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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-8 and 13-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Coppola et al. (US 2016/0214028 A1) in view of Pope (US 3,822,999).
Coppola teaches a method for hydrothermal cleanup and purification of hydrocarbon feedstocks including renewable oils, waste vegetable oils, brown grease, pyrolysis oils from plastics, petroleum crude oils, and petroleum fractions. Coppola teaches contacting hydrocarbon feedstocks with water in a hydrothermal reactor to remove contaminants including phosphorus, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, silicon, iron, chlorine, salts, minerals, and metals. See Coppola ¶¶ [0002]-[0004], [0010]-[0013], [0020]-[0028], [0067]-[0074], [0088]-[0095], [0118]-[0125]. Coppola further teaches water-to-oil weight ratios between 1:100 and 3:1, hydrothermal contacting of aqueous and organic phases, heating the reactor, extracting purified organic phases from aqueous waste streams, and reactor Reynolds numbers of at least 2,000, such as 2,000-4,000. See Coppola ¶¶ [0047]-[0054], [0067]-[0078], [0080]-[0086], [0096]-[0108], [0118]-[0125]. In particular, Coppola teaches that “The water-to-oil weight ratio in the hydrothermal reactor 158 may be between 1:100 and 3:1” and that “PFR systems will exhibit a Reynold Number (Re) of at least 2,000, such as 2,000-4,000.” See Coppola ¶ [0074].
Coppola, however, does not expressly disclose mixing the aqueous and organic phases via countercurrent flow.
Pope teaches a liquid-liquid extraction apparatus comprising a vertical extraction column wherein a comparatively heavy liquid phase passes from the top to the bottom of the column while a comparatively light liquid phase passes from the bottom to the top of the column in countercurrent flow. Pope further teaches stationary and rotating perforated plates for improving liquid-liquid contacting and reducing back-mixing during extraction operations. See Pope, col. 1, lines 52-68; col. 2, lines 1-25; col. 3, lines 1-24.
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coppola’s hydrothermal hydrocarbon purification process to utilize the known countercurrent liquid-liquid contacting arrangement taught by Pope in order to improve contaminant extraction efficiency, improve interfacial contacting between the aqueous and organic phases, and reduce back mixing during liquid-liquid extraction operations.
Regarding claims 2-8 and 13-30, Coppola further teaches or suggests the additionally recited temperatures, contaminants, steam heating, oils/fats/greases, organic and inorganic contaminants, water-to-oil ratios, dispersed and continuous phases, acids including phosphoric acid, citric acid, EDTA, and NTA, recycle/recuperator arrangements, and external heating/cooling systems. See Coppola ¶¶ [0010]-[0013], [0020]-[0028], [0047]-[0054], [0067]-[0108], [0118]-[0125].
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Coppola et al. (US 2016/0214028 A1) in view of Frank et al. (US 8,119,004 B2).
The process of Coppola is as discussed above.
Coppola does not expressly disclose a mixing region comprising packing material or oscillating a perforated component in the mixing region using an oscillator.
Frank teaches a reciprocating plate liquid-liquid extraction column including perforated plates and internal contacting structures for improving counterflow liquid-liquid extraction efficiency. See Frank, col. 1, lines 38-67; col. 2, lines 1-20; col. 5, lines 5-30.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Frank’s known extraction-column contacting structures and reciprocating perforated extraction plates into Coppola’s liquid-liquid hydrocarbon extraction system in order to improve interfacial contact, extraction efficiency, and phase contacting between the aqueous and organic phases.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Coppola et al. in view of Reman (US 2,601,674).
The process of Coppola is as discussed above.
Coppola does not expressly disclose rotating a displacement component in the mixing region using an actuator.
Reman teaches a liquid-liquid extraction apparatus for extraction of mineral and fatty oils using rotating discs mounted on a shaft within a liquid-liquid extraction column. See Reman, col. 1, lines 10-30; col. 2, lines 20-68; col. 3, lines 1-35.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Reman’s rotating extraction-column mixing components in Coppola’s liquid-liquid extraction process in order to improve liquid-liquid contacting and contaminant extraction efficiency.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Coppola et al. (US 2016/0214028 A1) in view of Klein et al. (US 7,938,963 B2).
The process of Coppola is as discussed above.
Coppola does not expressly disclose removing residual aqueous phase from the purified organic phase using a coalescer.
Klein teaches a coalescer element for improving separation of water from hydrocarbon fuel streams, wherein water coalesces into larger droplets and is separated from the hydrocarbon stream and collected in a collection region. See Klein, col. 1, lines 49-65; col. 3, lines 25-35.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Klein’s known coalescer system into Coppola’s hydrocarbon purification process in order to improve removal of residual aqueous contaminants from the purified hydrocarbon stream and improve downstream hydrocarbon product quality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights