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 1-7, in the reply filed on 3/9/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s traversal of the restriction requirement is not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the present application, being filed under 35 U.S.C. §111(a), should be governed solely by U.S. restriction practice under 37 CFR 1.141–1.146 rather than by unity of invention principles. However, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the restriction requirement set forth in the Office Action is consistent with U.S. restriction practice.
Under 37 CFR 1.141, restriction is proper where the claims are directed to independent and distinct inventions. In the present case, Groups I–III do not share the same or corresponding technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art. That is, the claimed inventions lack a common feature that unifies the claims into a single general inventive concept. As such, the claimed subject matter is properly considered to be directed to independent and distinct inventions.
Applicant’s argument that no “serious burden” of search exists is also not persuasive. The absence of a common technical feature results in materially different search inquiries, including different structures, operational characteristics, and potentially different fields of search. This constitutes a sufficient basis for restriction under 37 CFR 1.141.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Doong et al. (US 2019/0388828 A1) in view of Linde (DE 10 2014 005 935 A1).
Doong teaches an adsorption system comprising one or more adsorbent beds for removing heavy hydrocarbons from a gas stream, wherein a portion of a treated product stream is used as a regeneration gas stream to regenerate the adsorbent bed (Doong ¶[0004], ¶[0012]–[0014]). Doong further teaches that the regeneration stream exiting the adsorbent bed is cooled and introduced into a separation unit (e.g., reflux absorber or distillation column) configured to separate the regeneration stream into a gas stream and a liquid stream comprising heavier hydrocarbons (C5+) (Doong ¶[0004], ¶[0010]–[0014]; Figs. 2–4). The separated gas stream is recycled within the process (¶[0010]–[0014]). Thus, Doong teaches an adsorbent bed configured to receive a treated stream to regenerate the adsorbent bed and a separator configured to receive the regeneration stream and separate it into a gas stream and a condensed hydrocarbon stream (with water inherently present in such systems).
Doong does not explicitly disclose a plurality of valves configured to cause the regeneration stream to bypass the separator over one or more durations.
Linde teaches an adsorption/regeneration process wherein a regeneration gas stream is cooled and partially condensed and then introduced into a separator (Abscheider D) to separate the stream into a hydrocarbon-rich liquid fraction and a hydrocarbon-lean gas fraction (Linde ¶[0007], ¶[0012]–[0014]). Linde further teaches the use of valves (e.g., valves V1, V2) to control routing and handling of the regeneration stream, including directing the stream through alternative flow paths during operation (Linde ¶[0018]–[0019]; Figs. 2–3). Such valve-based control inherently permits selective routing of the regeneration stream relative to processing units.
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 have modified the system of Doong to include the valve-controlled routing of Linde so as to selectively direct the regeneration stream to bypass the separator during portions of operation to reduce exposure of liquid hydrocarbons and improve process efficiency, as such valve-based flow control and selective routing of process streams are well-known and predictable techniques in adsorption/regeneration systems.
Claim 2
Doong teaches cyclic adsorption and regeneration operation in which the composition of the regeneration stream varies over time, including the presence and removal of heavier hydrocarbons during regeneration (Doong ¶[0004], ¶[0010]–[0014]). Linde teaches controlled handling and routing of the regeneration stream based on process conditions (Linde ¶[0012]–[0014], ¶[0018]–[0019]).
Although the references do not explicitly disclose a duration ending before 50% of a peak mole fraction of a C5 or C6 hydrocarbon is reached, the selection of a cutoff point within a changing hydrocarbon concentration profile constitutes optimization of a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a timing threshold relative to a hydrocarbon concentration profile (e.g., prior to a peak or a percentage thereof) for routing the regeneration stream to minimize processing inefficiencies, as such optimization is routine in adsorption and separation processes (In re Aller).
Claim 3
Doong teaches that heavier hydrocarbons (e.g., C5+) are removed from the regeneration stream and that the composition of the stream varies during regeneration (Doong ¶[0004], ¶[0010]–[0014]). Selection of a subsequent duration beginning after a specified portion of a heavier hydrocarbon peak (e.g., C7–C9) represents further optimization of process timing based on composition.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to begin a subsequent duration after a selected portion of a heavier hydrocarbon peak is reached to coordinate separator usage with condensation behavior, as such timing adjustments are predictable process optimizations.
Claim 4
Doong teaches separating condensed hydrocarbons from the regeneration stream in a separation unit (Doong ¶[0010]–[0014]). Control of liquid levels within separators to manage liquid surface area and separation efficiency is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reduce a liquid level control setpoint in the separator during selected durations to reduce exposed liquid surface area and hydrocarbon interaction, as a routine engineering control of separator operation.
Claim 5
Doong teaches adsorption systems utilizing adsorbent materials for hydrocarbon removal (Doong ¶[0002], ¶[0004]). Suitable adsorbents include silica-based and silica-alumina materials commonly used in gas purification systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize amorphous silica and/or silica-alumina adsorbents in the system of Doong as a routine selection of known adsorbents.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Doong et al. in view of Linde, and further in view of Thomas et al. (US 2006/0204419 A1).
The system of Doong is as discussed above.
Thomas teaches that suitable adsorbent materials for gas purification include zeolites such as type 5A zeolite, faujasite X type zeolite, faujasite Y type zeolite, and zeolites of the MFI family including ZSM-5 (Thomas ¶[0035], ¶[0103], ¶[0105]). These materials are standard molecular sieve adsorbents used in adsorption systems.
Claim 6
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize high-silica zeolite adsorbents such as ZSM-5, zeolite Yas suggested by Thomas, or other known high-silica zeolites such as beta zeolite in the system of Doong, as a predictable variation of known zeolitic adsorbents for contaminant removal.
Claim 7
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select zeolite 3A, 4A, 5A, or X for use in the system of Doong, as a matter of routine selection among known molecular sieve adsorbents for similar purposes, in view of Thomas’ explicit teaching of such zeolites.
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
Examiner
Art Unit 1771
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights