DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “CO2” should be “CO2.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klee US Patent 4,525,338 in view of Saponja et al. US 20180223643.
Regarding claim 1, Klee teaches an apparatus for removing an acidic gas from air comprising (See Figure 2):
a) An eductor 14 configured to contact the acid gas from caustic stream 57 with primary stream including iron chelant 56 (thus forming streams 47, 52, 60 and 15) and release an eductor outlet stream 16 including the aqueous metal chelant and air (thus including CO2)(column 3 line 23 and column 4 lines 40-50);
b) A chamber 17 connected to the outlet of the eductor to receive the outlet stream 16. The chamber is phase separation type, thus condensed primary stream collects at the bottom (column 4 lines 61) and gas comprising the air is collected at the top through line 34 (column 5 lines 8-10); and
c) The eductor comprises a motive fluid inlet to receive line 15 containing the primary stream thus allowing the primary stream to extend from the top inlet of the eductor to the bottom outlet connected to the chamber 17.
Klee does not explicitly teach where the primary stream is configured to circulate the aqueous metal chelant from the chamber to the eductor (column 4 lines 45-60).
However, Saponja teaches a liquid gas separation system comprising an eductor 26 with motive fluid inlet 28. A suction 56 is fluidly coupled to a motive fluid supply outlet 141 of the gas-liquid separator 14 for inducing flow of a fraction of the liquid-rich separated fluid fraction from the gas-liquid separator. The prime mover 54 includes a discharge 58 that is fluidly coupled to the motive fluid inlet 28 of the eductor 26, and is configured to supply pressurized motive fluid to the motive fluid inlet 28 of the eductor 26 (Figure 1 and paragraph [0050]).
One having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate from Saponja that their system allows the liquid treating solution to circulate to the eductor and reduce or avoid external routing of the treating liquid. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the eductor-chamber connection in Klee with the eductor-separation chamber interface in Saponja because the modification would allow allows the liquid treating solution to circulate to the eductor and reduce or avoid external routing of the treating liquid.
Regarding claim 2, Klee teaches the chambers are phase-type chambers thus, gas is collected in the upper zone separated from the outlet stream. Klee further teaches the eductor 14 is a first eductor with a first motive stream inlet and outlet connected to chamber 17.
Klee however does not teach a second eductor with a second motive stream inlet with the outlet of the second eductor goes to the same chamber as connected to the outlet of the first eductor.
The modification in light of Saponja above modifies Klee with the chamber/eductor connection type in Saponja. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have a second eductor connected like the first eductor since the modification is a mere duplication of parts.
Regarding claim 8, Klee teaches the metal chelant comprises ferrous chelants (column 4 lines 45-46).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klee US Patent 4,525,338 in view of Saponja et al. US Publication 20180223643 and in further view of Larnholm US Publication 20210331087.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Klee and Saponja do not explicitly teach weirs in the chamber, where the weirs are positioned between the first eductor outlet and the second eductor outlet while allowing the flow from the first eductor outlet and the flow of the second eductor outlet under at least one weir.
However, Larnhom teaches a flotation chamber for liquid gas separation that utilizes underflow weirs 24. The weirs include perforation openings in order to allow a gas/vapor communication between the upstream and downstream sections of the at least one underflow ([0048]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include weirs in the chamber of the combination of Klee and Saponja above in order to allow a gas/vapor communication between the upstream and downstream sections and improves separation overall.
Claims 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klee US Patent 4,525,338 in view of Saponja et al. US Publication 20180223643 and in further view of Mak US Publication 20170114295.
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 7 Klee does not teach an upstream amine tower to provide them with the acid gas.
However, Mak teaches a plant for sweetening a carbon dioxide gas stream comprising amine adsorber 160 that operates between 650 and 900 psig ([0035]) upstream of separator 171 operating at 445 psig (Figure 1, [0035]). Thus, Mak teaches a pressure drop from the adsorber to the separators, pertinent to claim 6 and 7. Mak further uses iron chelant redox to remove sulfur gas from a carbon dioxide stream (similar to Klee). Thus, Mak treats a sulfur-contaminated stream with iron chelant redox to produce sulfur and CO2-rich gas. Klee teaches improvements in contacting the gas and iron-chelant solutions with eductors and separators.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the iron-chelant redox contacting step in Mak with the eductor-separators in Klee to improve separation of sulfur gas from carbon dioxide streams and provide an improved gas-liquid contacting system for sulfur gas separation. Mak teaches an iron-chelant redox unit for treating a caustic stream while Klee teaches improvements in liquid-gas contact and separation with the eductors. One having ordinary skill in the art would find the combination obvious with a reasonable amount of success to improve gas sweetening.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mak US Publication 20170114295 in view of Klee US Patent 4,525,338.
Regarding claims 9 , 11, and 12, Mak teaches a system comprising (See Figures 1 and 3):
a) An amine unit 361 configured to separate a feed gas 305 and provide an effluent stream 330 comprising hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide ([0034]-[0035] and [0062]-[0063]); and
b) A reduction unit 385 including a primary stream 332 including the aqueous metal chelant and configured to contact the acid gas stream with the primary stream and generate an outlet stream 329.
Mak does not explicitly teach:
a reduction unit including at least one eductor and a primary stream including an aqueous metal chelant, the at least one eductor configured to contact the acid gas stream with the primary stream and generate an eductor outlet stream including a mixture of CO.sub.2 gas and the primary stream;
a chamber configured to receive the eductor outlet stream, the chamber including a sidewall defining a gas outlet and a primary stream outlet such that the chamber is configured to separate the eductor outlet stream into a CO.sub.2 gas stream and the primary stream (claim 11); and
a motive fluid inlet in the eductor, the primary stream extending from the motive fluid inlet to the primary stream outlet such that the primary stream is configured to circulate the aqueous metal chelant from the chamber to the eductor (claim 12).
However, Klee teaches:
a) An eductor 14 configured to contact the acid gas from caustic stream 57 with primary stream including iron chelant 56 (thus forming streams 47, 52, 60 and 15) and release an eductor outlet stream 16 including the aqueous metal chelant and air (thus including CO2)(column 3 line 23 and column 4 lines 40-50);
b) A chamber 17 connected to the outlet of the eductor to receive the outlet stream 16. The chamber is phase separation type, thus condensed primary stream collects at the bottom (column 4 lines 61) and gas comprising the air is collected at the top through line 34 (column 5 lines 8-10); and
c) The eductor comprises a motive fluid inlet to receive line 15 containing the primary stream thus allowing the primary stream to extend from the top inlet of the eductor to the bottom outlet connected to the chamber 17.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the iron-chelant redox contacting step in Mak with the eductor-separators in Klee to improve separation of sulfur gas from carbon dioxide streams and provide an improved gas-liquid contacting system for sulfur gas separation. Mak teaches an iron-chelant redox unit for treating a caustic stream while Klee teaches improvements in liquid-gas contact and separation with the eductors. One having ordinary skill in the art would find the combination obvious with a reasonable amount of success to improve gas sweetening.
Regarding claim 10, in Figure 1, Mak teaches the pressure drops from the amine adsorber to the reduction unit.
Regarding claim 13, Mak teaches the metal chelant comprises ferrous chelants ([0065]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights