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The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 USC § 103 over Doong, Linde and Thomas is withdrawn by the examiner in view of the amendment filed on 7/13/2026.
Since a new Final Office Action is follows, applicant’s arguments will not be addressed.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Spencer et al. (US 3,479,797).
Regarding claim 1, Spencer teaches a hydrocarbon recovery adsorption system comprising a plurality of adsorbent beds which are cyclically subjected to adsorption and regeneration. During regeneration, heated regeneration gas passes through a previously loaded adsorbent bed to desorb adsorbed water and hydrocarbons, and the resulting regeneration stream is passed through coolers 14 and 15 and scrubber/separator 16, wherein condensable hydrocarbons and water are condensed and separated from the regeneration gas (Spencer, col. 5, lines. 1-35; Fig. 1). Spencer further teaches that the composition of the regeneration stream changes during regeneration. More volatile components are evolved earlier whereas heavier hydrocarbons are evolved subsequently and are more readily condensed, thereby establishing portions of the regeneration cycle having different amounts and types of condensable hydrocarbons (Spencer, col. 3, lines. 15-47). Spencer additionally describes an initial gas portion as relatively low in condensable constituents followed by gas containing heavier hydrocarbons.
Spencer further teaches a bypass conduit 37 and a plurality of valves for selectively bypassing the cooling, condensing and collecting system including scrubber/separator 16. During bypass operation, valve 22 is closed and valves 21 and 23 are opened; thereafter the valves are returned to their normal positions to again route the gas through the cooling/condensing/separating system (Spencer, col. 6, lines. 11-39; Fig. 1; claim 7). Spencer also teaches that valve sequencing may be initiated in response to a gas detector detecting the arrival of a rich gas front, rather than merely according to elapsed time (Spencer, col. 6, lines. 47-64).
Spencer does not expressly state that the separator is bypassed specifically during a duration defined as having an average C5+ hydrocarbon content that is reduced or minimal, followed by routing through the separator specifically during a duration for which C5+ hydrocarbons are present. However, Spencer already teaches (i) a regeneration stream having changing hydrocarbon composition, including relatively lean and heavier-hydrocarbon-rich portions, (ii) valve-controlled bypass of the separator system, (iii) subsequent routing through the separator system, and (iv) composition-responsive valve switching based upon detection of a rich hydrocarbon front.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Spencer's valve-controlled system to bypass the separator during a portion of operation in which the regeneration stream contains a reduced or minimal amount of condensable C5+ hydrocarbons and to route the regeneration stream through the separator during a portion in which condensable C5+ hydrocarbons are present. Spencer expressly recognizes that regeneration-stream composition changes over time and that the heavier hydrocarbons are advantageously recovered by cooling and separation. Such configuration would predictably avoid unnecessary passage of a relatively hydrocarbon-lean regeneration stream through the separator while permitting recovery of condensed hydrocarbons when such hydrocarbons are present.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Spencer teaches that different hydrocarbon components are desorbed at different portions of the regeneration cycle and expressly teaches switching the regeneration circuit in response to detection of the advancing rich-gas front (Spencer, col. 3, lines. 15-47; col. 6, lines. 47-64).
Spencer does not expressly disclose terminating the first duration before 50% of the peak mole fraction of C5 or C6 or beginning the second duration after 50% of the peak mole fraction of C7, C8, or C9. However, Spencer teaches controlling switching according to the detected hydrocarbon-rich front. Once hydrocarbon concentration is used to determine when the regeneration stream is routed through or around the separator, the particular concentration threshold at which the valves are actuated is a result-effective process-control variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an effective switching point, including a point corresponding to 50% of a C5/C6 or C7-C9 hydrocarbon concentration peak, through routine optimization of Spencer's expressly taught hydrocarbon-responsive switching in order to appropriately distinguish the lean and hydrocarbon-rich portions of the regeneration stream.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Birmingham (US 6,004,385).
Spencer teaches the system of claim 1 as discussed above.
Spencer does not expressly teach reducing a liquid level control setpoint of the separator during the recited duration.
Birmingham teaches a gas/liquid separator system for hydrocarbon production fluids and a controller configured to control a liquid level control valve using user-defined liquid-level setpoints (Birmingham, col. 3; claims 4–7). Birmingham further expressly teaches taking corrective action by decreasing the liquid level setpoint to a minimum liquid level setpoint in response to separator operating conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Spencer’s separator with the liquid-level control taught by Birmingham and to reduce the liquid-level setpoint during selected operating periods, because Birmingham teaches such level adjustment as a known means for controlling separator performance and reducing liquid inventory. Reducing the amount of liquid retained in the separator would predictably reduce the amount of liquid hydrocarbon exposed within the separator, including the exposed liquid surface area where permitted by the separator geometry.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Dolan et al. (US 2021/0339187 A1).
Spencer does not expressly teach that the adsorbent bed comprises an amorphous silica adsorbent and/or an amorphous silica-alumina adsorbent.
Dolan teaches an adsorbent bed for treating hydrocarbon-containing gas wherein a first adsorbent layer comprises an amorphous silica adsorbent and/or an amorphous silica-alumina adsorbent (Dolan, ¶¶ [0018], [0025]; see also ¶¶ [0035], [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the amorphous silica and/or amorphous silica-alumina adsorbent taught by Dolan in the adsorbent bed of Spencer because Dolan teaches such materials as suitable adsorbents for removing hydrocarbons from a hydrocarbon-containing gas stream, thereby providing predictable adsorption of undesired hydrocarbon components.
here is another advantage to Dolan: Dolan ¶¶[0025]–[0029] essentially track them:
Claim 5: amorphous silica / amorphous silica-alumina (Dolan ¶[0025]).
Claim 6: high-silica zeolite comprising ZSM-5, zeolite Y, or beta (Dolan ¶¶[0026]–[0027]).
Claim 7: 3A, 4A, 5A, or X (Dolan ¶¶[0028]–[0029]).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Abuda et al. (US 9,857,803 B1).
The system of Spencer is as discussed above.
Spencer does not expressly teach the particular three-valve bypass configuration wherein first and second valves associated with the separator are closed and a third bypass valve is open during bypass operation, and the first and second valves are open and the third bypass valve is closed when routing through the separator.
Abuda teaches a conventional bypass arrangement comprising a main conduit 11 and a parallel bypass conduit 21, an inlet isolation valve 12 and an outlet isolation valve 14 disposed on the main conduit, and a bypass valve 24 disposed on the bypass conduit (Abuda, Fig. 1; col. 9–10; claims 1, 3, 8 and 10). Abuda teaches that closing the isolation valves prevents flow through the main conduit and permits the fluid to be directed through the bypass, whereas opening the isolation valves permits flow through the main conduit; Abuda further teaches that opening bypass valve 24 permits flow through the bypass conduit and closing bypass valve 24 prevents flow through the bypass conduit and directs flow through the main conduit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Spencer's separator bypass using the conventional three-valve bypass arrangement taught by Abuda, with isolation valves upstream and downstream of the separator and a valve in the parallel bypass conduit, because such an arrangement predictably permits the separator to be selectively isolated while maintaining flow through the bypass and permits the separator to be returned to service by reversing the valve positions. Thus, during separator bypass, the first and second isolation valves would be closed and the third bypass valve opened; during routing through the separator, the first and second isolation valves would be opened and the third bypass valve closed.
It is reminded that claims 1-7, 21, and 22 drawn to an apparatus system which includes a manner of operating disclosed system, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP §2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have a patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Exparte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.
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 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