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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 21-22 are withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are under examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Netherlands on 6/21/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the NL2028503 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, “polysulfide” should be changed to “polysulphide” for consistency with the remainder of the claims.
In claim 13, “continuously the gas comprising hydrogen sulphide is fed.” Continuously is misplaced and should occur immediately before or after fed.
In claim 15, “wherein as part of (a) comprises a step (a1)” should be replaced with “wherein step (a) comprises a step (a1)” for grammatical correctness. In addition, there is a superfluous (a1) line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the rejection of claim 1 and its dependents as indefinite for the limitation “polysulphide reactor zone” on the grounds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the claim in view of the claimed process equipment and flow path (Arguments, bottom paragraph on page 9).
In response, this argument is unpersuasive because the specification does not disclose any specific equipment that defines this zone or provide any objective standard to determine the metes and bounds of the zone.
Applicant argues against the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on the grounds that Kleinjan provides no process-engineering reason to modify Kiragosyan's anaerobic stirred bioreactor or any suggestion that increased polysulphide formation would improve sulphur settling or biological desulphurization (Arguments, paragraph 2 on page 12). Applicant argues further that the cited references neither provide a reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to try and accelerate autocatalytic formation of polysulphide in the process of Kiragosyan, nor do they indicate that backmixing is of key importance for autocatalytic reactions (Arguments, paragraph 3 on page 12).
In response, none of these arguments are persuasive. Kleinjan teaches that the conversion of sulfide to polysulfides is an autocatalytic process (Abstract): the more polysulfide that is formed, the faster the reaction proceeds. Kleinjan also teaches that the presence of polysulfide ions increases the rate of dissolution of elemental sulfur into an aqueous sulfide solution (page 310, left column, paragraph 3). Bridgwater teaches that the recycle reactor is advantageous for controlling backmixing because if the recycle ratio is zero, the reactor is in plug flow, whereas the reactor approaches a well-stirred reactor for high recycle (Abstract). Bridgewater teaches that for an autocatalytic reaction, for which it is well-known that backmixing is of key importance, noticeable savings in reactor volume may be obtained by the use of a recycle reactor (Abstract). Bridgewater teaches the configuration of a recycle reactor comprising a plug flow section and a recycle stream (Fig. 1). Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized based on the teachings of Kleinjan and Bridgewater that the conversion of sulfide to polysulfides is an autocatalytic process, for which backmixing is of key importance and a recycle reactor (comprising a plug flow section and a recycle stream) is the preferred configuration.
Applicant argues against the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 on the grounds that the cited passages of Kiragosyan do not identify carbon dioxide content as a results-effective variable for optimization (Arguments, bottom paragraph on page 12).
In response, this argument is unpersuasive because Kiragosyan teaches that the carbon dioxide supply is controlled with a pH sensor (page 3, left column, paragraph 1). Kiragosyan teaches that the pH is maintained at 8-9 (page 2, left column, paragraph 3). CO2 content of the gas is a results-effective variable because CO2 content of the gas controls how much CO2 dissolves in the liquid, which in turn controls the pH of the liquid.
Applicant argues against the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 on the grounds that the rejection does not identify residence time as a results-effective variable or provide a reasoned basis for selecting the claimed residence time in the recycle path of the claimed polysulphide reactor zone (Arguments, paragraph 2 on page 14).
In response, De Rink teaches that the purpose of the anaerobic reactor in the dual bioreactor gas biodesulfurization system is to impose extra retention time for the sulfur-oxidizing bacteria in the HS- rich process solution from the H2S absorber in order to decrease the HS- concentration in the influent of the aerobic bioreactor, thus decreasing the chemical oxidation to unwanted byproducts in the aerobic bioreactor (page 4520, right column, paragraph 1). Thus, De Rink teaches that increasing retention time (synonym for residence time) decreases HS- concentration in the influent of the aerobic bioreactor.
Applicant argues against the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 on the grounds that the rejection does not provide an articulated rationale for applying Towler’s absorber configuration to Kiragosyan’s biological process (Arguments, paragraph 4 on page 14).
In response, this argument is unpersuasive because the rejection clearly states: “The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that introducing the liquid in the intermediate section of the column would have increased mass transfer by diluting the H2S in the liquid, thus increasing the driving gradient for mass transfer between the gas stream and the liquid stream.”
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.
(New Rejections Necessitated by Amendment) Claims 1-20 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.
(Maintained) Claim 1 is indefinite for “polysulphide reactor zone”. The specification does not provide a special definition for “zone” or “polysulphide reactor zone” or provide an objective standard for measuring the extent of a zone. Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of claim. Similarly, claim 8-12 and 16-19 are indefinite for “polysulphide reactor zone.”
Claim 4 recites wherein [S0 in sx2-] is the content of elemental sulphur as part of the polysulphide compounds in the loaded aqueous liquid expressed in mM and is above 0.7 mM, the sulphide concentration expressed in mM of the loaded aqueous liquid as supplied to (c), and wherein pH is the pH of the loaded aqueous liquid. It is unclear how the underlined limitation relates to the prior limitation. The underlined limitation appears to be a sentence fragment unconnected with the rest of the claim.
Claim 7 recites the aqueous alkaline liquid is increased in temperature by indirect heat exchange with the loaded aqueous liquid that is produced in step (b). There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Step (b) of claim 1 recites passing the loaded aqueous liquid through a polysulphide reactor zone comprising one or more plug flow reactor zones. Step (b) of claim 1 does not recite any production.
Claim 7 is further indefinite because the claim recites “wherein prior to the contacting of the gas comprising hydrogen sulphide with an aqueous alkaline liquid, the aqueous alkaline liquid is increased in temperature…thereby obtaining a heated aqueous alkaline liquid.” It is unclear how the heated aqueous alkaline liquid fits into the process of claim 1. Under one interpretation, the heated aqueous alkaline liquid is contacted with the gas comprising hydrogen sulphide. Under a second interpretation, the heated aqueous alkaline liquid is not contacted with the gas comprising hydrogen sulphide.
Claim 11 is further indefinite for “wherein the part of the loaded aqueous liquid that is recycled from the downstream region is given a residence time of between 5 and 45 minutes before it is recycled to the upstream region in the polysulphide reactor zone.” The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been unable to determine the metes and bounds of this claim because it is unclear whether the residence time applies to the entire length of the recycle loop or a portion of the recycle loop. In the latter case, it is unclear how this portion of the recycle loop is defined.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim and not rectifying the sources of indefiniteness discussed above.
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.
(New Rejection Necessitated by Amendment) Claims 4-5 are 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.
Claims 4-5 fail to further limit claim 1 because claims 4-5 each recite a mathematical relationship that does not limit the active method steps of claim 1. Note that claim 1 already recites a requirement for the content of elemental sulfur in the polysulphide compounds. Claim 4 recites the content of elemental sulfur as part of the polysulphide compounds in the loaded aqueous liquid as supplied in step (c) is above 0.7 mM, which is already required by claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 following rejections are maintained.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 12-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiragosyan et al. (Journal of hazardous materials 398 (2020): 123002; published online May 24, 2020) in view of Kleinjan et al. (Industrial & engineering chemistry research 44.2 (2005): 309-317) and Bridgwater et al. (The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 51.1 (1973): 128-130).
Kiragosyan teaches contacting an H2S-containing gas with an alkaline solution (Fig. 1 and page 2, left column, paragraph 2). The H2S-containing gas contacts sulfur oxidizing bacteria, which are inoculated into each bioreactor (page 3, right column, last sentence of top paragraph). The system accumulates elemental sulfur particles (page 3, left column, paragraph 4), so the H2S-containing gas also contacts the elemental sulfur particles due to the recycle stream from the aerobic bioreactor to the gas absorber (Fig. 1). Thus, the recycle stream is an alkaline solution comprising elemental sulfur particles and sulfur-oxidizing bacteria.
Kiragosyan teaches passing the effluent from the absorber into an anaerobic reactor before contacting the effluent from the anaerobic reactor with oxygen in the aerobic bioreactor (Fig. 1).
Kiragosyan teaches that the concentration of polysulfide compounds in the loaded aqueous liquid supplied to the aerobic bioreactor is 2 mM S day−1 with an average chain length of 4.5 (page 5, right column, bottom paragraph and Fig. 3 on page 6). Thus, the content of elemental sulfur as polysulfide compounds is approximately 7 mM ((4.5-1)×2 mM; see the numerator of equation (5) of Kleinjan for the conversion of polysulfide concentration and polysulfide chain length to the content of elemental sulfur as part of polysulfides).
Kiragosyan teaches that the volume of the anaerobic bioreactor is 2.5 L (left column, paragraph 3 on page 3). Kiragosyan teaches that the liquid recirculation rate is 10 L h-1 (page 3, left column, paragraph 1). Thus, the residence time of the anaerobic bioreactor is 15 min, which is within the claimed range of between 3 and 45 min.
Kiragosyan does not teach separating the elemental sulfur particles from the enriched aqueous liquid. Rather, Kiragosyan teaches that when sulfur concentrations become too high, the system becomes more difficult to operate as a result of the inadequate separation of the liquid, gas, and solid phases, resulting in the entrainment of sulfur particles in the recirculation gas stream (page 3, left column, paragraph 4). To prevent this, the sulfur content was lowered by partial exchange of the medium on days 12, 29, and 44 (page 3, left column, paragraph 4).
Kiragosyan does not teach that the anaerobic reactor (“polysulphide reactor”) comprises one or more plug flow reactor zones.
Kleinjan teaches that the conversion of sulfide to polysulfides is an autocatalytic process (Abstract): the more polysulfide that is formed, the faster the reaction proceeds. Kleinjan also teaches that the presence of polysulfide ions increases the rate of dissolution of elemental sulfur into an aqueous sulfide solution (page 310, left column, paragraph 3).
Bridgwater teaches that the recycle reactor is advantageous for controlling backmixing because if the recycle ratio is zero, the reactor is in plug flow, whereas the reactor approaches a well-stirred reactor for high recycle (Abstract). Bridgewater teaches that for an autocatalytic reaction, for which it is well-known that backmixing is of key importance, noticeable savings in reactor volume may be obtained by the use of a recycle reactor (Abstract). Bridgewater teaches the configuration of a recycle reactor comprising a plug flow section and a recycle stream (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Kiragosyan’s stirred tank anaerobic reactor with Bridgewater’s recycle reactor comprising plug flow reactor zones. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings of both Kleinjan and Bridgwater because Kleinjan teaches that the formation of polysulfides is an autocatalytic reaction and Bridgwater teaches that for autocatalytic reactions, recycle reactors comprising plug flow zones are preferred for the ability to control backmixing.
Kleinjan teaches separating sulfur from the liquid after the aerobic bioreactor in a settler and recycling a portion of the sulfur to the gas absorber (page 309, right column, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate a portion of the sulfur from the liquid effluent of the aerobic bioreactor in order to recover the sulfur and avoid having to perform Kiragosyan’s step of partial exchange of the medium. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this modification as an improvement to the method of Kiragosyan and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding this separation step.
Regarding claims 2-3, Kiragosyan teaches that the concentration of polysulfide compounds in the loaded aqueous liquid supplied to the aerobic bioreactor is 2 mM S day−1 with an average chain length of 4.5 for about one week (page 5, right column, bottom paragraph and Fig. 3 on page 6). Thus, the content of elemental sulfur as polysulfide compounds is 7 mM, which is above 1 mM and above 0.7 mM.
Regarding claim 6, Kiragosyan teaches that the hydrogen sulfide volume fraction is 1.5% (page 2, right column, bottom paragraph), which is within the claimed range of 0.1 and 3 vol%.
Kiragosyan does not teach that the carbon dioxide content is above 20 vol%.
Kiragosyan teaches that the carbon dioxide supply is controlled with a pH sensor (page 3, left column, paragraph 1). Kiragosyan teaches that the pH is maintained at 8-9 (page 2, left column, paragraph 3). Kiragosyan teaches that 0-17 mL min-1 mass flow controller supplies hydrogen sulfide and a 0-40 mL min-1 mass flow controller supplies carbon dioxide (page 2, right column, bottom paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize by routine experimentation the carbon dioxide content of the gas based upon the pH in the absorber column, as suggested by Kiragosyan. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the flow of CO2 in the gas to control the pH using the pH sensor. For the lower range of pH, higher concentrations of CO2 would have been required.
Regarding claim 8, Bridgwater teaches a recycle reactor comprising plug flow sections that have an upstream and downstream region (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Bridgewater teaches the recycle stream of the reactor, so part of the liquid is recycled from the downstream region to the upstream region of the anaerobic polysulfide reactor in the process of Kiragosyan modified by Kleinjan and Bridgewater.
Regarding claim 12, Kiragosyan teaches that the temperature of the absorber and the anaerobic reactor are maintained by a thermostat bath (page 3, left column, top paragraph). Kiragosyan does not teach that the part of the loaded aqueous liquid which is recycled from the downstream region is increased in temperature before being recycled to the upstream region in the polysulphide reactor zone.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the recycled effluent from the anaerobic reactor prior to introducing the recycle into the reactor by keeping the recycle loop within the same thermostat bath as the anaerobic reactor. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to maintain the temperature of the anaerobic reactor, as per the teaching of Kiragosyan, and the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 13, Kiragosyan’s Fig. 1 depicts the absorber as a vertical column with the H2S-containing gas entering the column at a lower position and the recycle stream from the aerobic reactor (aqueous liquid comprising bacteria) fed at a higher position of the column, which necessarily results in an upward flowing aqueous stream and a downwards flowing aqueous stream. The process is continuous for two months (page 2, left column, bottom paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, Kiragosyan’s Fig. 1 illustrates a liquid recycle stream from the aerobic reactor to the absorber.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiragosyan et al. (Journal of hazardous materials 398 (2020): 123002; published online May 24, 2020) in view of Kleinjan et al. (Industrial & engineering chemistry research 44.2 (2005): 309-317) and Bridgwater et al. (The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 51.1 (1973): 128-130), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 12-13, and 20 above, further in view of Qi et al. (Energy Procedia 37 (2013): 1968-1976).
See discussion of Kiragosyan, Kleinjan, and Bridgwater above, which is incorporated into this rejection as well.
Regarding claim 15, Kiragosyan teaches a single absorption column. Thus, Kiragosyan does not teach that part of the aqueous liquid comprising sulphide-oxidizing bacteria is continuously contacted with the hydrogen sulphide-containing gas to obtain a first intermediate loaded aqueous liquid and an intermediate gas having a lower intermediate content of hydrogen sulphide or that another part of the aqueous liquid comprising sulphide-oxidizing bacteria is continuously contacted with the intermediate gas having a lower intermediate content of hydrogen sulphide to obtain a second intermediate loaded aqueous liquid having a lower content of hydrogen sulphide, wherein the first intermediate and second intermediate loaded aqueous liquids are combined.
Qi teaches operating two gas absorbers in series (Fig. 1) in which the gas outlet from the first absorber (“first intermediate gas”) is fed to a second absorber that produces a second gas (“the gas having a lower content of hydrogen sulphide”). Both absorbers receive a solvent: the first absorber receives a semi-rich solvent and the second absorber receives a lean solvent.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second absorption column in series with the first absorption column, per the teaching of Qi, in order to further decrease the H2S concentration of the gas and thus recover more sulfur from the stream. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding the second absorber column in series with the first. The gas outlet from the first absorber (“intermediate gas having a lower intermediate content of hydrogen sulphide”) would have then been the gas inlet to the second absorber and the gas outlet from the second absorber would have had an even lower content of hydrogen sulphide. It would have been further obvious to split the recycle stream from the aerobic reactor into two separate streams (one for each absorber) in order to maximize H2S absorption in each of the absorbers by maximizing the driving H2S concentration gradient between the gas and liquid streams in each of the absorbers. It would have been further obvious to combine the liquid effluent from each of the absorbers and feed them both to the anaerobic reactor, thus avoiding the need for two separate anaerobic reactors.
Regarding claims 16-17, Kiragosyan teaches a single anaerobic reactor rather than first and second polysulphide reactor zones comprising plug flow zones.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed the liquid effluent from each absorber to two separate anaerobic recycle reactors comprising plug flow zones for the obvious advantage of decreasing the size of the anaerobic recycle reactor. The person of ordinary skill in the art would also have had a reasonable expectation of success in this configuration.
Further regarding claims 15-17, both of these configurations (having two separate absorbers in series upstream of a single anaerobic bioreactor or having two separate absorbers in series, the liquid effluent of each absorber flowing into a separate anaerobic reactor) would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, such as a process engineer, as mere optimization of the equipment configuration of Kiragosyan by duplicating existing operational units (the absorber and the anaerobic reactor).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiragosyan et al. (Journal of hazardous materials 398 (2020): 123002; published online May 24, 2020) in view of Kleinjan et al. (Industrial & engineering chemistry research 44.2 (2005): 309-317) and Bridgwater et al. (The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 51.1 (1973): 128-130), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 12-13, and 20 above, further in view of De Rink et al. (Environmental science & technology 53.8 (2019): 4519-4527).
See discussion of Kiragosyan, Kleinjan, and Bridgwater above, which is incorporated into this rejection as well.
Regarding claim 11, Kiragosyan, Kleinjan, and Bridgwater do not teach the residence time in the recycle loop.
De Rink teaches that the purpose of the anaerobic reactor in the dual bioreactor gas biodesulfurization system is to impose extra retention time for the sulfur-oxidizing bacteria in the HS- rich process solution from the H2S absorber in order to decrease the HS- concentration in the influent of the aerobic bioreactor, thus decreasing the chemical oxidation to unwanted byproducts in the aerobic bioreactor (page 4520, right column, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize by routine experimentation the residence time in the recycle stream of the anaerobic reactor in order to decrease the amount of HS- in the inlet to the aerobic bioreactor. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the residence time of the recycle loop of the anaerobic bioreactor.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiragosyan et al. (Journal of hazardous materials 398 (2020): 123002; published online May 24, 2020) in view of Kleinjan et al. (Industrial & engineering chemistry research 44.2 (2005): 309-317) and Bridgwater et al. (The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 51.1 (1973): 128-130), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 12-13, and 20 above, further in view of Towler et al. (Proceedings of the Annual Convention-Gas Processors Association. Gas Processors Association, 1997).
See discussion of Kiragosyan, Kleinjan, and Bridgwater above, which is incorporated into this rejection as well.
Regarding claim 14, Kiragosyan does not teach that part of the aqueous liquid comprising sulphide-oxidizing bacteria is continuously fed to a higher position of the column to contact with the upflowing gaseous stream in a first contacting zone which generates an intermediate loaded aqueous liquid and part of the aqueous liquid comprising sulphide-oxidizing bacteria is continuously fed to an intermediate position of the column to contact together with the intermediate loaded aqueous liquid with the upflowing gaseous stream in a second contacting zone.
Towler teaches an absorber with two liquid inlets: a top inlet and an intermediate inlet (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to split the liquid recycle loop into two separate streams and introduce one stream at the top and one stream in the middle of the column per the teaching of Tower. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that introducing the liquid in the intermediate section of the column would have increased mass transfer by diluting the H2S in the liquid, thus increasing the driving gradient for mass transfer between the gas stream and the liquid stream. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in splitting the recycle loop and introducing the liquid into a top and intermediate part of the absorber, thus increasing the removal efficiency of H2S from the gas.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CANDICE LEE SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)272-0177. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 PM (Eastern).
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, Louise Humphrey can be reached at (571)272-5543. 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.
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/CANDICE LEE SWIFT/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
