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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed 6/23/2026. Claims 1 and 4-8 are pending while claims 2-3 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102 over Vink have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Embry, as explained in detail below.
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) 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2011/051226 to Vink et al. (Vink) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0024241 to Embry et al. (Embry).
In reference to claim 1, Vink teaches a solvent recovery device configured to liquefy and recover a solvent gas from a mixed gas of the solvent gas and a carrier gas (FIG. 1-5), the solvent recovery device comprising a multi-tube heat exchanger (5, FIG. 1-5) that includes a plurality of tubes (40a and 40b, FIG. 1; page 11, line 33) arranged in parallel through which the mixed gas circulates, and a shell (85, FIG. 1) accommodating the plurality of tubes and circulating a cooling medium (page 13, lines 28-34 and page 14, first paragraph) around the plurality of tubes; an actuator (valves 25a and 25b, FIG. 1) configured to change a total surface area that is a sum of surface areas of inner walls of a tube or a plurality of tubes through which the mixed gas is brought to flow, among the plurality of tubes (page 18, lines 25-34 and page 19, first paragraph), but does not teach a gas concentration sensor configured to detect a gas concentration of the solvent gas in the mixed gas, a control circuit configured to control the actuator to change the total surface area according to the gas concentration detected by the gas concentration sensor and wherein the control circuit is further configured to control the actuator to obtain a maximum value of a plurality of values that is selectable as the total surface area when the concentration falls within a first concentration range including an assumed maximum concentration value, and to obtain a value smaller than the maximum value of the plurality of values when the concentration is lower than the first concentration range.
Embry teaches a solvent injection for solids prevention in an LNG plant (FIG. 1-7) comprising a gas concentration sensor (602, FIG. 4) configured to detect a gas concentration of the solvent gas in the mixed gas (406, FIG. 4), a control circuit (506, FIG. 4) configured to control the actuator (504, FIG. 4) to change the total surface area according to the gas concentration detected by the gas concentration sensor (par 0073, last sentence) and wherein the control circuit (506, FIG. 4) is further configured to control the actuator (interpreted as the atomizer 504, FIG. 4) to obtain a maximum value of a plurality of values that is selectable as the total surface area when the concentration falls within a first concentration range including an assumed maximum concentration value, and to obtain a value smaller than the maximum value of the plurality of values when the concentration is lower than the first concentration range (par 0073-0074) in order to prevent accumulations of freezing heavy components (par 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vink, to include a gas concentration sensor configured to detect a gas concentration of the solvent gas in the mixed gas, a control circuit configured to control the actuator to change the total surface area according to the gas concentration detected by the gas concentration sensor and wherein the control circuit is further configured to control the actuator to obtain a maximum value of a plurality of values that is selectable as the total surface area when the concentration falls within a first concentration range including an assumed maximum concentration value, and to obtain a value smaller than the maximum value of the plurality of values when the concentration is lower than the first concentration range, as taught by Embry, in order to prevent accumulations of freezing heavy components.
In reference to claim 4, Vink and Embry teach the solvent recovery device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Vink additionally teaches a liquid recovery container (295, FIG. 4) that is located more downward than the multi-tube heat exchanger (5, FIG. 4) in the vertical direction and recovers a liquefied solvent that is condensed by the multi-tube heat exchanger (via 290, FIG. 4); a discharge passage (290, FIG. 4) that connects an outlet (285, FIG. 4) of the multi-tube heat exchanger (5, FIG. 1) to the liquid recovery container (295, FIG. 4), and through which discharge fluid containing the liquefied solvent and the carrier gas circulates; and a branch passage (310, FIG. 4) that communicates (via 295, FIG. 4) with the discharge passage (290, FIG. 4), and through which the carrier gas separated from the liquefied solvent circulates (FIG. 4).
In reference to claim 5, Vink and Embry teach the solvent recovery device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Vink additionally teaches wherein the multi-tube heat exchanger (5, FIG. 1-5) includes an inlet chamber (78, FIG. 1-5) into which the mixed gas flows, the inlet chamber includes a plurality of branch tubes (at 37a and 37b, FIG. 1-5) that leads the mixed gas into each of the plurality of tubes (40a and 40b, FIG. 1-5), the plurality of branch tubes is arranged higher than the plurality of tubes in a vertical direction, and the actuator includes a plurality of valves (25a and 25b, FIG. 1-5) provided respectively for the plurality of branch tubes (40a and 40b, FIG. 1-5) so as to open and close the respective branch tubes.
In reference to claim 6, Vink and Embry teach the solvent recovery device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Embry additionally teaches wherein the gas concentration sensor (602, FIG. 4) is disposed in an inlet chamber of the multi-tube heat exchanger and is configured to detect the gas concentration as a weight percentage concentration (par 0072-0074 and 0081).
In reference to claim 7, Vink and Embry teach the solvent recovery device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Embry additionally teaches wherein the gas concentration sensor (602, FIG. 4) includes a plurality of sensors configured to detect concentrations of dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), and ethylene carbonate (EC), respectively (intended use recitation; the sensor 602 in FIG. 4 is capable of performing said functional language).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights