve 26 (Good Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 49–51) to obtain a second stream of stripping solvent and water vapors (Good discloses its lower contacting section is built similarly to upper contact section 14, and it is configured to complete the stripping of solvent, Good Fig. 1, col. 4, l. 19–29; it is therefore understood that there is a second stream of stripping solvent and water vapors) and a stream of desolventized liquid (liquid in second collection pot 32, Good Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 20–24). Good discloses its invention removes the last fractional percent of solvent producing quality crude oil, Good Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 25–28. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a deep vacuum stripper in addition to the medium vacuum stripper for the benefits disclosed. With such modification, modified AAPA would its stream of desolventized liquid (similar to that from Good’s second collection pot 32) in AAPA’s step d the same way as AAPR feed its stream 112 back to step (d), Spec. Fig. 1, [0010].
Regarding claim 2:
Modified AAPA discloses that a continuous process according to claim 1 wherein said stream of desolventized air obtained in step d) contains less than 0.1% (w/w) of solvent (Spec. Fig. 1, [0063]).
Modified AAPA does not explicitly disclose wherein the desolventized liquid obtained in step f) contains less than 0.02% (w/w) of solvent.
However, modified AAPA discloses that without a second stage vacuum stripper, its partially desolventized liquid 112 contains more than 0.1% of solvent. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that when a second stage vacuum stripper is added, the desolventized liquid obtained would contain less than 0.1 % (w/w) of solvent, such range overlapping the claimed range of less than 0.02% (w/w) of solvent. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the solvent content in the desolventized liquid such that more solvent is recovered, which is both economically and environmentally favorable.
Furthermore, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed solvent composition range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 3:
Modified AAPA discloses that a continuous process according to claim 1 wherein the stripping mediums contain steam (Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]).
Regarding claim 4:
Modified AAPA discloses that a continuous process according to claim 1 wherein the vacuum of the deep vacuum stripper is created with an electrical vacuum pump, or a water ring pump, or a steam ejector (Good Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 34–39).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified AAPA discloses that a continuous process according to claim 1 wherein the vacuum of the deep vacuum stripper (Good’s lower contacting section 20, Good Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 19–24) is created with a steam ejector (Good’s high vacuum ejector 22, Good Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 30–34) for which the first stripping medium (Good discloses as steam), serves as motive steam of said steam ejector (Good Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 30–62), and wherein the second stream of solvent and water vapors obtained in step f) is merged with the first stripping medium by means of said steam ejector (as shown in arrow underneath label 44, Good Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified AAPA discloses that a continuous process according to claim 1 wherein the first stripping medium can contain solvent and water vapors (as shown by Good’s arrow beneath label 44, it contains solvent and steam, Good Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7:
Modified AAPA discloses that a continuous process according to claim 1 wherein the first stream of solvent and water vapors obtained in step e) is condensed in a dedicated vacuum condenser (Good’s condenser I, Good Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 44–46), which is independent from the rest of the solvent extraction plant, to recover a solvent phase and an aqueous phase (as shown in Good Fig. 1, the condenser is an independent instrument, with hexane vapor being the solvent phase and conduit 12 comprising an aqueous phase, Good Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 44–49).
Regarding claim 8:
Modified AAPA discloses that a continuous process according to claim 1 wherein the desolventized liquid is cooled at a temperature ranging between 10°C and 30°C, and even preferably ranging between 10°C and 20°C prior being used in the scrubber (AAPA discloses it’s a heat exchanger 109, cools the streams between 10 to 30 degree C, Spec. Fig. 1, [0009]).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified AAPA discloses that a continuous process according to claim 1 wherein the liquid contains at least 95% (w/w) of mineral oil, white medicinal mineral oil, synthetic oil, refined vegetable oil or any blends thereof (AAPA discloses its desolventized liquid is usually mineral oil, and it usually contains more than 0.1% of solvent, which means the desolventized liquid is more less than 99.9%, overlapping the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I), Spec. Fig. 1, [0015]).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified AAPA discloses that a continuous process according to claim 1 wherein the stream of air/solvent vapors provided in step a) is produced from any unit of an oleaginous vegetable material solvent extraction facility using hexane as solvent (Spec. Fig. 1, [0003]).
Regarding claim 11:
Modified AAPA discloses that a continuous process according to claim 1 wherein the liquid circulating in said solvent vapors absorption system is circulating in a closed loop (Spec. Fig. 1, [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12–13 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:
Regarding claim 12:
Modified AAPA discloses that a continuous process according to claim 1 wherein said first stream of solvent and water vapors (113 of AAPA) is introduced in a vacuum condenser (114 of AAPA, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]) to obtain a condensate (115 of AAPA, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]).
Modified AAPA does not disclose that the condensate being introduced in a reboiler to obtain a stream of wastewater and a stream of evaporated solvent and water vapors. It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify AAPA for the claimed limitation because none of the prior art shows or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Regarding claim 13:
Modified AAPA discloses that a continuous process according to claim 1 wherein said first stream of solvent and water vapors (113 of AAPA) is introduced in a vacuum condenser (114 of AAPA, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]) to obtain a condensate (115 of AAPA, Spec. Fig. 1, [0010]).
Modified AAPA does not disclose that the condensate being introduced in a reboiler to obtain a stream of wastewater and a stream of evaporated solvent vapors subsequently condensed to obtain a condensate which is phase separated to yield condensed solvent.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify AAPA for the claimed limitation because none of the prior art shows or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 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 Michener can be reached on (571) 270-7872424. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 The examiner relies on the instant Spec. for the mapping of AAPA.
Prosecution Insights