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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to for” in line 2 should recite --to form--. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe (US 20200239789) in view of Majewska (US 4049775) and EP 279667.
Regarding claims 1-2, 9-10; Roe teaches a method of treating natural gas (para. 0028) comprising providing a natural gas in need of a reduced sulfur compound content (para. 0028), providing a caustic treatment composition comprising a strong base (para. 0037), EDTA, and a balance of water (para. 0035), introducing the natural gas and the caustic treatment composition into a caustic scrubber (reactor vessel wherein the gas and the caustic solution are placed such that the solution adsorbs the H2S and other contaminants meets limitation of a scrubber; claim 1), wherein the caustic composition has a pH of at least 13 (para. 0037), and operating the scrubber to remove H2S and CO2 (para. 0058).
Roe fails to teach that the EDTA amount overlaps with the claim range, the presence of polyethylene in the claimed amount.
Majewska, however, teaches a method of removing H2S from gas (abstract) wherein the caustic solution comprises EDTA in an amount of 0.005 g/l (col. 2, lines 40-50) for the purpose of removing H2S from the gas (col. 2, lines 15-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the caustic solution comprises EDTA in an amount of 0.005 g/l in Roe in order to remove H2S from the gas as taught by Majewska.
Additionally, 667 teaches a method of removing H2S and CO2 from natural gas (page 7, line 55-page 8, line 10) wherein polyethylene glycol is added to the caustic solution for the purpose of adsorbing CO2 (page 6, lines 31-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide polyethylene glycol to the caustic solution of Roe in order to adsorb CO2 from the gas as taught by 667.
Additionally, Majewska teaches that polyethylene glycol in the amount of 0.005 g/l of solution for the purpose of removing contaminants (col. 2, lines 40-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the PEG in Roe in an amount of 0.005 g/l or more in order to provide an amount to remove contaminants including H2S.
Regarding claim 3, as the solution of the prior art overlaps with the solution claimed (strong base, overlapping amounts of EDTA and PEG), it appears that the density of the solution of the prior art overlaps with that claimed.
Regarding claims 6-7, 11-12, Roe teaches NaOH and KOH in equal amounts (para. 0037).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe (US 20200239789) in view of Majewska (US 4049775) and EP 279667 and KR 10-2022-157671.
Roe teaches a process as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the scrubber comprises a packed bed section (claim 4) and that the packed bed comprises EDTA (claim 5).
671, however, teaches a method of removing H2S from biogas (para. 0001) comprising the scrubber comprising a packed bed with EDTA (para. 0013, 0019) for the purpose of removing H2S from the gas efficiently (abstract; para. 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the scrubber of Roe comprising a packed bed with EDTA (para. 0013, 0019) in order to remove H2S from the gas as taught by 671.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe (US 20200239789) in view of Majewska (US 4049775) and EP 279667 and Barnea (US 2021/0154618).
Roe teaches a method as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach collecting spent caustic treatment solution diluting the spent caustic solution with water to form a diluted spent solution and treating the diluted solution with H2O2 solution having a concentration of 10 wt% or less.
Barnea, however, teaches a method for regenerating scrubber liquids (para. 0002) comprising mixing a spent scrubber liquid (having H2S) with water to dilute the solution, and then regenerating the scrubbing liquid with a H202 solution (para. 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide mixing the spent scrubber liquid (having H2S) of Roe with water to dilute the solution, and then regenerating the scrubbing liquid with a H2O2 solution in order to provide a process parameter for recycling known in the art as taught by Barnea.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to vary the concentration of the H2O2 solution through routine experimentation to achieve regeneration of the scrubbing liquid with constraints such as cost of H2O2 and relative effectiveness of the different concentrations in the absence of unexpected results.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe (US 20200239789) in view of Majewska (US 4049775).
Regarding claims 1-2, 9-10; Roe teaches a method of treating natural gas (para. 0028) comprising providing a natural gas in need of a reduced sulfur compound content (para. 0028), providing a caustic treatment composition comprising a strong base (para. 0037), EDTA, and a balance of water (para. 0035), introducing the natural gas and the caustic treatment composition into a caustic scrubber (reactor vessel wherein the gas and the caustic solution are placed such that the solution adsorbs the H2S and other contaminants meets limitation of a scrubber; claim 1), wherein the caustic composition has a pH of at least 13 (para. 0037), and operating the scrubber to remove H2S and CO2 (para. 0058).
Regarding the limitation of about 25-33% of a strong base, Roe teaches that the solution has 35% of a strong base (para. 0037). This appears to be close to the claimed range such that one of ordinary skill would have expected the prior art range to have substantially similar properties as the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 13 and 16; Roe fails to teach that the EDTA amount overlaps with the claim range, the presence of polyethylene in the claimed amount.
Majewska, however, teaches a method of removing H2S from gas (abstract) wherein the caustic solution comprises EDTA in an amount of 0.005 g/l (col. 2, lines 40-50) for the purpose of removing H2S from the gas (col. 2, lines 15-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the caustic solution comprises EDTA in an amount of 0.005 g/l in Roe in order to remove H2S from the gas as taught by Majewska.
Regarding claims 14-15, Roe teaches POH and KOH in equal amounts (para. 0037).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11549064. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope.
Claims 14-15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11549064 in view of Roe.
064 teaches a composition as described above in claim 13, but fails to teach the limitation of claims 14-15.
Roe teaches Roe teaches a method of treating natural gas (para. 0028) comprising NaOH and KOH in equal amounts for the purpose of providing a basic solution (para. 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide NaOH and KOH in equal aments in 064 in order to provide a basic solution as taught by Roe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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: the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the chelating agent further comprising grape seed extract at less than 0.005 in combination with claims 13, 16, 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights