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 § 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.
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]).
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/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771