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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: pressure reduction device in claims 1 and 11 understood to be a hydraulic turbine or a Joule-Thompson valve.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “passing an overhead vapor stream from a demethanizer to a first heat exchanger” and then later recites “using at least a first portion of the overhead vapor from the demethanizer” which is considered indefinite. The claims appear to require both the overhead vapor stream passed to the heat exchanger and only a first portion of the overhead vapor passed to the heat exchanger which renders the claims unclear. For the purpose of examination, the limitation of “passing an overhead vapor stream from a demethanizer” is understood to be met as long as a first portion of the overhead vapor stream from the demethanizer is passed to the heat exchanger the limitation is met.
Claim 2 recites “splitting the overhead vapor stream” which is considered indefinite based on the limitation in claim 1 of passing the overhead vapor to the demethanizer because it is unclear what is required of the overhead vapor stream with respect to the second portion formed from the splitting. For the purpose of examination consistent with the understanding of claim 1, the splitting is considered to be before the overhead stream passes through the heat exchanger such that the second portion is not part of the portion passed to the heat exchanger.
Claim 11 recites “a reflux exchanger configured to receive an overhead vapor stream” and “using at least a first portion of the overhead vapor stream from the demethanizer”. The claims appear to require both the overhead vapor stream passed to the heat exchanger and only a first portion of the overhead vapor passed to the heat exchanger which renders the claims unclear. For the purpose of examination, the limitation of “configured to receive an overhead vapor stream” is understood to be met as long as a first portion of the overhead vapor stream from the demethanizer is passed to the heat exchanger the limitation is met.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the flow control valve is configured to split the overhead vapor stream into the first portion of the overhead vapor stream and a second portion of the overhead vapor stream” which is considered indefinite based on the limitation in claim 11 of the overhead vapor being configured to be received by the reflux exchanger because it is unclear what is required of the overhead vapor stream with respect to the second portion formed from the splitting. For the purpose of examination consistent with the understanding of claim 11, the splitting is considered to be before the overhead stream passes through the heat exchanger such that the second portion is not part of the first portion passed to the reflux exchanger.
Claim 20 recites “a residue gas compressor” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how it relates to the “compressor” in claim 11 that forms the compressed vapor portion that is configured to become the residue gas stream and as such it appears they are the same compressor. For the purpose of examination, the two compressors as claimed are considered to be the same compressor.
Claims 3-10, 13-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Campbell et al. (US Patent No. 5983664), hereinafter referred to as Campbell.
With respect to claim 1, Campbell (Figure 5) teaches a method comprising:
passing an overhead vapor stream from a demethanizer to a first heat exchanger (overhead stream 38 from demethanizer 18 is passed in part as stream 40 to heat exchanger 24 where column 15 of Figure 2 would be the same as column 18 and is a demethanizer, Column 8, lines 52-53, as the figure is a different flow process applied to Figure 2, Column 12, lines 51-52);
cooling, in the first heat exchanger, a compressed cooled residue gas using at least a first portion of the overhead vapor stream from the demethanizer (compressed residue gas 38e is split into streams 47 which is passed and cooled as seen in the figure as stream 47b in 24 against the portion 40 of 38, which can be seen as stream 40 has a higher temperature as 40a and stream 47c is colder than 47b);
compressing the first portion of the overhead vapor stream downstream of the first heat exchanger to produce a compressed vapor portion (portion 40a includes the first portion and is part of the stream compressed at 20, which step is described with respect to figure 4, Column 11, lines 42-43);
cooling the compressed vapor portion to produce the compressed cooled residue gas that passes to the first heat exchanger (as seen in the figure, 47 which is part of the compressed vapor portion is cooled from 47 b to 47c, which part of 38 that is compressed and returned back through the heat exchanger and originates at 40a can be considered the original first portion);
passing the compressed cooled residue gas to a pressure reduction device to produce a cold lean residue gas (47c is expanded in 25, described with respect to Figure 4 and valve 14, Column 10, lines 35-36, but would be understood to be the same component);
and passing the cold lean residue gas to the demethanizer as a reflux (as seen in the figure 47d is passed into the column, as a top column feed, Column 10, lines 35-39, which would make it a reflux stream).
With respect to claim 2, Campbell teaches further comprising splitting the overhead vapor stream from the demethanizer into the first portion of the overhead vapor stream and a second portion of the overhead vapor stream (the overhead vapor is split into 40 which includes the first portion and 41 as seen in the figure which is a second portion).
With respect to claim 3, Campbell teaches passing the second portion of the overhead vapor stream to a second heat exchanger (41 passes to 15, Column 12, lines 62-65).
With respect to claim 4, Campbell teaches further comprising cooling, in the second heat exchanger, at least a portion of a feed stream with the second portion of the overhead vapor stream (15 is used to cool 34, Column 4, lines 62-67, which stream 34 can be seen to be part of the feed stream).
With respect to claim 5, Campbell teaches further comprising passing the portion of the feed stream to the demethanizer (34a is supplied into the column, Column 13, lines 1-2).
With respect to claim 8, Campbell teaches wherein the pressure reduction device comprises a Joule-Thompson valve (an expansion valve is a Joule-Thompson valve).
With respect to claim 9, Campbell teaches wherein the compressed vapor portion is cooled in an air cooler prior to cooling in the first heat exchanger (heat exchanger 21, although not described in the specification of the prior art would be recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art to be an air cooler).
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) 6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell.
With respect to claim 6, Campbell does not teach wherein the second portion of the overhead vapor stream comprises between about 70% and about 90% of the overhead vapor stream.
Campbell does teach that percentages change between figures (Figure 4 and 5) where a higher percentage of the overhead stream (33) being cooled (34) in Figure 5, results in a higher percentage (59%) of the overhead stream portion 41 (which is the second portion) being passed to the second heat exchanger compared to Figure 4 where the portion of the overhead stream (36) being cooled is smaller resulting in a smaller (56%) of the stream being passed from the overhead for cooling. Further, Campbell teaches that the amount of feed stream in each branch of the column feed stream depends on several factors including gas pressure feed gas composition, and recovery conditions (Column 15, lines 41-45). As such it can be shown that the amount of feed that would be passed to the second heat exchanger (the second portion of the overhead stream) would be a result effective variable, based on the amount of feed stream that needs to be cooled in the heat exchanger. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Campbell to have the second portion of the overhead be between about 70% and about 90% of the overhead vapor stream, as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component (percentage of stream passed to the heat exchanger) disclosed to required adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Campbell to have had the second portion of the overhead vapor stream comprises between about 70% and about 90% of the overhead vapor stream as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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).
With respect to claim 10, Campbell does not teach wherein the first portion of the overhead vapor stream comprises between about 10% and about 30% of the overhead vapor stream.
Campbell does teach that percentages change between figures (Figure 4 and 5) where a higher percentage of the overhead stream (33) being cooled (34) in Figure 5, results in a higher percentage (59%) of the overhead stream portion 41 (which is the second portion) being passed to the second heat exchanger compared to Figure 4 where the portion of the overhead stream (36) being cooled is smaller resulting in a smaller (56%) of the stream being passed from the overhead for cooling. Based on these changes, it results in a smaller amount of the stream being formed into the first portion (42 and 38 respectively). Further, Campbell teaches that the amount of feed stream in each branch of the column feed stream depends on several factors including gas pressure feed gas composition, and recovery conditions (Column 15, lines 41-45). As such it can be shown that the amount of feed that would be passed to the heat exchanger (the first portion of the overhead stream) would be a result effective variable, based on the amount of feed stream that needs to be cooled in the heat exchanger. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Campbell to have the first portion of the overhead vapor stream comprises between about 10% and about 30% of the overhead vapor stream, as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component (percentage of stream passed to the heat exchanger) disclosed to required adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Campbell to have had the first portion of the overhead vapor stream comprises between about 10% and about 30% of the overhead vapor stream as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell and Santos and further in view of Mak (US PG Pub 20090301133), hereinafter referred to as Mak.
With respect to claim 7, Campbell does not explicitly teach the pressure reduction device comprises a hydraulic turbine.
Mak teaches that for expansion of a reflux stream the expansion can be by JT or other suitable devices including hydraulic turbine (paragraph 34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Mak provided the pressure reduction device of Campbell as a hydraulic turbine since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby utilizing a hydraulic turbine would allow for what is common knowledge in the art of for power to be recovered from the expansion.
Claim(s) 11-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell and further in view of Santos (US PG Pub 20140345319), hereinafter referred to as Santos.
With respect to claim 11, Campbell teaches (Figure 5) a bolt-on unit for a natural gas liquid plant, comprising: a reflux exchanger (24) configured to receive an overhead vapor stream from a demethanizer and to cool a compressed cooled residue gas stream using at least a first portion of the overhead vapor (stream from the demethanizer overhead stream 38 from demethanizer 18 is passed in part as stream 40 to heat exchanger 24 where column 15 of Figure 2 would be the same as column 18 and is a demethanizer, Column 8, lines 52-53, as the figure is a different flow process applied to Figure 2, Column 12, lines 51-52, where heat exchanger 24 is being used to cool the stream used for reflux as seen in the figure 47c from 24 is passed into the column as 47d, as a top column feed, Column 10, lines 35-39, which would make it a reflux stream);
a compressor configured to compress the first portion of the overhead vapor stream downstream from the reflux exchanger to form a compressed vapor portion (portion 40a is part of the stream compressed at 20, which step is described with respect to figure 4, Column 11, lines 42-43);
an air cooler configured to cool the compressed vapor portion to form the compressed cooled residue gas stream that is cooled in the reflux exchanger (heat exchanger 21, although not described in the specification of the prior art would be recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art to be an air cooler, which stream 47b that is cooled in 24 is part of the stream 38f, so part of 47 that is formed of 41 can be considered the compressed vapor portion that is cooled as well as the first portion in 15);
a pressure reduction device configured to receive the compressed cooled residue gas stream from the reflux exchanger and to form a cold lean residue gas that is directed to the demethanizer as a reflux stream (47c is expanded in 25, described with respect to Figure 4 and valve 14, Column 10, lines 35-36, but would be understood to be the same component).
Campbell does not teach a flow control valve configured to direct the first portion of the overhead vapor stream to the reflux exchanger.
Santos teaches that a split ratio of two streams can be adjusted and controlled using a flow control valve (paragraphs 101-102).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Santos to controlled the split of the two portions of the overhead stream of Campbell using a flow control valve since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a flow control valve would allow for active control of the split which would allow for more efficient operation of the system to be able to dynamically adjust the amount of cooling provided to each heat exchanger based on changes in system operation.
With respect to claim 12, Campbell as modified teaches wherein the flow control valve is configured to split the overhead vapor stream into the first portion of the overhead vapor stream and a second portion of the overhead vapor stream (as modified the valve controls the split between 41 and 40, where stream 41 is the second portion).
With respect to claim 13, Campbell as modified teaches wherein the flow control valve is fluidly coupled to a subcool exchanger such that the second portion of the overhead vapor stream is directed from the flow control valve to the subcool exchanger (the control valve controls the split of 41 and is thus fluidly coupled to the heat exchanger 15 that 41 passes into lines 62-65, which based on the composition of stream 33, the propane cooled in 15 would be subcooled and thus 15 can be considered a subcool heat exchanger).
With respect to claim 14, Campbell as modified teaches wherein the subcool exchanger is configured to cool at least a portion of a feed stream with the second portion of the overhead vapor stream (15 is used to cool 34, Column 4, lines 62-67, which stream 34 can be seen to be part of the feed stream).
With respect to claim 15, Campbell as modified teaches wherein the subcool exchanger is fluidly coupled to the demethanizer such that the portion of the feed stream is directed from the subcool exchanger to the demethanizer (34a is supplied into the column, Column 13, lines 1-2).
With respect to claim 16, Campbell as modified does not teach wherein the flow control valve is configured to direct between about 70% and 90% of the overhead vapor stream to the subcool exchanger as the second portion of the overhead vapor stream.
Campbell does teach that percentages change between figures (Figure 4 and 5) where a higher percentage of the overhead stream (33) being cooled (34) in Figure 5, results in a higher percentage (59%) of the overhead stream portion 41 (which is the second portion) being passed to the second heat exchanger compared to Figure 4 where the portion of the overhead stream (36) being cooled is smaller resulting in a smaller (56%) of the stream being passed from the overhead for cooling. Based on these changes, it results in a smaller amount of the stream being formed into the first portion (42 and 38 respectively). Further, Campbell teaches that the amount of feed stream in each branch of the column feed stream depends on several factors including gas pressure feed gas composition, and recovery conditions (Column 15, lines 41-45). As such it can be shown that the amount of feed that would be passed to the heat exchanger (the first portion of the overhead stream) would be a result effective variable, based on the amount of feed stream that needs to be cooled in the heat exchanger. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Campbell to have the portion of the overhead vapor passed to the subcool exchanger be between about 70% and about 90% of the overhead vapor stream, as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component (percentage of stream passed to the heat exchanger) disclosed to required adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Campbell to have had the portion of the overhead vapor directed by the flow control valve to the subcool exchanger be between about 70% and about 90% of the overhead vapor stream as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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).
With respect to claim 18, Campbell teaches wherein the pressure reduction device comprises a Joule-Thompson valve (an expansion valve is a Joule-Thompson valve).
With respect to claim 19, Campbell as modified does not teach wherein the flow control valve is configured to direct between about 10% and about 30% of the overhead vapor stream to the reflux exchanger as the first portion of the overhead vapor stream.
Campbell does teach that percentages change between figures (Figure 4 and 5) where a higher percentage of the overhead stream (33) being cooled (34) in Figure 5, results in a higher percentage (59%) of the overhead stream portion 41 (which is the second portion) being passed to the second heat exchanger compared to Figure 4 where the portion of the overhead stream (36) being cooled is smaller resulting in a smaller (56%) of the stream being passed from the overhead for cooling. Based on these changes, it results in a smaller amount of the stream being formed into the first portion (42 and 38 respectively). Further, Campbell teaches that the amount of feed stream in each branch of the column feed stream depends on several factors including gas pressure feed gas composition, and recovery conditions (Column 15, lines 41-45). As such it can be shown that the amount of feed that would be passed to the heat exchanger (the first portion of the overhead stream) would be a result effective variable, based on the amount of feed stream that needs to be cooled in the heat exchanger. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Campbell to have the first portion of the overhead vapor stream comprises between about 10% and about 30% of the overhead vapor stream, as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component (percentage of stream passed to the heat exchanger) disclosed to required adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Campbell to have had the first portion of the overhead vapor directed to the reflux exchanger be between about 10% and about 30% of the overhead vapor stream as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell and Santos and further in view of Mak.
With respect to claim 17, Campbell does not explicitly teach the pressure reduction device comprises a hydraulic turbine.
Mak teaches that for expansion of a reflux stream the expansion can be by JT or other suitable devices including hydraulic turbine (paragraph 34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Mak provided the pressure reduction device of Campbell as a hydraulic turbine since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby utilizing a hydraulic turbine would allow for what is common knowledge in the art of for power to be recovered from the expansion.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell/Santos and further in view of Gahier et al (US PG Pub 20140290307).
With respect to claim 20, Campbell as modified teaches wherein the reflux exchanger is fluidly coupled to a residue gas compressor (the compressed stream that is passed to the exchanger 24 comes from compressor 20 which is a reflux compressor).
Campbell as modified does not teach wherein the natural gas liquid plant is configured to provide at least a 99% ethane recovery.
Gahier teaches that it is known to achieve an ethane recovery as greater than 99% (paragraph 174).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Gahier to have operated Campbell to achieve an ethane recovery of greater than 99% (as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the range, indicating simply that it is at least 99%) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pittman (US PG Pub 20080190136) which teaches a substantially similar configuration as Campbell above and which also provides a teaching that can be said to anticipate claim 1 above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights