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 .
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 1-20 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 improperly includes the phrase: "The method of claim 1, wherein the removable unit comprises a plurality of channels providing the fluid communication between the hydrocarbon feedstock fluid and the adsorbent." within the body of claim 1. Because claim 1 is an independent claim, it cannot properly depend from itself. It is therefore unclear whether this language was intended to be part of independent claim 1 or whether it is duplicate language from dependent claim 2. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 1 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Claim 16 recites: "wherein the hydrocarbon feedstock fluid is raw mixed plastic waste pyrolysis oil, and wherein the hydrocarbon feedstock fluid is naphtha or gas condensate." The claim requires the same hydrocarbon feedstock fluid to be both raw mixed plastic waste pyrolysis oil and naphtha or gas condensate. It is unclear whether the hydrocarbon feedstock fluid must be pyrolysis oil, naphtha, gas condensate, a blend thereof, or some other composition. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over US Kline et al. (2014/0360891 A1) in view of Brunetti et al. (EP 3 907 267 A1).
Kline teaches a system for loading, storing, delivering, and retrieving gases, fluids, and liquids (¶¶ [0001], [0003]). Kline discloses a vessel used for containing, loading, storage, delivery, and retrieval of fluids (¶ [0007]) and further teaches one or more lattices containing adsorbent material housed within a cartridge, wherein the cartridge is placed within the vessel (¶¶ [0007]–[0008]). Thus, Kline teaches a transport vessel containing removable adsorbent units positioned inside the vessel and configured for fluid communication with the contents thereof.
Kline, however, does not expressly specify the particular hydrocarbon contaminants recited.
Brunetti teaches purification of hydrocarbon streams, including crude plastic pyrolysis oil (¶¶ [0001]–[0004]), and discloses that such streams contain contaminants including nitrogen-, sulfur-, and halogen-containing compounds (¶¶ [0003]–[0006]). Brunetti further teaches contacting the hydrocarbon stream with solid sorbents to remove such contaminants (¶ [0095]) and discloses suitable adsorbents including activated carbon, alumina, silica, zeolites, and ion exchange resins (¶¶ [0095], [0102]–[0110]). Brunetti therefore teaches deposition/removal of contaminants from hydrocarbon feedstocks onto solid adsorbents.
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Brunetti’s known hydrocarbon contaminant-removal sorbents into Kline’s transport vessel system in order to reduce contaminant levels in hydrocarbon feedstocks prior to downstream processing, to prevent fouling and catalyst poisoning, and to utilize storage and transport time for pretreatment. The combination merely applies known adsorptive purification chemistry within Kline’s known transport-vessel adsorbent architecture to achieve predictable contaminant reduction. The newly added limitation requiring fluid communication "while stationary and during transport of the transport container" does not patentably distinguish over Kline because Kline's adsorbent-containing cartridges remain positioned within the vessel during storage, loading, and delivery operations (Kline ¶¶ [0007]-[0008]). Therefore, fluid contact between the fluid and adsorbent inherently exists while the vessel is stationary and while the vessel is being delivered or transported. Claim 2 recites a removable unit comprising a plurality of channels providing fluid communication between the hydrocarbon feedstock fluid and the adsorbent. Kline’s lattice structures inherently provide multiple flow passages permitting fluid communication between vessel contents and adsorbent (¶ [0007]).
Claim 3 recites contacting while transporting. Kline expressly teaches use of the vessel for storage and delivery (¶¶ [0001], [0007]), which necessarily includes transport phases during which adsorption occurs.
Claims 4-7 recite specific classes of adsorbents. Brunetti expressly discloses aluminosilicate and silica-based materials (¶¶ [0102]–[0105]), solid bases and ion exchange resins (¶¶ [0106]–[0110]), and zeolitic/inorganic oxide adsorbents (¶ [0095]).
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 process of Kline by selecting the specific sorbent materials taught by Brunetti for use within Kline’s internal cartridge/lattice system in order to remove oxygen-, nitrogen-, or halogen-containing contaminants from hydrocarbon streams because Brunetti teaches that such sorbent are effective for removing those contaminants from hydrocarbon stream and Kline already teaches positioning adsorbent material inside a transport vessel for contacting stored/delivered fluids. The substitution of one known sorbent material for another known sorbent in an adsorption system to achieve a predictable contaminant-removal result is a routine design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 recites first and second removable units containing different adsorbents for removing different contaminants. Kline teaches multiple lattices and cartridges positioned within a vessel (¶ [0007]). Brunetti teaches different sorbent classes for removing different contaminant species (¶¶ [0095], [0102]–[0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide separate removable cartridges in Kline’s vessel containing different sorbents as taught by Brunetti to selectively remove multiple contaminant classes from hydrocarbon feedstocks.
Claims 9-14 recite specific hydrocarbon feedstocks, including raw mixed plastic waste pyrolysis oil and naphtha. Brunetti expressly teaches crude plastic pyrolysis oil and hydrocarbon streams generally (¶¶ [0001]–[0004]).
Claim 15 recites an adsorbent present as a fixed bed within a circulation system positioned inside the transport container, equipped with a pump to circulate the hydrocarbon feedstock fluid through the fixed bed.
Kline teaches fluid flow and adsorption within a vessel containing internal adsorbent lattices during loading, storage, and delivery (¶¶ [0007]–[0008]). Brunetti teaches fixed-bed adsorption systems for hydrocarbon purification (¶ [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Kline’s vessel with Brunetti’s fixed-bed adsorption arrangement and to include a circulation pump to enhance contact efficiency and mass transfer, as circulation through adsorption beds is a well-known design choice in purification systems to improve contaminant removal efficiency.
Claims 16–20 recite specific hydrocarbon feedstocks and sorbent types, which are disclosed by Brunetti (¶¶ [0001]–[0004], [0095], [0102]–[0110]).
Claim 21 recites that the transport container is a tank truck, tank car, isocontainer, modular bulk chemical container, barge compartment, or chemical ship compartment.
Kline teaches installation of its vessels in motor vehicles and other mobile transport systems (Kline ¶ [0005]) and teaches vessels used for delivery of fluids (Kline ¶¶ [0001], [0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Kline's vessel system in any conventional bulk-fluid transportation platform, including tank trucks, rail tank cars, isocontainers, barges, ships, or modular chemical transport containers, depending upon the desired transportation mode and volume of fluid being transported. The recited transport-container types therefore constitute obvious design choices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the Office Action fails to consider the claims as a whole. This is not persuasive. The rejection relies on Kline for the claimed transport-container architecture, including adsorbent-containing cartridges positioned within a vessel used for storing and delivering fluids (Kline ¶¶ [0007]-[0008]), and relies on Brunetti for the specific hydrocarbon contaminant-removal function and sorbent materials used to remove contaminants from hydrocarbon streams (Brunetti ¶¶ [0003]-[0006], [0095], [0102]-[0110]). The rejection evaluates the claimed invention as a whole, including both the transport-container aspects and the contaminant-removal aspects, and explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the references. Applicant's argument improperly attacks the references individually rather than the combined teachings of the references. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references.
Applicant argues that neither Kline nor Brunetti recognizes Applicant's alleged problem of pretreating hydrocarbon feedstocks during transport. This argument is not persuasive. The issue under §103 is not whether the prior art recognized the identical problem addressed by Applicant, but whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art. A reference need not recognize the same problem solved by Applicant to be properly combinable. Moreover, Kline expressly teaches placing adsorbent material within vessels used for storing and delivering fluids (¶¶ [0007]-[0008]), while Brunetti teaches removal of contaminants from hydrocarbon streams using adsorbents (¶¶ [0003]-[0006], [0095]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized that Brunetti's known contaminant-removal sorbents could be employed within Kline's in-vessel adsorbent system to remove contaminants from hydrocarbon fluids while the fluids are stored or transported within the vessel. Applicant's reliance upon In re Sponnoble and Eibel Process is therefore misplaced because the rejection is not based upon Applicant's recognition of a problem but upon the obvious combination of known structural and functional elements from the prior art.
Applicant argues that Kline fails to disclose purification occurring during transport. This argument is not persuasive. Kline repeatedly teaches vessels used for: loading, storing, delivering, and retrieving gases, fluids, liquids, and mixtures thereof (Kline ¶¶ [0001], [0003], [0007], [0008]). The adsorbent-containing lattices and cartridges remain positioned within the vessel during these operations. Therefore, when the vessel is being delivered, transported, or otherwise moved, the fluid remains in contact with the adsorbent material. Claim 1 merely requires: "contacting the hydrocarbon feedstock fluid with an adsorbent ... while stationary and during transport of the transport container." Kline's adsorbent-containing vessel inherently satisfies this requirement because the adsorbent remains within the vessel during storage and delivery operations. The claims do not require any minimum contaminant-removal rate during transport, any specific transport duration, any particular transport conditions, or any quantified contaminant reduction occurring during transport.
Applicant acknowledges that Kline does not expressly disclose the claimed contaminant classes. This argument is not persuasive. Brunetti expressly teaches treating hydrocarbon streams, including plastic pyrolysis oil, to remove nitrogen-, sulfur-, and halogen-containing contaminants using adsorbents such as activated carbon, alumina, silica, zeolites, and ion exchange resins (Brunetti ¶¶ [0003]-[0006], [0095], [0102]-[0110]). Thus, Brunetti supplies the contaminant-removal functionality absent from Kline.
Applicant argues that the Office Action derives its rationale from Applicant's disclosure.
This argument is not persuasive. The motivation arises directly from the references themselves.
Kline teaches the use of adsorbent-containing cartridges positioned within vessels used for storing and delivering fluids (¶¶ [0007]-[0008]). Brunetti teaches that contaminants present in hydrocarbon streams are undesirable and can be removed using adsorbents (¶¶ [0003]-[0006], [0095]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kline's transport-vessel system by employing Brunetti's known hydrocarbon contaminant-removal adsorbents within Kline's internal cartridge arrangement in order to remove contaminants from hydrocarbon fluids contained within the vessel. Such a modification merely applies a known contaminant-removal technique to a known adsorbent-containing vessel and would have yielded the predictable result of reducing contaminants within the transported fluid. The rationale therefore originates from the teachings of the references themselves and not from Applicant's disclosure.
Claim 21 recites: "wherein the transport container is a tank truck, tank car, an isocontainer, a modular bulk chemical container, a barge compartment, or a chemical ship compartment." Kline teaches vessels used for storing and delivering fluids and further teaches installation of such vessels in motor vehicles and other mobile transport systems (e.g., ¶ [0005]). Selection of a particular transport container, such as a tank truck, rail tank car, barge compartment, ship compartment, or isocontainer, would have been an obvious matter of design choice depending upon the desired transportation mode and volume of fluid being transported.
Accordingly, claim 21 is unpatentable under §103 over Kline in view of Brunetti for the same reasons discussed above.
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