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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups of claims can be examined without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the groups of claims are classified in different groups. For this reason, the argument is not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/23/2026.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al., International Publication No. WO/2010/025909A1 (hereinafter referred to as Garcia) in view of Gao, Chinese Publication No. CN106076078A (hereinafter referred to as Gao).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-12, Garcia discloses in Figures 1-4, a method of absorbing a compound from a gas stream, the method comprising: flowing a gas stream (1) comprising the compound through an absorption column in a countercurrent direction in chamber (7) with a first lean absorbent liquid (via hole 18 on liquid distributor 32) to absorb the compound out of the gas stream and generate a first conditioned gas stream and a first rich absorbent liquid; flowing the first conditioned gas stream through the absorption column in a co-current direction in chamber (9) with a second lean absorbent liquid (via hole 18 on liquid distributor 32) to absorb the compound out of the first conditioned gas stream and generate a second conditioned gas stream having a reduced concentration of the hydrocarbon than the first conditioned gas stream and a second rich absorbent liquid.
The two absorbent liquids are the same (as recited in claim 2) and the rich absorbent liquids are collected in the bottom of the column. Figures 1-4 further comprise a second counter-current chamber (11) and a second co-current chamber (13) which leads to a third and a fourth conditioned gas stream (as recited in claim 1 and reads on claims 6-9).
Garcia further discloses in Figure 8 two columns (57) and (59) wherein the column (57) is in counter current flow design and the column (59) has a co-current flow design. The columns are suitable for absorbing solvent from a gas into an absorbent
liquid and generate rich absorbing liquids which are collected in the bottoms of
the columns. Also, the second conditioned gas stream is discharged from the
second column (59) (as recited in claims 10-13).
Garcia differs from claim 1 in that Garcia does not explicitly disclose absorbing a solvent from an air stream and in that the second conditioned gas stream is discharged from the absorption column as recited in claim 1.
Garcia discloses the second conditioned gas stream is four stages leading to a third and a fourth conditioned gas stream and already discharging the second one would be a result of the method of Garcia.
Regarding the difference of absorbing a solvent from an air stream as recited in claim 1, Gao discloses an ionic liquid dehumidifying method and an ionic liquid dehumidifying system for regulating gas humidity. The ionic liquid dehumidifying method comprises the following steps: enabling gas with higher humidity to sufficiently contact with a gas dehumidifying agent barren liquor, thus at least enabling moisture in the gas to be absorbed by the gas dehumidifying agent barren liquor to obtain a gas with lower humidity and a gas dehumidifying agent rich liquor; the gas dehumidifying agent barren liquor contains ionic liquor at least capable of absorbing water wherein the gas includes air, natural gas, or associated gas (as recited in claim 1) (see Abstract and Para. [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Gao in the process of Garcia as it is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, see Figure 8, wherein Garcia discloses that the different absorbent liquids could be collected in different reservoirs and Gao discloses the two liquids are discharged into different reservoirs.
Regarding claim 4, there is considered to be only one of a limited number of alternative positions to feed fresh absorbent.
Regarding claim 5, Gao discloses the rich absorbent liquid is regenerated in column (11).
Regarding claim 13, applying vacuum to draw a gas stream through an absorber is a normal design alternative and does not render the claim non-obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Gao as applied to claims 1-13 above, and further in view of Ost et al., International Publication No. WO/2019/113289 (hereinafter referred to as Ost).
Regarding claims 14-15, Garcia/Gao disclose all the limitations discussed above, but do not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 14-15.
Ost discloses in Figure 1 an alternative absorption device for the solvent recovery unit (14) wherein an extractor 12 can process any desired oleaginous feedstock using any suitable extraction fluid. Example types of oleaginous materials that can be processed using extractor 12 include, but are not limited to, soybeans (and/or soy protein concentrate), rapeseed, sunflower seed, peanuts, cottonseed, palm kernels, and com germ and combinations thereof, as well as other oil-bearing seeds and fruits. Solvents that can be used to extract oil contained within the oleaginous material being processed are generally organic solvents, such as acetone, hexane, and/or toluene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Ost in the process of Garcia/Gao as it is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
8. There were unused Y references from the ISR report. The examiner is of the position that the prior art cited adequately reads on the claims as instantly recited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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 Singh can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights