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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kresnyak et al (CA 2751615) in view of Cooper et al (US 5,684,580).
With respect to claim 1, Kresnyak discloses an apparatus for producing a synthetic fuel, the apparatus comprising: a
reactor configured to contain an FT reaction catalyst exhibiting activity in a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis reaction (FT synthesis reaction) and produce an FT crude oil containing hydrocarbons from a raw material gas (see figure 4, reactor 40);
a fractionator provided on a downstream side of the reactor, configured to fractionate the FT crude oil, and separate hydrocarbons having a predetermined range of carbon numbers (see figure 4, unit 60); and
a reformer (steam methane reformer 25) provided on a downstream side of the fractionator and configured to produce a fuel product from the hydrocarbons separated by the fractionator (naphtha product (100) from fractionator is recycled to the pre-former, further the refinery gas (104) including fractionation off gas is recycled to the steam methane reformer) (see figure 4) .
Kresnyak does not disclose wherein apparatus further includes an aromatic detection unit that is provided between the reactor and the fractionator and detects a concentration of aromatic hydrocarbons contained in the FT crude oil, and a fractionation temperature of the fractionator is changed according to the detected concentration of the aromatic hydrocarbons.
However, in a related field Cooper discloses detecting aromatic content within a stream using Raman NIR and controlling the associated process in response to the reading (see abstract, see col 13 lines 50-67 and col 14 lines 1-30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kresnyak apparatus with a stream detector to control a refinery unit, as detection units including aromatic detection units are conventionally used to control refinery operations.
With respect to claim 2, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the fractionator is a temperature variable fractionator.
However, it is the Examiner position that the prior art fractionator meets the claimed functional language is directed to a manner of operation the fractionator, as the prior art fractionator teaches all the structurally claimed limitation and all fractionator column can initially be switched to preset temperatures.
Furthermore, Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 6, Kresnyak discloses a method for producing a synthetic fuel, the method comprising:
an FT crude oil production step of producing an FT crude oil containing hydrocarbons from a raw material gas using (NG) a reactor containing an FT reaction catalyst exhibiting activity in a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis reaction (FT synthesis reaction) (see figure 4, reactor 40, see paragraph 0045-0046 and 0059);
a fractionation step of fractionating the FT crude oil, and separating hydrocarbons having a predetermined range of carbon numbers by a fractionator provided on a downstream side of the reactor (see figure 4, fractionation unit produces naphtha, diesel and refinery off gas); and
a reforming step of producing a fuel product from the separated hydrocarbons by a reformer provided on a downstream side of the fractionator (see figure 4, refinery off gas is recycled to the SMR reactor 25).
Kresnyak fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the process with the claimed step of including an aromatic detection step of detecting a concentration of aromatic hydrocarbons contained in the FT crude oil by an aromatic detection unit provided between the reactor and the fractionator, and a fractionation temperature in the fractionation step is changed according to the detected concentration of the aromatic hydrocarbons.
However, in a related field Cooper discloses detecting aromatic content within a stream using Raman NIR and controlling the associated process in response to the reading (see abstract, see col 13 lines 50-67 and col 14 lines 1-30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kresnyak method with a stream detecting step to control a refinery unit, as detection steps (stream characterization) including aromatic detection steps are conventionally used to control refinery operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 3, the prior combination Kresnyak et al (CA 2751615) and Cooper et al (US 5,684580) disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Kresnyak and Cooper fail to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Apparatus with the claimed limitations, wherein the fractionator is a plurality of fractionators each set to a different fractionation temperature, a branch pipe having a branch portion branching from the downstream side of the reactor is connected to each of the plurality of fractionators, and
the branch portion includes a switching valve that switches a pipe that communicates with the reactor in the branch pipe based on the detected concentration of the aromatic hydrocarbons.
With respect to claim 4, Kresnyak and Cooper fail to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Apparatus with the claimed limitations, wherein the Apparatus further comprising a heat exchange type gas-liquid separation device provided between the reactor and the aromatic detection unit.
With respect to claim 5, Kresnyak and Cooper fail to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Apparatus with the claimed limitations, wherein the Apparatus further comprising a notification unit configured to notify that a regeneration treatment or replacement of the FT reaction catalyst is required when the detected concentration of the aromatic hydrocarbons is below a predetermined threshold value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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 571 272-6381. 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771