DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the drawings and to claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8-11; and addition of new claims 12-19 are noted.
The amendments overcome the drawing objections, claim objections, and claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant disagrees with the means-plus-function interpretation of liquid-guiding device, stating that “claim 1 provides sufficient structure.”
The office respectfully disagrees. There is no additional structure beyond the recitation of “liquid-guiding device.” The interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant argues that Amblard does not disclose the second bend forming an angle with the plane (zy) between 1 and 90°, citing p. 4, lines 20-28 of the instant specification which explains “the second bend does not form an angle with the plane (zy) between 1 and 90° as the second bend is in the plane (zy) in figure 3 of Amblard.”
This argument is not found persuasive. As a preliminary matter, the office respectfully notes that Applicant’s citation of the instant specification appears to be incorrect, as the stated explanation in the Arguments does not appear at the cited location of the specification as-filed. The office was unable to locate the explanation provided by Applicant in the specification.
Furthermore, the office respectfully disagrees with respect to Amblard. Amblard discloses its second bend as being situation in the plane (xy) not (zy) (see [0060]). This is understood to be in line with the claimed configuration. Note that the instant specification states “preferably, the second bend is in a plane forming a non-zero angle with the plane (zy), for example the second bend may be in the substantially horizontal plane (xy)” (emphasis added). Fig. 3 of Amblard clearly depicts the second bend as forming an angle with the plane (zy) within the claimed range (see left-most diagram).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amblard et al (US 2019/0270941) in view of Hallot (US 2016/0339359).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13 and 17, Amblard discloses a gas-liquid separation device comprising (see Abstract; Figs 1-3):
a plurality of separation elements 27,28 which operate in parallel and are installed vertically, each separation element having (see [0024]):
an inlet pipe 70 for admitting a gas-liquid mixture 41 (see [0008]; [0053]), and
a succession of at least two bends: a first bend 71 situated in a plane (zy) defined by a vertical z-axis, and a y-axis belonging to a plane (xy) perpendicular to the z-axis, the axis of the first bend being defined by a first angle α of orientation with respect to the vertical z-axis of between 45 and 315°, and a second bend 72 whose axis forms a second angle β of orientation with the axis of the first bend of between 1 and 135°, the first bend and the second bend being separated by a distance D1 of between D/2 and 4D, D being the diameter of the inlet pipe (see [0026]-[0030]).
Additionally, Amblard discloses wherein the second bend forms an angle with the plane (zy) of between 1 and 90° (see Fig. 3).
Amblard does not disclose each separating element comprising a liquid-guiding device as claimed.
Hallot is directed to a gas-liquid separation device for the separation of a multiphase fluid (see Abstract; Fig. 2, 2A, 2B). The gas-liquid separation device is housed in a vessel and comprises a pipe 2 which, at its top portion 2b, bends around and terminates into a helical gutter 4, which is open on the top (see [0117], the gutter being equivalent to the chute of claim 13). The structural features as disclosed in Hallot are considered to teach the claimed liquid-guiding device being positioned at the outlet end of the last bend of the pipe (connection of 2a to 4a), the liquid-guiding device being open, all the way along the device in the direction of circulation of the fluid from an inlet section 4a to an outlet section 4b, and the outlet section being positioned vertically below the inlet section (see Fig. 2).
Hallot discloses that this arrangement allows for the gaseous portion of the multiphase fluid, which is lighter, to rise toward the top portion of the enclosure so as to be discharged via a pipe at the top end for discharging gas (see [0116]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the gas-liquid separation device of Amblard to include a liquid-guiding device arrangement positioned at the outlet end of the last bend, as suggested by Hallot, in order to allow for the gaseous component of the mixture to disengage from the liquid and travel upward toward a gas exit, i.e., assisting in the separation of the gas from the liquid in the mixture.
Regarding claims 2, 12, 14 and 15, Amblard discloses the second bend forming an angle with the plane (zy), as discussed above and depicted in Fig. 3. It is not readily apparent from the figure that the angle is within the range of 1 to 20°, as claimed. The office notes, however, that the function of the gas-liquid separation device configuration is to allow for the majority of the liquid to be reintroduced without gas into the reaction zone, with the gas being removed out of the reactor, corresponding with higher separation efficiencies (see [0004]-[0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to optimize the angle of the bends in the gas-liquid separation device of Amblard which maximizes gas-liquid separation efficiency. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, the claimed angle is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Hallot discloses wherein the liquid-guiding device comprises at least one slot (2a) (see Figs. 2, 2A).
Regarding claim 4, Hallot discloses wherein the liquid-guiding device is open at an opening angle of between 60 and 179° with respect to a neutral line of the liquid-guiding device (see Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 5, Hallot does not explicitly disclose the claimed vertical height of the liquid-guiding device. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would select suitable dimensions of the liquid-guiding device by routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, with the goal of achieving the stated objective in Hallot, i.e., ensuring adequate separation of the gaseous phase from the liquid phase in the mixture.
Regarding claim 6, Hallot does not disclose the claimed angle of rotation between the inlet section and the outlet section of the liquid-guiding device. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine, by routine experimentation, an angle of rotation of the liquid-guiding device which provides the stated benefit of assisting in separation of gas from the liquid in the mixture. Absent a showing of new or unexpected results, the claimed angle of rotation is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claim over the cited prior art.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Amblard discloses a three-phase fluidized reactor 10 for hydroconversion of heavy hydrocarbon cuts, the reactor comprising a recycle zone 39 made of an upper hemisphere of the reactor and delimited in its lower part by a surface configured to allow separated liquid to return to the catalytic zone, the recycle zone comprising the gas-liquid separation device (see Figs. 1 & 2; [0024]-[0025] [0038]).
Regarding claims 9-11 and 19, Amblard discloses a process for three-phase fluidized bed hydroconversion (HDC) of heavy hydrocarbon cuts using the gas-liquid separation device (see [0032]). Operating conditions for HDC include:
an absolute pressure of between 2 MPa and 35 MPa (see [0033]);
a temperature between 300 and 550°C (see [0034]);
a surface velocity of upflow inside each inlet pipe of between 0.1 and 20 m/s (see [0035]); and
a volume fraction of liquid in the inlet pipe between 0.05 and 0.95 (see Fig. 4).
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 RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights