DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: change “CO2” to “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.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 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 a process comprising:
a) In eductor 14 contacting the acid gas from caustic stream 57 with primary stream including iron chelant 56 (thus forming streams 47, 52, 60 and 15) and releasing 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) Separating in chamber 17 the outlet of the eductor to a condensed primary stream at the bottom (column 4 lines 61) and a gas comprising the air from the top through line 34 (column 5 lines 8-10).
Klee does not explicitly teach circulating primary stream from chamber to the motive fluid inlet of the eductor.
However, Saponja teaches a liquid gas separation method 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 process 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 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 withdrawing the gaseous portion from the chamber via a second eductor; contacting the primary stream and gaseous portion in the second eductor; and releasing a second eductor outlet stream into the chamber via the second eductor, the second eductor outlet stream including CO2 gas and the primary stream.
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. Thus, the modification would allow the withdrawal of the gaseous portion from the chamber via a second eductor; contacting the primary stream and gaseous portion in the second eductor; and releasing a second eductor outlet stream into the chamber via the second eductor, where the second eductor outlet stream including CO2 gas and the primary stream.
Regarding claim 6, Klee teaches providing ferrous chelants as the metal chelant (column 4 lines 45-46).
Claims 3 is 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, Klee and Saponja do not explicitly teach blending the first eductor outlet stream and the second eductor outlet stream by allowing the first eductor outlet stream and the second eductor outlet stream to flow under at least one weir in the chamber.
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 4 and 5 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 4 and 5, Klee does not teach receiving the acid gas from an upstream amine tower upstream of the eductor.
However, Mak teaches a process 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 7-9 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 7 and 8, Mak teaches a process comprising (See Figures 1 and 3):
a) Using an amine unit 361 to separate a feed gas 305 and provide an effluent stream 330 comprising hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide ([0034]-[0035] and [0062]-[0063]); and
b) Contacting in a reduction unit 385 the primary stream 332 including the aqueous metal chelant and allowing the acid gas to contact with the primary stream and generate an outlet stream 329 comprising CO2 gas.
Mak does not explicitly teach:
contacting, in a reduction unit including at least one eductor, the acid gas stream with a primary stream including an aqueous metal chelant; and
releasing, into a chamber, an eductor outlet stream including a mixture of CO.sub.2 gas and the primary stream; and
circulating the primary stream from a primary stream outlet in the chamber to a motive fluid inlet in the at least one eductor (claim 8).
However, Klee teaches:
a) Contacting the acid gas from caustic stream 57 with primary stream including iron chelant 56 (thus forming streams 47, 52, 60 and 15) in an eductor 14 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) Receiving the outlet stream 16 in chamber 17 connected to the outlet of the eductor and recovering condensed primary stream collects at the bottom (column 4 lines 61) and gas comprising the air from the top through line 34 (column 5 lines 8-10).
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.
Klee does not explicitly teach circulating primary stream from chamber to the motive fluid inlet of the eductor.
However, Saponja teaches a liquid gas separation method 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 process 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 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 9, 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