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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to a gas treatment system, classified in B01J19/26.
II. Claims 11-21, drawn to a method of treating an influent gas, classified in B01D53/526.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process, such as ammonia dissociation. The material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims (MPEP §2115).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The above noted inventions designated by Groups I and II have acquired a separate status in the art as evidenced by their different classification, they have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and a completed search of both inventions would necessitate different fields of search. For at least these reasons, a concerted search of both groups of inventions would impose an undue burden upon the office.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Jayne Saydah on 09/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 11-21. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-10 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the last line the term “the motive fluid inlet” is referring to the “first” motive fluid inlet and should recite the word “first” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klee US 4525338, in view of Saponja et al. US20180223643.
Regarding claim 11, Klee teaches a gas treatment system configured to treat an influent gas stream including a hydrogen sulfide gas (Figure 1, steam 11; and Abstract, A two stage process for removing and subsequently recovering sulfur values from hydrogen sulfide or mercaptan-contaminated feed gas streams is disclosed; and col 4 In 40-44. Turning to FIG. 1, a petroleum processing waste gas, supplied via line 11, having a large proportion of hydrogen sulfide, is admixed with dilution air from line 12. This is then fed to first stage jet eductor 14). In the first stage jet eductor 14 the waste gas mixture is intimately contacted with an aqueous solution of HEDT A-Fe+++ chelate complex supplied via line 15 (Col. 4, line 46). The air is considered as a motive fluid and the eductor 14 is considered as the first eductor. The body of the eductor where contacting occurs is considered as the chamber and is connected to the eductor outlet. The air and hydrocarbon stream are introduced together from the same inlet (See Fig. 1, streams 11 and 12). However, this is not excluded in the claim language. The inlet for combined stream 13 and 11 is considered as the motive fluid inlet. The chelant is not introduced in this inlet. The contacting causes oxidation of about half of the hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur with reduction of an equimolar amount of ferric ion to ferrous ion. The product of the contacting is passed through line 16 to phase separator 17 where the partially desulfurized gas stream is taken overhead via line 19 to second stage jet eductor 20 where it is intimately contacted with a second stream of aqueous chelate solution supplied via line 21 so as to oxidize tile remaining sulfide to sulfur (Col. 4, lines 46-61). The reference further teaches processing the effluent of the first eductor and second eductor in flotation units 27 and 37 (Fig. 1 and Col. 5 line 46). A purified stream with 0.1% sulfur is recycled back via lines 51 and 60 (Col. 5 lines 52-55). Makeup chelate feedstocks are added to the recycle lines and are introduced back into eductor 14 and 20 by lines 15 and 21, respectively (See Fig. 1 and Col. 5, lines 54-58). The effluent from the first and second eductor is processed in flotation units 27 and 37, however these are still considered to contain the effluent from the eductors. Thus the recycle lines 51 and 21 are considered to circulate the chelant and effluent back into the chamber.
The difference between the invention of Klee and that of claim 11 is that Klee does not teach circulating the chelant from the outlet of the 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 (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0050]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 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 the liquid treating solution (chelant) to circulate to the eductor and reduce or avoid external routing of the treating liquid.
Regarding claim 12, the Klee reference teaches that the partially desulfurized product from the eductor is exited through line 16 (Col. 4, line 54). This means that petroleum waste gas that is introduced in line 11 will exit from line 16. This will have hydrocarbons since it’s a petroleum waste gas.
Regarding claim 19, the reference teaches using ferric salts (Col. 4, lines 6-10).
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klee US 4525338, in view of Saponja et al. US20180223643 as applied to claims 11, 12 and 19 above, and further in view of Wilson et al. US 20230038934.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the Klee reference does not teach treating biogas or a hydrocarbon gas CO2 with the ferric chelate.
Wilson et al. teaches that biogas is primarily methane and contains carbon dioxide (Para [0043]). The reference further expresses a need to scrub biogas to capture hydrogen sulfide (para [0003]). The reference teaches an embodiment where biogas is scrubbed with ferric chloride to treat for hydrogen sulfide. Ferric chloride is a chelant listed in Klee as a for treating the sulfide in the hydrocarbon gas of the Klee reference.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to treat the biogas of Wilson in the sulfide treatment process of Klee. One would be applying a known technique of treating sulfide containing gases with ferric chelates to yield the predictable result of separating out sulfides (MPEP §2141 III. D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 13 requires “ The method of claim 11, further comprising: separating, in the chamber, the treated gas from the aqueous metal chelant; withdrawing, via a second eductor having a second eductor inlet connected to the chamber, the treated gas through the second eductor inlet from the chamber; receiving, via a second motive fluid inlet of the second eductor, the aqueous metal chelant in the second eductor; contacting in the second eductor the treated gas and the aqueous metal chelant; and releasing a second eductor effluent stream from a second eductor outlet of the second eductor into the chamber.”
Klee does not teach or suggest “…withdrawing, via a second eductor having a second eductor inlet connected to the chamber, the treated gas through the second eductor inlet from the chamber; receiving, via a second motive fluid inlet of the second eductor, the aqueous metal chelant in the second eductor; contacting in the second eductor the treated gas and the aqueous metal chelant; and releasing a second eductor effluent stream from a second eductor outlet of the second eductor into the chamber.”
Claims 14-18 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to the virtue of their dependence on claim13.
Relevant Art
EP0280750A1 teaches purification of sulfide containing biogas using ferrous and ferric sulfates (Abstract). The reference teaches pumping ferrous sulfate with air to an oxidation vessel (Pg.3 lines 31-39).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/SYED T IQBAL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
