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 § 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 7-9 recites the limitation "the equilibrium channel" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends amending the claims to depend on claim 6, as the equilibrium channel is first cited in claim 6.
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, 3-6, 8, 10, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldous (US 2014/0374310) in view of Rieter (US 3,713,629).
With respect to claim 1, Aldous discloses a process for increasing a softening of pitch (asphalt), said process comprising:
providing a hydrocarbon feed including isotropic pitch having a first softening point (see paragraph 0039);
mixing the hydrocarbon feed with a carrier gas such that a mixture of the hydrocarbon feed and the carrier gas (see paragraph 0030) ,
discharging an effluent (bottom, 57) of the mixture into a separation vessel ( vessel 51) (see paragraph 0031); and
separating a vapor phase (59) and a liquid phase (57) from effluent in the separation vessel (see paragraph 0032);
wherein the liquid phase includes isotropic pitch having a second softening point greater than the first softening point (see paragraph 0017).
Aldous does not disclose wherein mixing the hydrocarbon feed with a carrier gas establishes at least one chosen from an annular-mist flow regime and a mist flow regime, wherein the annular-mist flow regime includes a liquid film layer and a dispersion of entrained droplets, wherein the mist flow regime includes a dispersion of entrained droplets, and wherein the mixture of the hydrocarbon feed and the carrier gas approaches a vapor-liquid equilibrium.
However, in a relevant disclosure for an apparatus for two-phase contact, Rieter discloses utilizing jet ejector to mix air and liquid (see col 3 lines 25-40) wherein jet ejector produces an annular mist regime to mix the liquid and air (see col 5 lines 10-25).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aldous with the claimed language in view of Rieter, as Reiter discloses that jet ejection mixing, which Aldous already performs, mixes components through the utilization of an annular mist regime.
With respect to the mixture of the hydrocarbon feed and the carrier gas approaches a vapor-liquid equilibrium, the prior combination is silent to the claimed limitation.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand that all mixtures tend towards a vapor-liquid equilibrium, wherein said principles of governing the vapor-liquid equilibrium are conventional thermodynamic fundamentals and are within the pertinent knowledge of one with ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 3, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1. Aldous further discloses wherein the isotropic pitch provided in the hydrocarbon feed has a first softening point of less than about 160 degrees centigrade (see figure 4).
With respect to claim 4-5, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Aldous further discloses wherein the liquid phase includes less than about 2 volume mesophase pitch (see table 1).
With respect to claim 6, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Aldous further discloses wherein the step of mixing the hydrocarbon feed with the carrier gas includes flowing the hydrocarbon feed and the carrier gas through an equilibrium channel (ejector jet) to establish at least one chosen from the annular-mist flow regime and the mist flow regime (see rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 8, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 6.
Aldous further discloses wherein the flow of the hydrocarbon feed and the carrier gas travels at least about one foot through the equilibrium channel (see figure 3).
With respect to claim 10, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1. Aldous further discloses coalescing the dispersion of entrained droplets with the liquid film layer prior to separating the vapor phase and the liquid phase (see figure 3, liquid level 55).
With respect to claim 14, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 10.
Aldous further discloses wherein the step of coalescing the dispersion of entrained droplets with the liquid film layer includes flowing the effluent such that the effluent establishes at least one chosen from a stratified flow regime, a slug flow regime, a plug flow regime, and a bubble flow regime to limit formation of additional entrained droplets (see figure 3, plug flow below interface 55).
With respect to claim 15, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1. Aldous further discloses wherein the separation vessel (51), operates at a temperature between 150°C to about 300°C (see paragraph 0032).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11-13, 16-19 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:
With respect to claim 2, the closest prior art Aldous (US 2014/0374310) fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the process such that the isotropic pitch in the liquid phase has a second softening point of between about 130 degrees centigrade and about 300 degrees centigrade (see figure 4, softening points are under 60°C).
With respect to claim 11-13, the closest prior art Aldous (US 2014/0374310) fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the process such that the step of discharging the effluent into the separation vessel includes flowing the effluent in a laminar flow regime through a laminar tube having an inner surface on which the liquid film layer is disposed, and wherein the step of coalescing the dispersion of entrained droplets with the liquid film layer includes contacting the dispersion of entrained droplets with the liquid film layer on the inner surface of the laminar tube.
With respect to claim 16-17, the closest prior art Aldous (US 2014/0374310) fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the process such that the process further comprising the step of flowing the liquid phase directly into a quench drum without accumulating the liquid phase in the separation vessel, and the step of lowering a temperature of the liquid phase in the quench drum to limit formation of mesophase pitch.
With respect to claim 18-19, the closest prior art Aldous (US 2014/0374310) fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the process, wherein the step of providing the hydrocarbon feed including the isotropic pitch further includes: charging a feed including a distillate boiling range aromatic rich liquid to an inlet of a reactor; converting the feed within the reactor at a temperature sufficiently high to induce thermal polymerization of the feed, at a pressure sufficient to maintain at least a majority by weight of the feed in a liquid phase, and for a time sufficient to convert at least a portion of the feed to isotropic pitch and boiling range material; and discharging from the reactor an effluent stream comprising the isotropic pitch and the boiling range material.
Claims 7 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: With respect to claim 20, the closest prior art Aldous (US 2014/0374310) discloses a system for increasing a softening point of isotropic pitch, said system comprising:
a hydrocarbon feed including isotropic pitch having a first softening point (see figure 4 and paragraph 0008-0009);
an equilibrium channel (jet ejector) configured to mix said hydrocarbon feed with a carrier gas such that at least one chosen from an annular mist-flow regime and a mist flow regime is established, with said annular-mist flow regime having a liquid film layer and a dispersion of entrained droplets, with said mist flow regime having a dispersion of entrained droplets, and such that said mixture of said hydrocarbon feed and said carrier gas approaches a vapor-liquid equilibrium (see figure 3, paragraph 0031 and the rejection of claim 1, above); and
a separation vessel (51) defining a vessel interior and configured to operate at conditions between about 250 and about 500 degrees centigrade to limit formation of mesophase pitch (see figurer 3 and paragraph 0032), said separation vessel including:
a vapor outlet (59) to discharge a vapor phase from said separation vessel (see figure 3);
a liquid outlet (57) to discharge a liquid phase from said separation vessel (see figure 3); and
wherein said liquid phase includes isotropic pitch having a second softening point greater than said first softening point (see figure 4).
However, Aldous fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the system with a laminar tube extending along an axis into said vessel interior, with said laminar tube configured to receive an effluent from the equilibrium channel and having an inner surface on which said liquid film layer is able to form, and having a coalescence portion including at least one chosen from a bend angled at least about 30 degrees relative to said axis and a pigtail forming at least one loop, and wherein said coalescence portion is arranged to direct said effluent toward said liquid outlet.
Consequently, it is the Examiner position that the claimed invention is patentable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571 272-6381. 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771