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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18852033 filed 9/27/24.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 9/27/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 9/27/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and all dependent claims are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and all dependent claims recite the broad recitation (see respective claims), and the claim also recites the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The Examiner has taken the position that only one is present.
Claims 3, 5 and all dependent claims recites the limitations 0.05XL1, 0.95XL1, 0.2XL1 and so on. Said number and/or equation limitations are unclear how applicant’s invention appears to indicate the standard for measuring the degree intended. Applicant is required to further bring clarification and/or correction to claims.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KLEEF ET AL. (US 3207692) in view of SARNA (US 4869809) and FORTE (US 5191152) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as KLEEF, SARNA and FORTE.
Regarding claims 1-15:
KLEEF teaches a method for separating aromatic compounds comprised in a feedstock - column 1, lines 11-15 - This invention relates to an improved process for the separation of a mixture by means of a selective solvent. More particularly, this invention is directed to an improvement of a conventional process employed for the recovery of aromatics from aromatic-containing feed stocks.
KLEEF also teaches FIGURE I of the drawing shows an embodiment of the inventive process whereby the mixture to be separated, containing aromatic and non-aromatic hydrocarbons, is introduced through one or more lines 1 through 4 into extraction zone 5 see column 7, lines 37-40.
KLEEF also teaches the method comprising an extraction step in a liquid-liquid extractor 5 (figure 1), thereby producing a raffinate 7 concentrated in non-aromatic compounds, and an extract 8 rich in aromatic compounds - column 7, lines 47-55 - A raffinate phase, containing the non-aromatic hydrocarbons and relatively small quantities of solvent and aromatic hydrocarbons, is removed from the top of extraction zone 5 through line 7. The raffinate can further be treated to remove the solvent present therein, for example, by means of water-washing (not shown). An aromatic-rich extract phase is withdrawn from the bottom of extraction zone 5 through line 8 and can be passed through a reducing valve (not shown) to distillation zone 9. The extraction solvent is preferably sulfolane (column 5, lines 1-24; column 7, line 43). The extract is delivered into a stripping column 9 which produces, at the head, vapors 12 which are condensed and then separated in a phase separator 14, before the light phase rich in non-aromatic hydrocarbons is recycled to the extractor 5 via the lines 15, 16 and 17. This processing corresponds exactly to the description para [0064-0065] of the present application.
KLEEF also teaches in figure 1 that the lines 15-17 make it possible to recycle in both the upper and lower parts of the liquid-liquid extractor simultaneously, with respect to the feed line 1 (and auxiliary lines 2-4).
KLEEF also teaches a ratio of extraction solvent to extractor feed of between 1 and 6 - column 6 lines 70 – column 7, lines 7 – This amount can be determined experimentally. Useful solvent-to-feed ratios in the extraction or extractive distillation zone may range from between about 1:1 to about 6:1 and preferably between about 2:1 and 3: 1 (for example, with the use of a sulfolane solvent), a slightly higher ratio is required, viz between about 4:1 and about 12:1, preferably between about 6:1 and about 9:1 with the use of a solvent of the glycol type. If the top product from the distillation Zone is returned to an extraction zone the ratio of the quantity of this top product to fresh feed is suitably between about 0.1:1 and about 0.7:1, preferably between about 0.4:1 and about 0.5:1.
KLEEF also teaches recycling of approximately 500 tons/day of non-aromatic hydrocarbon per a feed of 1000 tons/day (See Example 1, column 9 lines 10 and 34-35), and extraction which takes place at 6 atm and l10°C (column 9, lines 19-20).
Herein, the problem solved by this difference is that of proposing a method for recovering the aromatic compounds from the extract at a higher level of purity and yield. Although KLEEF proposes condensing the vapors 24 that are rich in aromatic compounds (see figure 1) and then performing a phase separation in a decanter 26, the present application proposes processing the aromatic compounds from the stripping column in a column (T6) for recovering aromatics, and then condensing and separating the column head while the base, which is rich in extraction solvent, is recycled via the line 2 to the extractor Tl.
However, such a method for separating aromatic compounds from the extraction solvent is already well known in the prior art. SARNA describes such a method, in which the stripping column 30 (figure 1) produces a column base rich in aromatic compounds and extraction solvent, which is processed in a column 50 for recovering aromatics – column 3, lines 32-47 - The aromatics-rich solvent leaving as stream 34 from the bottom of the stripping column 30 now is substantially free of nonaromatic compounds and is ready for separation of the aromatics from the solvent which takes place by distillation in recovery column 50. Column 50 is re-boiled to generate stripping vapor and the overhead vapor 52 is condensed. A portion of the condensate is drawn off as the aromatics extract product 64. A portion of the hydrocarbon condensate is returned as reflux 62 to the column to maintain the desired degree of separation of aromatics from solvent. Stripping steam is introduced toward the bottom of the column 50 in order to reduce the solubility of hydrocarbons in the solvent and consequently to lower their concentration in the lean solvent which is to be reused for extraction. Thereby meets the limitations of the claims.
As for the device, KLEEF in view of SARNA and FORTE describes a device comprising a liquid-liquid extractor (see FORTE extractor 12, figure 1); having a feed point for the feedstock (see FORTE, line 10, figure 1); a feed point for the extraction solvent flow (see FORTE line 14, figure 1); and feed points into the upper and lower parts of the extractor, with respect to the feed point (see FORTE lines 14 and 16, figure 1). Therefore the devices in FORTE do not appear to require any particular technical modification for the use envisaged in the present claim.
From the teachings of all the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
In addition, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable
Additionally, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Nevertheless, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 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, Prem Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights