DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Comment
The applicant is thanked for providing line numbers to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “a liquid phase end of the low temperature separator (V1) is separately in direct communication with a bottom of the absorption tower (T1)” (line 13-14) is new matter as the recitation has within its scope that fluid must go directly from the liquid phase end of the low temperature separator to a bottom of the absorption tower without passing through other components. This is not supported by the disclosure. The disclosure shows that fluid passes through a valve and therefore the entire scope of the recitation is not fully supported.
The recitation, “and the heat exchange output end of the subcooling cold box (E3) is in direct communication with the tower top separator (V2);” (line 32) contains new matter inasmuch as interpreted, as alleged by the applicant, that it excludes any and all intervening structures. The disclosure does not support in the least that there may be no intervening structures in the recited fluid path. The disclosure does not provide sufficient support for the broad exclusion. Inasmuch as the applicant alleges that the drawings alone support the scope of the recitation, it is rehearsed that drawings are diagrammatic and merely show positive features of the invention and are not evidence of exclusion of components that are not even mentioned or discussed in the specification. For example, there are no temperature sensors shown in the drawings on the recited pathway. However, this is not support for an exclusion of temperature sensors on the recited pathway. Likewise, the applicant does not have support for excluding any and all components on the recited fluid pathway.
The recitation, “a gas phase end of the tower top separator (V2) is in direct communication with the heat exchange input end of the subcooling cold box (E3),” (line 33) contains new matter inasmuch as interpreted, as alleged by the applicant, that it excludes any and all intervening structures. The disclosure does not support in the least that there may be no intervening structures in the recited fluid path. The disclosure does not provide sufficient support for the broad exclusion. Inasmuch as the applicant alleges that the drawings alone support the scope of the recitation, it is rehearsed that drawings are diagrammatic and merely show positive features of the invention and are not evidence of exclusion of components that are not even mentioned or discussed in the specification. For example, there are no pressure regulators shown in the drawings on the recited pathway. However, this is not support for an exclusion of pressure regulators on the recited pathway. Likewise, the applicant does not have support for excluding any and all components on the recited fluid pathway.
The recitation, “a liquid phase end of the tower top separator (V2) is in direct communication with the upper part of the demethanizer (T2) via a second liquid phase pump (P2)” (line 38) contains new matter inasmuch as interpreted, as alleged by the applicant, that it excludes any and all intervening structures except for the pump. The disclosure does not support in the least that there may be no intervening structures in the recited fluid path. The disclosure does not provide sufficient support for the broad exclusion. Inasmuch as the applicant alleges that the drawings alone support the scope of the recitation, it is rehearsed that drawings are diagrammatic and merely show positive features of the invention and are not evidence of exclusion of components that are not even mentioned or discussed in the specification. For example, there are no valves shown in the drawings on the recited pathway. However, this is not support for an exclusion of valves on the recited pathway. Likewise, the applicant does not have support for excluding any and all other components on the recited fluid pathway but the pump.
The recitation, “no higher than -54.5C” (line 41) is new matter as there is no support that a temperature of the separator (V1) may be “no higher” than -54.5C. Even though the disclosure may support operating at a temperature of -54.5C at the recited location, this is not support for excluding temperatures higher than -54.5C at the location and certainly not support of a structure which excludes higher temperatures.
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(s) 1-3 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “high carbon dioxide content” (line 2) is indefinite for being relative and unclear as there is no way to discern what amount of carbon dioxide is sufficient to be considered “high”.
The recitation, “low temperature” (line 3, see all other recitations thereof) is indefinite for being relative and indistinct as there is no way to discern what temperature level is and is not sufficiently low to be considered low.
The recitation, “a pre-cooling input end of the first pre-cooling cold box (E1) and a pre-cooling input end of the second pre-cooling cold box (E2) are configured to input feed gas” (line 5-6) is indefinite for attributing to the cold boxes functionality that they do not perform or provide. The fluid lines feeding feed gas to the first and the second pre-cooling cold boxes are the structure that inputs the feed gas to the cold boxes, not the cold boxes themselves and the cold boxes are do not provide feed gas to themselves, therefore the recitation is indefinite.
The recitation, “a liquid phase end of the low temperature separator (V1) is separately in direct communication with a bottom of the absorption tower (T1)” (line 13-14) is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require that fluid must go from the liquid phase end of the low temperature separator to a bottom of the absorption tower without passing through other components as this is not supported by the disclosure and it is unclear what structures are and what structures are not excluded from being on the fluid pathway between the recited components.
The recitation, “and the heat exchange output end of the subcooling cold box (E3) is in direct communication with the tower top separator (V2);” (line 32) is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require that fluid must go from the heat exchange output end of the subcooling cold box (E3) to the tower top separator (V2) without passing through other components as this is not supported by the disclosure and it is unclear what structures are and what structures are not excluded from being on the fluid pathway between the recited components.
The recitation, “a gas phase end of the tower top separator (V2) is in direct communication with the heat exchange input end of the subcooling cold box (E3),” (line 33) is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require that fluid must go from the gas phase end of the tower top separator (V2) to the heat exchange input end of the subcooling cold box (E3) without passing through other components as this is not supported by the disclosure and it is unclear what structures are and what structures are not excluded from being on the fluid pathway between the recited components.
The recitation, “a liquid phase end of the tower top separator (V2) is in direct communication with the upper part of the demethanizer (T2) via a second liquid phase pump (P2)” (line 38) is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require that fluid must go from the liquid phase end of the tower top separator (V2) to the upper part of the demethanizer (T2) without passing through other components other than the pump as this is not supported by the disclosure and it is unclear what structures are and what structures are not excluded from being on the fluid pathway between the recited components.
The recitation, “CO2 content in the ethane gas is >= 2 mol%” (line 40) is indefinite since there is no way to determine what structure is being required by the present recitation, especially as the there is no way to determine what structure specifically provides the recited parameter. Further the amount of CO2 in the feed gas does not require any particular structure other than the ability to provide feed gas, which the system already requires.
The recitation, “operating temperature of the low temperature separator (V1) is no higher than -54.5C” (line 41) is indefinite since there is no way to determine what structure is being required by the present recitation, especially as the there is no way to determine what structure specifically provides the functional ability.
Inasmuch as the term “communication with” is indefinite inasmuch as it is interpreted to require anything other than fluid communication.
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.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson (US 8919148) in view of Campbell (US 5881569). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Wilkinson teaches an ethane recovery system (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 7-8) for recovering ethane gas, comprising:
a second pre-cooling cold box (10), a subcooling cold box (15, 22), a low temperature separator (11), an absorption tower (27), a tower top separator (23) and a demethanizer (20), wherein
a feed gas line (31), from outside the ethane recovery system, is configured to input a feed gas (in 31) to a pre-cooling input end (end near 31) of the second pre-cooling cold box (10);
a pre-cooling output end (near 35a) of the subcooling cold box (15, 22) is in communication with a top (see top of 27) of the absorption tower (27), and a pre-cooling output end (near 31a) of the second pre-cooling cold box (10) is in communication with the low temperature separator (11); and
a gas phase end (vapor outlet to 32) of the low temperature separator (11) is in communication with a middle (see gas is in fluid communication with a middle of 27) of the absorption tower (27) via a first expander (17), and a liquid phase end (liquid outlet to 33) of the low temperature separator (11) is in direct communication (interpreted as is directed to from 33 to 27) with a bottom of the absorption tower (27, via 20) and in direct communication with the pre-cooling input end of the subcooling cold box (15, 22);
a gas phase end at the top of the absorption tower (27) is in communication with a heat exchange input end of the subcooling cold box (15, 22), and a heat exchange output end (near 45a) of the subcooling cold box (15, 22) is in communication with a heat exchange input end (near 31a) of the second pre-cooling cold box (10);
a heat exchange output end (near 45b) of the second pre-cooling cold box (10) is in communication with an input end (see 45b to 18) of an output compressor (25) via a compressor (18) driven by the turbo expander (17), and
an output end (near 45d) of the output compressor (25) is in communication with an input end (near 45d) of an air cooler (26); the output end of the air cooler (25) is in communication with an outside (output of the system), and the bottom of the absorption tower (27) is in communication with an upper part of the demethanizer (20) via a first liquid phase pump (28); and
a gas phase end (vapor outlet of 20) at a top of the demethanizer (20) is in communication with the heat exchange input end (near 42) of the subcooling cold box (15, 22), and the heat exchange output end (near 42 and 45) of the subcooling cold box (15, 22) is in direct communication (interpreted as is directed from 15, 22 to 23) with the tower top separator (23); and
a gas phase end (vapor outlet to 43) of the tower top separator (23) is in direct communication (interpreted as is directed from 23 to 15, 22) with the heat exchange input end (near 42 and 45) of the subcooling cold box (15, 22);
and a liquid phase end (liquid outlet to 44) of the tower top separator (23) is in communication with the upper part of the demethanizer (20) via a second liquid phase pump (24); and a condensate product discharge end (to 41) is arranged at a bottom of the demethanizer (20).
Lastly, it is noted that the system of Wilkinson is fully capable of receiving a feed gas that has 2% carbon dioxide since the composition of the feed gas is a functional use of the system. Further, the system of Wilkinson is fully capable providing an operating temperature of -54.5C or lower as Wilkinson teaches additional propane refrigeration to the system as desired (see C3 in heat exchanger 10).
Wilkinson does not explicitly teach a first pre-cooling cold box in parallel with the second pre-cooling cold box (10), as claimed, and a recycle reflux stream cooled by passing through the first pre-cooling cold box and subcooling cold box (15, 22) to the top of the absorption tower (27). However, providing such a feed gas heat exchanger and a recycle reflux stream is routine and ordinary as taught by Campbell. Campbell teaches (see whole disclosure including Fig. 3) a first pre-cooling cold box (15), a second pre-cooling cold box (10), a subcooling cold box (16), a low temperature separator (11), an absorption tower (18); a feed gas line (31) configured to input the feed gas (in 31) to a pre-cooling input end (near 31) of the first pre-cooling cold box (15); a pre-cooling output end (near 38a) of the first pre-cooling cold box (15) is in communication with a pre-cooling input end (near 38a) of the subcooling cold box (16);
a gas phase end at the top of the absorption tower (18) is in communication with a heat exchange input end of the subcooling cold box (16), and a heat exchange output end of the subcooling cold box (16) is separately in communication with a heat exchange input end of the first pre-cooling cold box (15) and a heat exchange input end of the second pre-cooling cold box (10); a heat exchange output end of the first pre-cooling cold box (15) and a heat exchange output end of the second pre-cooling cold box (10) are in communication with an input end of an output compressor (19) via a first compressor (13), and an output end of the output compressor (19) is in communication with an input end of an air cooler;
the output end of the air cooler (20) is separately in communication with an outside (see 47 to outside system) of the pre-cooling input end of the first pre-cooling cold box (15), and the pre-cooling output end of the first pre-cooling cold box (15) is in communication with the pre-cooling input end of the subcooling cold box (16); the pre-cooling output end of the subcooling cold box (16) is in communication with the top of the absorption tower (18), thereby demonstrating a recycle reflux stream (46) that is provided from the air cooler (20) to the pre-cooling input end (near 38) of the first pre-cooling cold box (15), cooled in the first pre-cooling cold box (15), then communicated to a pre-cooling input end (near 38a) of the subcooling cold box (16), then communicated to a top of the absorption tower (18) providing cooling reflux to the absorption tower (18).
Campbell teaches that providing recycle reflux and cooling of the feed stream provides a leaner reflux that is effective in absorbing the C2+ components in the vapors rising in the absorption tower (18) (column 10, line 50-60; column 11, line 10-15) and reduces the compression requirements (column 10, line 49) and requires less contact stages in the absorption tower (column 11, line 5-10) and reduces likelihood of carbon dioxide icing (column 11, line 15-40).
Note that the modification described above results in a liquid phase end (liquid outlet to 33) of the low temperature separator (11) is separately in communication with a bottom of the absorption tower (27, via 20 at least) and the pre-cooling output end (Campbell-near 38) of the first pre-cooling cold box (Campbell-15 via Wilkinson’s 46 to 34-35 - due to modification of Wilkinson to have the first pre-cooling cold box 15 of Campbell); a heat exchange output end (near 45a) of the subcooling cold box (15, 22) is separately in communication with a heat exchange input end (see 41 to 15 of Campbell) of the first pre-cooling cold box (Campbell - 15) and a heat exchange input end (near 31a) of the second pre-cooling cold box (10); a heat exchange output end (Campbell - near 41a) of the first pre-cooling cold box (Campbell -15) is in communication with an input end (see 45b to 18) of an output compressor (25); the output end of the air cooler (26) is separately in communication with an outside (output of the system) and the pre-cooling input end (Campbell - near 38) of the first pre-cooling cold box (Campbell - 15), the heat exchange output end (near 45a) of the subcooling cold box (15, 22) is in communication with the heat exchange input end (Campbell - near 41) of the first pre-cooling cold box (Campbell - 15); the heat exchange output end (Campbell-41a) of the first pre-cooling cold box (Campbell - 15) is in communication with the input end (see 45c) of the output compressor (25).
In regard to claim 2, Wilkinson teaches that the first liquid phase pump (28) is in communication with the second pre-cooling cold box (10) via a pipeline (49) and is in communication with the bottom of the demethanizer (20).
In regard to claim 3, Wilkinson teaches that the bottom of the demethanizer (20) is in communication with the second pre-cooling cold box (10) via a pipeline (at least 40) and is in communication with the bottom of the demethanizer (20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the detailed grounds of rejection above.
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that the prior art does not have the newly recited direct communication. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as it is not clear what interpretation the applicant is providing to the term, but the rejection above shows that the prior art teaches the claimed limitations as far as can be interpreted and as far as supported.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
December 5, 2025