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.
Claims 1 – 11 and 14 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0178159 to Siedler et al. (hereinafter referred to as Siedler).
In regard to claim 1, Siedler discloses a process of treating a feed in an adsorption separation zone having at least two adsorbent beds (105, 110) and a trim bed (115). As shown in figure 5, the process includes a step of displacing feed from a first adsorbent bed (105) to a trim bed (115) by feeding a desorbent from a second adsorbent bed (110) to the first adsorbent bed while displacing desorbent from the trim bed (115). As shown in figure 8, the process can further include discontinuing the first adsorbent bed displacement, and passing a trim displacement fluid from the inlet (170) to the trim bed (115) to displace feed from the trim bed. Siedler does not disclose the source of the trim displacement fluid and thus does not disclose the trim displacement fluid being passed from a trim displacement tank to the trim bed. There is no evidence the source of the trim displacement fluid is critical. As long as the fluid is the same, where it comes from does not affect the process. Further, tanks are well-known storage vessels for fluids. The trim displacement fluid predictably could be stored in a tank before it is fed into the inlet (170).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siedler to provide the trim displacement fluid from a tank as this is a well-known source for fluids, and there is no evidence the source of the trim displacement fluid is critical.
In regard to claims 2 and 3, shown in figure 7, a feed from the second desorbent inlet (170) can be considered an adsorber trim fluid, as broadly recited in the claim, that is passed to the first adsorbent bed to recover remaining feed therein. In the step of claim 8, feeding adsorber trim fluid to the first adsorbent bed is discontinued before the trim displacement fluid from the second desorbent inlet (170) is passed to the trim bed (115). As discussed in paragraph [0026], the feed to the second desorbent inlet can be benzene. Thus, the adsorber trim fluid in the process of Siedler can be benzene.
In regard to claims 4 and 8, as discussed in paragraph [0026], the second desorbent, which is provided as the trim displacement fluid (170), can be benzene, which can be considered a “heavy” aromatic.
In regard to claims 5 and 7, as shown in figure 10, the displacement of feed from the trim bed (115) using the trim displacement fluid (170) can be discontinued. The flow from the first desorbent inlet (140) is passed through the first adsorbent bed (105) to the trim bed (115). The outflow from the first adsorbent bed can be considered an adsorber trim fluid, as broadly recited in the claim. This fluid can displace spent trim displacement fluid from the trim bed while withdrawing spent trim displacement fluid from the trim bed through the desorbent outlet (165).
In regard to claim 6, as shown in figures 7 and 8, feed that is displaced from the trim bed (115) is combined with feed from the feed stream (120) that is feeding the second adsorbent bed (110).
In regard to claim 9, as shown in figures 5 – 11, the feed stream (120) is further passed through the second adsorbent bed (110) to adsorb material from the feed stream onto the second adsorbent bed.
In regard to claims 10 and 11, as further shown in figure 5, the dashed line can be considered to represent desorbent displaced from the second adsorbent bed (110) to the first adsorbent bed (105), which passes through the first adsorbent bed displacing feed from the first adsorbent bed to the trim bed (115). The spent desorbent is then withdrawn from the trim bed (115) out of the outlet (135).
In regard to claim 14, Siedler discloses a process of treating a feed in an adsorption separation zone having at least two adsorbent beds (105, 110) and a trim bed (115). As shown in figures 2 – 4, the process includes passing a feed stream (120) through the first adsorbent bed (105) to absorb material from the feed stream onto the first adsorbent bed. As shown in figure 5, the feed (120) can be discontinued from passing to the first adsorbent bed (105), and the feed can be passed through the second adsorbent bed (110) to adsorb material form the feed stream onto the second adsorbent bed (110). As further shown in figure 5, the dashed line can be considered to represent desorbent displaced from the second adsorbent bed (110) to the first adsorbent bed (105), which passes through the first adsorbent bed displacing feed from the first adsorbent bed to the trim bed (115). The spent desorbent is then withdrawn from the trim bed (115) out of the outlet (135). As shown in figure 6, the process further includes discontinuing displacing feed from the first adsorbent bed (105). As shown in figure 7, a feed from the second desorbent inlet (170) can be considered an adsorber trim fluid, as broadly recited in the claim, that is passed to the first adsorbent bed to recover remaining feed therein. In the step of figure 8, the feed from the second desorbent inlet (170) can be considered a trim displacement fluid that is passed to the trim bed (115) to displace feed from the trim bed. As discussed above, Siedler does not disclose the source of the trim displacement fluid and thus does not disclose the trim displacement fluid being passed from a trim displacement tank to the trim bed. There is no evidence the source of the trim displacement fluid is critical. As long as the fluid is the same, where it comes from does not affect the process. Further, tanks are well-known storage vessels for fluids. The trim displacement fluid predictably could be stored in a tank before it is fed into the inlet (170).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siedler to provide the trim displacement fluid from a tank as this is a well-known source for fluids, and there is no evidence the source of the trim displacement fluid is critical.
In regard to claim 15, as shown in figure 10, the displacement of feed from the trim bed (115) using the trim displacement fluid (170) can be discontinued. The flow from the first desorbent inlet (140) is passed through the first adsorbent bed (105) to the trim bed (115). The outflow from the first adsorbent bed can be considered an adsorber trim fluid, as broadly recited in the claim. This fluid can perform a trim displacement of the trim bed while withdrawing spent trim displacement fluid from the trim bed through the desorbent outlet (165). As shown in figure 4, the method returns a step where the trim displacement of the trim bed with the adsorber trim fluid is discontinued.
In regard to claim 16, as shown in figures 7 and 8, feed that is displaced from the trim bed (115) is combined with feed from the feed stream (120) that is feeding the second adsorbent bed (110).
In regard to claim 17, as shown in figure 10, the flow from the first desorbent inlet (140) is passed through the first adsorbent bed (105) to the trim bed (115). The outflow from the first adsorbent bed can be considered an adsorber trim fluid, as broadly recited in the claim. This fluid can perform a trim displacement of the trim bed.
In regard to claim 18, as shown in figures 10 and 11, the process can further include a step of passing a desorbent stream through the first desorbent inlet (140) to the first adsorbent bed (105) and the trim bed (115) to remove adsorbed material from the first adsorbent bed (105) and the trim bed (115) to regenerate the first adsorbent bed and the trim bed and withdrawing the spent desorbent stream from the trim bed through the desorbent outlet (165).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claims 1 and 14, Applicant has amended the claims to require the trim displacement fluid to be passed from a trim displacement tank to the trim bed. The examiner agrees that Siedler only discloses an inlet (170) and does not disclose a tank forming the source of the fluid being sent to the inlet. There is no evidence the source of fluid being provided to the inlet is critical. As long as the fluid is the same, the process will function the same. The trim displacement fluid must come from somewhere. Storage tanks are well known in the art for storing fluids. A tank having the trim displacement fluid predictably could function as a source of the fluid that is fed to the inlet (170) in Siedler. Applicant alleges the tank provides benefits to the operation of the process, but does not provide any evidence the tank functions differently from any other type of fluid source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
Claims 12 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:
In regard to claim 12, there is no teaching or suggestion in Siedler for further passing the spent trim displacement fluid to an aromatics fractionation column to provide an overhead stream comprising benzene and a bottoms stream comprising heavy aromatics, and recycling the heavy aromatics as a trim fluid.
In regard to claim 13, there is no teaching or suggestion in Siedler for a further step of passing the spent desorbent to a desorbent column to provide a bottoms stream comprising aromatics and an overhead stream comprising the desorbent.
In regard to claim 19, similarly, the examiner agrees that Siedler fails to teach or suggest separating the spent desorbent in a desorbent column to obtain a desorbent stream. Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and is allowed for at least the same reason as claim 19.
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 Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights