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 .
This communication in response to preliminary amendment filed 7/6/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12-13, and 16 are pending. Claims 5, 8, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-20 were canceled by preliminary amendment.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites wherein a caustic tower, an amine gas scrubber, a spent caustic oxidizer, a caustic scrubber, and/or a benzene stripper comprises the stream. This is unclear but is interpreted as the stream is present in a caustic tower, an amine gas scrubber, a spent caustic oxidizer, a caustic scrubber, and/or a benzene stripper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Mo (US , 2017/0028346).
With respect to claim 1, Mo (US 2017/0028346) discloses a method of treating a gas stream of a caustic stripper by adding a solution of caustic and sodium borohydride surfactant. Par. [0026]. The caustic stream may be an amine. Par. [0015]; [0009].
With respect to claim 2, Mo discloses treating with sodium borohydride. Par. [0026].
With respect to claim 9, Mo discloses the stream comprises an acid gas. Par. [0028].
With respect to claim 12, Mo discloses adding the scavenger with the amine in the caustic tower. Par. [0028].
With respect to claim 13, Mo discloses wherein the gas is treated in a caustic tower or basic wash tower, and wherein the stream is a cracked gas stream. Par. [0028]-[0029].
Claim(s) 4, 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Mo (US 2017/0028346).
With respect to claim 4, Mo discloses using the composition to remove aldehyde from the stream. Par. [0018]; [0028]. This would include or else have been obvious to include acetaldehyde.
With respect to claim 6, Mo discloses using the sodium borohydride as an aldol condensation inhibitor par. [0028] and is added in an amount effective to bind COS par. [0023], i.e. reacting the carbonyl-containing compound with the scavenger and preventing formation of an aldol polymer.
With respect to claim 16, discloses the amine may be e.g. methyl ethylamine (MEA). Par. [0015]. In such case the amine excludes a substituted hydroxylamine.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo (US 2017/0028346) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 12-13, and 16 above, further in view of Awbrey (US 4,952,301).
With respect to claim 3, Mo discloses wherein the amine is an alkanolamine or other amines, but is silent regarding wherein the amine is ethylene diamine, ethyl ethanolamine, diethyl monoethanolamine, or combinations thereof. Awbrey (US 4,952,301) discloses a method for inhibiting the formation of polymeric based fouling deposits normally found in caustic washing hydrocarbons. Abst. Basic washing includes amine scrubbers or hydroxide wash systems. Col. 1. “The present method entails assuring that the basic wash takes place in the presence of the ethylenediamine compounds.” Col. 2. Ethylenediamines inhibits carbonyl based fouling. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amine of Mo using ethylenediamine of Awbrey because both are directed to decreasing fouling from carbonyl in acid gas scrubbing systems, Mo teaches using an amine wash system and Awbrey teaches ethylenediamine in a basic (amine or hydroxide) system inhibits carbonyl based fouling.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo (US 2017/0028346) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 12-13, and 16 above, further in view of Patek (US 5,582,808).
With respect to claim 7, Mo discloses a molar ratio of NaBH4 to COS of from about 0.02:1 to about 50:1, par. [0008], but fails to disclose a scavenger to amine weight ratio of about 1:4 to about 3:2. Patek (US 5,582,808) referenced in Mo, discloses treating acid gas with NaBH4 in a caustic wash wherein the caustic is 10% NaOH. Table 1. The sodium borohydride and hydroxide are added in a range overlapping that claimed. Table 1. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Patek in determining the amount of NaBH4 and amine of Mo because both are directed to addition of NaBH4 in basic wash system, Mo teaches using NaBH4 with a basic wash which may be an amine or hydroxide but is silent regarding the relative amount of each, and Patek discloses the amount of NaBH4 to basic hydroxide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 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 at (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 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights