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 .
Office Action Summary
This is the initial office action for application 18863174 filed 11/05/2024.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been fully consider.
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 4, 5, and 8 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 4 recites the broad recitation “between 0.22m and 1.50m”, and the claim also recites “between 0.27m and 0.90m”, and “between 0.33m and 0.83m”, which are the narrower statements 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.
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 5 recites the broad recitation “between 0.20m and 1.00m”, and the claim also recites “between 0.25m and 0.60m”, and “between 0.30m and 0.55m”, which are the narrower statements 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.
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 8 recites the broad recitation “between 0.05 MPa and 3 MPa”, and the claim also recites “between 0.3 MPa and 1 MPa”, and “between 0.2 MPa and 1.5 MPa”, and “between 0.2 MPa and 1.5 MPa”, which are the narrower statements 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.
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 8 recites the broad recitation “between 10 C to 150 C”, and the claim also recites “between 15 C and 130 C”, and “between 30 C and 120 C”, and “between 40 C and 110 C”, which are the narrower statements 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GERHOLD (US 3979281) in view of BUSHNELL (EP0112165).
GERHOLD teaches continuous liquid-liquid extraction process with periodic flow of the denser stream utilizing a tower having perforated contacting trays.
Regarding claim 1, GERHOLD teaches in the drawing a depiction of the operation of an extraction tower 1. (liquid-liquid extraction column)
The drawing and the process is explained in ln 58-68 of column 1, and ln 1-68 of column 2.
A continuous multicomponent feed stream enters the tower through line 2.
A solvent stream enters through line 11.
The denser stream of the feed stream and the solvent stream is injected in to an upper portion of the tower and the less dense stream is injected in a lower part of the tower and rises countercurrently. The feed stream and the solvent stream meet the definitions of a “continuous” phase and a “dispersed” phase as described in page 2 of the present specification. (a first injection point (2) for injection of a first phase; a second injection point (3) for injection of a second phase, the first and second injection points (2, 3) being positioned on the extraction column (1) in such a way as to allow the first and second phases to circulate in the extraction column (1) in a countercurrent manner, one of the first and second phases being a continuous phase (A) and the other being a dispersed phase (B); )
A raffinate stream exits the top of the tower and an extracted stream exits the bottom of the tower. (a first withdrawal point for withdrawal of an extract (4) and a second withdrawal point for withdrawal of a raffinate (5), one being located at the bottom of the extraction column (1) and the other being located at the top of the extraction column (1))
The extraction tower is taught in ln 11-50 of column 3 with perforated contacting trays that has a downcomer leading to the tray below it and extending upward above its top surface to form a weir that limits liquid flow. The height of the weir determines the amount of liquid that is retained on the contacting trays. (a plurality of sieve trays (Pi) located from the top of the extraction column (1) to the bottom of the extraction column (1), the sieve trays (Pi) being spaced apart by an inter-tray space (8) and comprising weir plates (10) designed to hold a layer (9) of the dispersed phase (B) that has coalesced above or below the sieve trays (Pi); plurality of riser/downcomer conduits (6), a riser/downcomer conduit (6) being an opening adjacent to a weir plate (10) and allowing the continuous phase (A) to pass through the sieve tray (Pᵢ))
BUSHNELL is relied on to teach the use of different types of trays.
BUSHNELL teaches in Fig 3 and perforate plates 184 and 186 which extend from the walls and pass to a central perforate plate 182.
Alternating perforated trays as two peripheral and a central perforated plate such as the one taught in BUSHNELL would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
BUSHNELL teaches multiple advantages to employing the design that is taught in BUSHNELL in paragraphs 12-15 of BUSHNELL.
BUSHNELL recognizes in paragraph 5 that the height of the riser height above the tray affects the process. BUSHNELL teaches in paragraph 16 that the perforated plates of a cascade weir preferably are disposed about 5% to about 50% of the tray spacing in the tower.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the heights between the trays given that the heights could only be greater, equal or less and one or ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize or find workable ranges for the process. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, the denser stream of the feed stream and the solvent stream is injected in to an upper portion of the tower and the less dense stream is injected in a lower part of the tower and rises countercurrently. The feed stream and the solvent stream meet the definitions of a “continuous” phase and a “dispersed” phase as described in page 2 of the present specification. (injecting a first phase and a second phase into the liquid-liquid extraction column)
A raffinate stream exits the top of the tower and an extracted stream exits the bottom of the tower. (withdrawing an extract and a raffinate from the liquid-liquid extraction column)
Regarding claim 9, GERHOLD teaches in ln 33-50 of column 2 that the liquid-liquid extraction may be applied to separate aromatic hydrocarbons from a mixture of paraffinic hydrocarbons.
Regarding claim 10, GERHOLD teaches in ln 1-7 of column 3 that the solvent used may be diglycolamine, diethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, tetraethylene glycol or N-formylmorphaline.
Regarding claim 6, GERHOLD teaches in ln 1-30 of column 2 and ln51-68 of column 4 and ln 1-24 of column 5 a portion of the extract is returned through line 5 as a reflux stream. The reflux stream is taught in ln 1-9 in which it is supplied to the bottom of the tower when the feed stream is less dense than the solvent stream. The top of the tower between the feed stream and the solvent stream has been considered the extraction sector (11) and the bottom of the tower between the reflux stream and the feed stream has been considered the backwash sector.
Regarding claims 2-3, the ratio of the heights between the trays would be a matter of optimization or workable ranges absent evidence to the contrary.
BUSHNELL recognizes in paragraph 5 that the height of the riser height above the tray affects the process. BUSHNELL teaches in paragraph 16 that the perforated plates of a cascade weir preferably are disposed about 5% to about 50% of the tray spacing in the tower.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, a ratio of 1.1 is so close to 1 that one of ordinary skill in the art may expect that to have the same effects as a ratio 1.0 absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 4-5, the heights between the trays would be a matter of optimization or workable ranges absent evidence to the contrary.
BUSHNELL recognizes in paragraph 5 that the height of the riser height above the tray affects the process. BUSHNELL teaches in paragraph 16 that the perforated plates of a cascade weir preferably are disposed about 5% to about 50% of the tray spacing in the tower.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GERHOLD (US 3979281) in view of BUSHNELL (EP0112165) as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-10 above, and further in view of UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY (GB823902A).
Regarding claim 8, GERHOLD in view of BUSHNELL teaches that liquid-liquid extraction tower may be used for extraction between aromatics and paraffinics with solvents such as ethylene glycol.
UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY teach extraction with a solvent such as alkylene glycol at temperatures between 93-232 C and a pressure between 0.7-20.4 atm.
Temperature and pressures that overlap those claimed are known for processes of extraction between liquid and liquid of aromatics from other hydrocarbons.
Employing known temperature and pressures for extracting processes for an extraction tower would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights