DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant is advised that should claim 28 be found allowable, claim 29 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 28 already recites the limitation “the first liquid is a CO2 scrubbing liquid”, which is the entirety of claim 29.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “first liquid present that are present” in line 3 appears to be a typo as there are two instances of “present”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the oxygen-lean sweep gas is introduced in the absorber column after having been in contact with said membrane, in order to recover volatile components of said first liquid present that are present in the oxygen-lean sweep gas.” Figure 10 of the specification shows that the oxygen lean sweep gas after being in contact with the membrane is now a sweep gas with O2 as it is used to deoxygenate the liquid. It is unclear if the oxygen lean sweep gas being sent to the absorber is the sweep gas with O2 after the membrane or the actual oxygen lean sweep gas coming from the stripper.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 19 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over FR403 (FR3045403A1, attached translation will be referenced) in view of US150 (US20150073150A1).
Claim(s) 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US829 (US6592829B2) in view of Lin (US20110285038A1) in view of US150.
Claim(s) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US829 in view of Lin.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US829 in view of Lin in view of US150 further in view of US495 (US20170368495A1).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US829 in view of Lin in view of US150 further in view of Uenishi (US6379796B1).
Rejection in view of FR403 and US150
PNG
media_image1.png
520
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2 of FR403
Claim 19: FR403 teaches an apparatus (figure 2) comprising a membrane module, which comprises a membrane (membrane in figure above), which module has a filtrate side (right side in figure above) and a retentate side (left side in figure above), which module is present inside a container (housing of the membrane and both sides), which module is connected to a feed (8, figure 2) for feeding an oxygen-lean sweep gas to the filtrate side of the membrane (flushing gas is nitrogen, page 7) and which module comprises an inlet (3, figure 2) and an outlet (4, figure 2) for contacting said first liquid with the retentate side of said membrane, and wherein the apparatus further comprises an absorber column positioned such that contacting said first liquid with said membrane takes place downstream of the absorber column (rich solvent from absorption zone, page 13 line 3-10).
The preamble “for the deoxygenation of a first liquid” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02.
Referring to the limitation “within 10 minutes or less after said first liquid exits said absorber column,” this is considered intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
If FR403 does not teach this limitation, FR403 teaches in page 10 that the subject of the present application relates to a process carried out as close as possible to the outlet of the absorber in order to limit the heat dispersion. US150 teaches removal of CO2 from a flue gas through aqueous absorption and stripping process ([0010]). US150 teaches that amine degradation can be measured as change in amine concentration with time and is reported as the apparent first order rate constant of amine loss ([0201]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of FR403 so that the membrane process is performed within 10 minutes after the solvent leaves the absorber as taught by US150 so as to minimize the heat dispersion and degradation time.
Claim 24: FR403 teaches the membrane is a membrane contactor (membrane contacts liquid and gas).
Rejection in view of US829, Lin, and US150
Claim 19: US829 teaches an apparatus for the deoxygenation of a first liquid comprising a module (oxygen separator of absorbent, column 2 lines 10-20), which module is present inside a container (housing of oxygen separator 151, figure 1), which module is connected to a feed (152, figure 1) for feeding an oxygen-lean sweep gas (oxygen scavenging gas is CO2 16 and 71, column 4 lines 2-8) and which module comprises an inlet (7, figure 1) and an outlet (153, figure 1) for contacting said first liquid (CO2 loaded absorbent stream 7 and oxygen depleted CO2 loaded absorbent 153, column 3 lines 50-52 and column 4 lines 26-30), and wherein the apparatus further comprises an absorber column positioned such that contacting said first liquid with said module takes place downstream of the absorber column (151 downstream of absorption column 4, figure 1).
US829 does not explicitly teach a membrane module, which comprises a membrane, which module has a filtrate side and a retentate side, which module is present inside a container, which module is present inside a container, which module is connected to a feed for feeding an oxygen-lean sweep gas to the filtrate side of the membrane and which module comprises an inlet and an outlet for contacting said first liquid with the retentate side of said membrane.
US829 teaches the use of a mass transfer device for contacting the dissolved oxygen absorbent and the oxygen scavenging gas (column 3 lines 57-61).
Lin teaches a membrane for contacting fluid and gas ([0001]). Lin teaches that this is an apparatus for mass transfer of a specific component from a liquid to a gas so that the entire fluid does not penetrate and contact the gas ([0007]-[0009]). Lin teaches a filtrate side (24, figure 1) connected to a gas (21, figure 1) and a retentate side (22, figure 1) connected to a fluid (19, figure 1). Lin teaches it is advantageous to use a membrane for liquid degassing, such as removal of oxygen ([0070]). Lin teaches that transferring mass using a membrane can prevent transmission or leakage of fluids regardless of pressure gradients (abstract) and that this allows for fluids to not fully contact the sweep gas ([0007]). Lin also teaches that this membrane is able to allow substantial flexibility in the control of fluid-gas migration regardless of pressure gradients ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the mass transfer oxygen removal device of US829 to be a membrane as taught by Lin, as Lin teaches that membranes are a type of mass transfer device and this construction allows for prevention of transmission or leakage of fluids regardless of pressure gradients.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the mass transfer oxygen removal device of US829 to be a membrane as taught by Lin as Lin teaches that membranes are a type of mass transfer device for selective transfer of specific components from a liquid to a gas. In this case the substitution would likely produce predictable results because the membrane of Lin is/are an equivalent of the oxygen separator of US829 as they are both mass transfer devices for the removal of oxygen and the substitution would be expected to produce predictable results as the membrane of Lin removes dissolved oxygen from aqueous solution (Lin [0070]) and US829 removes dissolved oxygen from aqueous solution (US829 column 3 lines 54-60).
Referring to the limitation of “within 10 minutes or less after said first liquid exits said absorber column,” this is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
IF US829 and Lin do not teach “within 10 minutes or less after said first liquid exits said absorber column,” it teaches the use of removing CO2 from flue gas with an absorber and stripping process.
US150 teaches removal of CO2 from a flue gas through aqueous absorption and stripping process ([0010]). US150 teaches that amine degradation can be measured as change in amine concentration with time and is reported as the apparent first order rate constant of amine loss ([0201]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of US829 in view of Lin so that the membrane process is performed within 10 minutes after the solvent leaves the absorber as taught by US150 so as to minimize amine degradation time.
Claim 21: US829 teaches the oxygen-lean sweep gas is CO2 (oxygen scavenging gas is CO2 16 and 71, column 4 lines 2-8).
Claim 22: US829 teaches the oxygen-lean sweep gas is obtained from a stripper column (CO2 from stream 16 or 71, column 4 lines 2-8).
Claim 24: US829 teaches the membrane is a membrane contactor (membrane based contactor module, title).
Claim 25: US829 modified by Lin does not explicitly state the membrane is an oxygen selective membrane (OSM). Lin teaches that the apparatus can be used for selective transfer of specific components from a liquid to a gas ([0009]) and that it is used to remove dissolved oxygen from an aqueous solution ([0070]). This would be implicitly taught by Lin as Lin teaches a selective transfer of dissolved oxygen from a liquid to a gas in degassing ([0070]).
Claim 27: US829 teaches the first liquid is a CO2 scrubbing liquid (CO2 loaded absorbent stream 7, column 3 lines 50-52).
Rejection in view of US829 and Lin
Claim 28: US829 teaches an apparatus for the deoxygenation of a first liquid comprising a module (oxygen separator of absorbent, column 2 lines 10-20), which module is present inside a container (housing of oxygen separator 151, figure 1), which module is connected to a feed (152, figure 1) for feeding an oxygen-lean sweep gas (oxygen scavenging gas is CO2 16 and 71, column 4 lines 2-8) and which module comprises an inlet (7, figure 1) and an outlet (153, figure 1) for contacting said first liquid (CO2 loaded absorbent stream 7 and oxygen depleted CO2 loaded absorbent 153, column 3 lines 50-52 and column 4 lines 26-30), wherein the apparatus further comprises an absorber column positioned such that contacting said first liquid with said module takes place downstream of the absorber column (151 downstream of absorption column 4, figure 1), wherein the first liquid is a CO2 scrubbing liquid (oxygen scavenging gas is CO2 16 and 71, column 4 lines 2-8), and wherein an absorber sump is located downstream of contacting the first liquid with the module (column 12, figure 1).
US829 does not explicitly teach a membrane module, which comprises a membrane, which module has a filtrate side and a retentate side, which module is present inside a container, which module is connected to a feed for feeding an oxygen-lean sweep gas to the filtrate side of the membrane and which module comprises an inlet and an outlet for contacting said first liquid with the retentate side of said membrane.
US829 teaches the use of a mass transfer device for contacting the dissolved oxygen absorbent and the oxygen scavenging gas (column 3 lines 57-61).
Lin teaches a membrane for contacting fluid and gas ([0001]). Lin teaches that this is an apparatus for mass transfer of a specific component from a liquid to a gas so that the entire fluid does not penetrate and contact the gas ([0007]-[0009]). Lin teaches a filtrate side (24, figure 1) connected to a gas (21, figure 1) and a retentate side (22, figure 1) connected to a fluid (19, figure 1). Lin teaches it is advantageous to use a membrane for liquid degassing, such as removal of oxygen ([0070]). Lin teaches that transferring mass using a membrane can prevent transmission or leakage of fluids regardless of pressure gradients (abstract) and that this allows for fluids to not fully contact the sweep gas ([0007]). Lin also teaches that this membrane is able to allow substantial flexibility in the control of fluid-gas migration regardless of pressure gradients ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the mass transfer oxygen removal device of US829 to be a membrane as taught by Lin, as Lin teaches that membranes are a type of mass transfer device and this construction allows for prevention of transmission or leakage of fluids regardless of pressure gradients.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the mass transfer oxygen removal device of US829 to be a membrane as taught by Lin as Lin teaches that membranes are a type of mass transfer device. In this case the substitution would likely produce predictable results because the membrane of Lin is/are an equivalent of the oxygen separator of US829 as they are both mass transfer devices for the removal of oxygen and the substitution would be expected to produce predictable results as the membrane of Lin removes dissolved oxygen from aqueous solution (Lin [0070]) and US829 removes dissolved oxygen from aqueous solution (US829 column 3 lines 54-60).
Claim 29: US829 teaches the first liquid is a CO2 scrubbing liquid (CO2 loaded absorbent stream 7, column 3 lines 50-52).
Rejection in view of US829, Lin, US150, and US495
Claim 23: US829 modified by Lin does not explicitly teach the oxygen-lean sweep gas is introduced in the absorber column after having been in contact with said membrane, in order to recover volatile components of said first liquid present that are present in the oxygen-lean sweep gas. US829 modified by Lin teaches the CO2 product gas being sent to the membrane as the oxygen lean sweep gas.
US495 teaches a CO2 capture with an absorber and stripper (figure 1). US495 teaches that CO2 product gas can be returned or recycled to the absorber ([0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of US829 modified by Lin to have the CO2 gas go back to the absorber as taught by US495, as US495 teaches that this is to increase CO2 content of the raw flue gas ([0024]).
Rejection in view of US829, Lin, and Uenishi
Claim 26: US829 modified by Lin does not explicitly teach the membrane is an oxygen selective membrane (OSM) comprising fluorinated hydrocarbons, silicon based compounds or combinations thereof.
Lin teaches that the apparatus can be used for selective transfer of specific components from a liquid to a gas ([0009]) and that it is used to remove dissolved oxygen from an aqueous solution ([0070]). This would be implicitly taught by Lin as Lin teaches a selective transfer of dissolved oxygen from a liquid to a gas in degassing ([0070]). Lin teaches that material selection is determined by what is necessary for the bulk flow resistance ([0037]).
Uenishi teaches the use of a fluorinated hydrocarbon (polyvinylidene fluorite, Column 6 lines 25-34). Uenishi teaches that these polymers have high chemical resistance to chemical liquids that are being treated (column 6 lines 25-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US829 modified by Lin to use an optimal material such as fluorinated hydrocarbon as taught by Uenishi as Lin teaches the use of material depends on the process and Uenishi teaches that fluorinated hydrocarbons are used in membranes and can have high chemical resistance to chemical liquids which are being treated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20110036240 teaches a membrane contactor that has a liquid contacting a sweep gas.
US4516984 teaches a degassing membrane for oxygen.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 09/15/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights