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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 15th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6, and 10-12 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 29th, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed May 15th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tafreshi (US 2018/0200664 A1) in view of White (US 2020/0088466 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Canadian Patent Publication No. CA 2996926 A1 to Tafreshi et al., and further in view of White.
Although the rejection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed January 29th, 2026 has been withdrawn, in order to promote compact prosecution, the Examiner will address certain arguments that may still be applicable to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that Tafreshi and White are non-analogous art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Tafreshi and White are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the instant application, Tafreshi, and White are all classified in B01D53 and are therefore in the same field. Applicant more specifically argues that White is in relation to the extraction of helium and “unrelated to the process of regenerating a gas dehydration unit.” However, White explicitly teaches using helium-depleted streams to regenerate dehydration units (¶0062 “Although not shown in FIG. 1, any of the helium-depleted stream from the process may be used to regenerate the TSA in dehydration unit 104.”).
Applicant additionally argues that Tafreshi and White are incompatible with regards to the optimization of pressure. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
White teaches that the inclusion of a compression component allows for the control of pressure (¶0050 “One advantage offered by permeate compressor 102 is that the pressure of stream 10 entering the first heat exchanger can be optimized.”). Although Applicant is correct in their assertion that White teaches the pressure is optimized by increasing the pressure prior to the gas entering the heat exchanger, the proposed modification to incorporate the compressor of White into the system of Tafreshi would not include the heat exchanger and the pressure would therefore not need to increase. Furthermore, Tafreshi teaches reducing pressure during regeneration and at no point does Tafreshi teach or suggest reducing pressure during the adsorption step.
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 1, 4, 6, and 10-12 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 recites the limitation “wherein, in use, the principal adsorption unit performs drying of the process gas supplied from the compressor.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as it is unclear when direct infringement occurs. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “wherein, in use, the principal adsorption unit is configured to perform
Claims 4, 6, and 10-12 are dependent upon claim 1 and are likewise 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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canadian Patent Publication No. CA 2996926 A1 to Tafreshi et al. (hereinafter referred to as Tafreshi2), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2020/0088466 A1 to White et al. (hereinafter referred to as White).
Regarding claim 1, Tafreshi2 teaches an apparatus for drying a process gas (Pg. 4, lines 3-4 “The present disclosure relates to the field of gas dehydration units that utilize adsorption beds”), the apparatus comprising: a principal adsorption unit comprising one or more adsorbent for treating the process gas (Fig. 3, vessels 2A and 2R ; Pg. 4, lines 23-24 “The gas dehydration unit includes at least two adsorbent bed containing vessels (2A, 2A, and 2R) arranged in parallel.”), the principal adsorption unit having an inlet for receiving a process gas (Fig. 3, gas inlets 28, 26, and 25), and an outlet for discharging the process gas (Fig. 3, gas outlets 22, 20, and 24), wherein, in use, the principal adsorption unit performs drying of the process gas (Pg. 2, lines 20-22 “dehydration of a gas such as natural gas feed stream 1 is typically done by flowing a wet gas 23 over a bed of zeolite-based molecular sieve adsorbent material (not shown) in a vessel 2A”); a first supplemental adsorption unit comprising an adsorbent for adsorbing water (Fig. 3, vessel 37 ; Pg. 8, lines 12-12 “The second dehydration unit includes a pair of vessels 37 and 38 arranged in parallel and containing molecular sieve material.”); and a second supplemental adsorption unit comprising an adsorbent for adsorbing water (Fig. 3, vessel 38); wherein the apparatus is configured to fluidly connect the outlet of the principal adsorption unit to a selected one of the first and second supplemental adsorption units (Fig. 3, vessel 2R is fluidly connected to vessels 37 and 38), the selected one of the first and second supplemental adsorption units being operable to adsorb water to dry the process gas discharged from the principal adsorption unit and discharge a dry process gas (Pgs. 8-9 “the regeneration gas stream is passed through the second dehydration unit (i.e., vessel 37 of the pair of vessels 37 and 38), thereby further removing moisture from the regeneration gas stream.” ; Although Tafreshi2 teaches further drying a regeneration gas vs. a process gas, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. That is to say the apparatus as taught by Tafreshi2 is capable of performing such a function, See MPEP § 2112.01(I)); wherein the apparatus is configured to supply a regeneration gas to the other one of the first and second supplemental adsorption units to regenerate the adsorbent disposed therein (Pg. 8, line 14 “The pair of vessels 37 and 28 alternate between absorption and regeneration modes.”); and wherein the apparatus is configured to introduce the regeneration gas into the inlet of the principal adsorption unit after being supplied to the other one of the first and second supplemental adsorption units to regenerate the adsorbent disposed therein (Pg. 8, lines 30-31 “Prior to passing the regeneration gas stream to the regeneration gas inlet 25 of vessel 2R, the regeneration gas stream is passed through the second dehydration unit”). Tafreshi2 does not teach wherein the principal adsorption unit receives a process gas from a compressor (it should be noted that Tafreshi2 does teach a compressor (Fig. 3, compressors 8 and 32) but it is used in the regeneration loop as a way to transfer gas).
However, White teaches a gas separation apparatus that contains a compressor (Fig. 1, compressor 102) which provides a compressed gas stream, wherein the inclusion of a compression component allows for the control of pressure (¶0050 “One advantage offered by permeate compressor 102 is that the pressure of stream 10 entering the first heat exchanger can be optimized.”).
Tafreshi2 and White are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas separation using adsorption beds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Tafreshi2 to further include the compressor as taught by White. The inclusion of a compressor would allow for closer pressure regulation and adjustments.
Regarding claim 4, Tafreshi2 and White teach the apparatus as applied to claim 1 above. Tafreshi2 further teaches wherein the regeneration gas comprises at least a portion of the dry process gas discharged from the selected one of the first and second supplemental adsorption units (Pg. 8, lines 30-31 “Prior to passing the regeneration gas stream to the regeneration gas inlet 25 of vessel 2R, the regeneration gas stream is passed through the second dehydration unit (i.e., vessel 37”).
Regarding claim 6, Tafreshi2 and White teach the apparatus as applied to claim 1 above. Tafreshi2 further teaches a heater for heating the regeneration gas (Fig. 3, regeneration gas heater 10); wherein the apparatus is configured to, during a regeneration process, activate the heater for a first time period to heat the regeneration gas (Pg. 3, lines 26-27 “A heater heats the regeneration gas prior to passing the regeneration gas to the vessel in regeneration mode to a temperature sufficient to desorb the water”), the regeneration gas configured to be supplied through the regeneration process (Pg. 6, lines 1-3 “The regeneration gas 3 is heated in heater 10 to a temperature sufficient to desorb water from the saturated molecular sieve and is passed to the regeneration gas inlet 25 of the vessel in regeneration mode 2R”). Although Tafreshi2 does not explicitly teach wherein the heater is then deactivated for a second time period, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. That is to say the apparatus as taught by Tafreshi2 is capable of performing such a function. See MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 10, Tafreshi2 and White teach the apparatus as applied to claim 1 above. Tafreshi2 further teaches a cooler for cooling the regeneration gas prior to introduction into the principal adsorption unit (Fig. 2, regeneration gas cooler 10 is located between the supplemental adsorption vessels 37 and 38 and vessel 2R).
Regarding claim 11, Tafreshi2 and White teach the apparatus as applied to claim 1 above. Tafreshi2 further teaches a compressor for compressing the regeneration gas prior to introduction into the principal adsorption unit (Fig. 3, compressors 8 and 32 ; Pg. 6, lines 19-21 “The regeneration gas will be recycled and recirculated within the short loop by the compressor 8 and continued to be used to regenerate the molecular sieve in vessel 2R”).
Regarding claim 12, Tafreshi2 and White teach the apparatus as applied to claim 1 above. Tafreshi2 further teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to change the selection of one of the first and second supplemental adsorption units such that the other one of the first and second supplemental adsorption units is operative to dry the process gas and discharging a dry process gas (Pg. 8, lines 12-14 “The second dehydration unit includes a pair of vessels 37 and 38 arranged in parallel and containing molecular sieve material. The pair of vessels 37 and 28 alternate between absorption and regeneration mode.”).
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 RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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 Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights