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 Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
The applicant further notes that every amendment must be properly annotated. It is noted that the addition of “the” in line 3 of claim 1 was not properly underlined and the applicant is reminded to properly annotate claim amendments to avoid notices of non-compliant amendment.
Drawings
The drawings dated 2/4/2026 are accepted.
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(s) 1, 5-10 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, “cooling said deethanizer overhead stream by heat exchange ” is indefinite since the claim already introduces “heat exchange” and it is unclear if this is the same or other heat exchange.
In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “after the heat exchange” is indefinite since claim 1 now recites two separate heat exchanges and it is unclear which is being referenced.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “after the heat exchange” is indefinite since claim 1 now recites two separate heat exchanges and it is unclear which is being referenced.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “comprising propane” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing propane anew.
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.
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, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mak (US 2009/0308101) in view of Reyneke (US 2021/0070675). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim(s) 1, 8, Mak teaches a process (see whole disclosure; including Fig. 1-3) for separating ethane from propane (para. 21) comprising:
passing a deethanizer feed stream (7) comprising the ethane and the propane to a deethanizer column (55) to provide a deethanizer overhead stream (8) rich in the ethane (para. 21) and a deethanized bottoms stream (bottom liquid in 55) rich in the propane (para. 21);
reboiling said deethanized bottoms stream (part of 9) by a heat exchange with a refrigerant stream (interpreted as a fluid that can be used for cooling something, see fluid to reboiler);
cooling said deethanizer overhead stream (8) by another heat exchange in a cryogenic heat exchanger (60, 51) to provide a cooled deethanizer overhead stream (10);
cooling an effluent stream (1; para. 27) in said cryogenic heat exchanger (60, 51) to provide a cooled effluent stream (2); and
separating said cooled effluent stream (2) in a single-stage separator (54) to provide a net gas overhead stream (5) and heating said net gas overhead stream (5) in said cryogenic heat exchanger (50, 61).
Mak teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach that the effluent stream (1) is a reactor effluent stream as claimed in claim 1 and the limitations of claim 8. However, the separation process of Mak is applicable to a wide variety of feed gases, including reactor effluent streams. Further, Reyneke teaches that it is routine to separate propane and ethane from a reactor effluent stream. Reyneke teaches a process (see whole disclosure) for separating ethane from propane (para. 3) and teaches heating a feed stream (15) comprising propane (para. 11) in said cryogenic heat exchanger (20, 28, 40, 34) and charging said feed stream (15) to a dehydrogenation reactor (“reactor” “propane dehydrogenation”, para. 7, 5); the reactor (reactor) producing a reactor effluent stream (1); cooling the reactor effluent stream (1) in a cryogenic heat exchanger (20, 28, 40, 34) to provide a cooled reactor effluent stream (2). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the process of Mak to provide separation to reactor effluent streams as taught by Reyneke for the purpose of providing profitable separation to such effluent streams and for the purpose of providing desired heat exchange to the feed stream of the reactor and increase the utility of the heat exchange of systems of Mak.
In regard to claim 7, Mak teaches separating said cooled deethanizer overhead stream (8) in a deethanizer receiver (57) to provide an off-gas stream (11) and heating said off-gas stream (11) in said cryogenic heat exchanger (50, 61).
In regard to claim 9, Mak teaches reboiling a portion of said deethanized bottoms stream (in bottom of 55) and transporting a net deethanized bottoms stream (see portion 9 sent out) to further fractionation (fully capable of such functional use).
Supposing that Mak is insufficient to show further fractionation, for any reason, note that Reyneke teaches a deethanizer bottoms (9) that is transported for further fractionation (para. 13). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform further fractionation of stream (9) in situations where further separation of the fluid is desired for individual use and sale.
In regard to claim 10, Mak teaches operating the deethanizer column (55) at an overhead pressure of no more than 250 psig (para. 20, 22 “about 250” includes 240 psig). Further, supposing that Mak is insufficient for any reason, Reyneke teaches operating a deethanizer column (24) at an overhead pressure of no more than 250 psig (table 1, 10 barg = 145 psig). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to operate the deethanizer column (55) of Mak at such pressures to optimize conditions in the column (55) depending on the feed fluid at hand and to achieve a desired energy efficiency.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mak (US 2009/0308101) in view of Reyneke (US 2021/0070675) and Idenden (US 4395310). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
Mak teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach compressing the refrigerant stream before the heat exchange with the deethanized bottoms stream (in bottom of 55) to form a compressed refrigerant stream; cooling said compressed refrigerant stream in the cryogenic heat exchanger after the heat exchange with said deethanized bottoms stream to form a cooled refrigerant stream, expanding said cooled refrigerant stream to provide a cold refrigerant stream and heating said cold refrigerant stream in said cryogenic heat exchanger.
However, Idenden teaches providing a reboiler (50) of a distillation column (10) with heat (column 3, line 45-55) from a compressed refrigerant stream (42, 56), the compressed refrigerant stream (42, 56) being compressed before the reboiler (50); cooling said compressed refrigerant stream (42, 56) in a cryogenic heat exchanger (20) after the heat exchange in the reboiler (50) to form a cooled refrigerant stream (58), expanding (via 74, 84) the refrigerant stream (via 160) to provide a cold refrigerant stream (thereafter) and heating said cold refrigerant stream (in 20) in said cryogenic heat exchanger (20). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mak with the refrigerant system of Idenden for the purpose of providing efficient and reliable reboiling without requiring a very high temperature heat external heat source (column 2, line 5-25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any of 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.
The prior art made of record on the 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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
Prosecution Insights