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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 5/6/2025 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 11-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because at least line 128 does not have a proper arrow to make it clear the direction of flow. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1-10 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, “ethane and propane to a deethanizer column” is indefinite for reintroducing ethane and propane improperly when they were already previously introduced and it is unclear if these are the same or different that what was previously recited.
The recitation, “rich in ethane” and “rich in propane” is indefinite for reintroducing ethane and propane improperly and it is not clear why it is not recited -- rich in the ethane-- and --rich in the propane--.
The recitation, “a deethanizer bottoms stream by heat exchange” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing the already introduced deethanizer bottoms stream and it is unclear what is being referenced.
In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “after heat exchange” is indefinite since it is unclear if this is the heat exchange or some other heat exchange.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “after heat exchange” is indefinite since it is unclear if this is referencing the previously recited heat exchange or not.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “said propane stream” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what stream is being claimed.
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 § 102
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) 1-4, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mak (US 2009/0308101). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, Mak teaches a process (see whole disclosure) 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 (part of 9) rich in the propane (para. 21); reboiling the deethanized bottoms stream (part of 9) by heat exchange with a refrigerant stream (interpreted as a fluid that can be used for cooling something, see fluid to reboiler).
In regard to claim 2, Mak teaches cooling said deethanizer overhead stream (8) by heat exchange in a cryogenic heat exchanger (60, 51) to provide a cooled deethanizer overhead stream (10).
In regard to claim 3, Mak teaches cooling a reactor effluent stream (1; para. 27; see reactor not required) in said cryogenic heat exchanger (60, 51) to provide a cooled reactor effluent stream (2).
In regard to claim 4, Mak teaches separating said cooled reactor effluent stream 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).
In regard to claim 7, Mak teaches separating said cooled deethanizer overhead stream (8) in a deethanizer receiver (8) 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 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).
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 1, Reyneke teaches a process (see whole disclosure) for separating ethane from propane (para. 3) comprising: passing a deethanizer feed stream (4, 6) comprising the ethane and the propane to a deethanizer column (24) to provide a deethanizer overhead stream (overhead of 24) rich in the ethane (para. 10) and a deethanized bottoms stream (part of 8) rich in the propane (para. 10, 13); reboiling (see 38) the deethanized bottoms stream (part of 8) by heat exchange with a refrigerant stream (para. 10, “propylene refrigerant”).
In regard to claim 2, Reyneke teaches cooling said deethanizer overhead stream (overhead of 24) by heat exchange in a cryogenic heat exchanger (at least 40) to provide a cooled deethanizer overhead stream (after 40).
In regard to claim 3, Reyneke teaches cooling a reactor effluent stream (1, para. 5) in said cryogenic heat exchanger (20, 28, 40, 34) to provide a cooled reactor effluent stream (2).
In regard to claim 7, Reyneke teaches separating said cooled deethanizer overhead stream (overhead of 24) in a deethanizer receiver (42) to provide an off-gas stream (7) and heating said off-gas stream (7) in said cryogenic heat exchanger (20, 28, 40, 34).
In regard to claim 8, Reyneke teaches heating a feed stream (15) comprising propane (para. 11) in said cryogenic heat exchanger (20, 28, 40, 34) and charging said feed stream (1) to a dehydrogenation reactor (“reactor” “propane dehydrogenation”, para. 7, 5).
In regard to claim 9, Reyneke teaches reboiling a portion of said deethanized bottoms stream (see portion reboiled) and transporting a net deethanized bottoms stream (see portion sent out) to further fractionation (para. 13).
In regard to claim 10, Reyneke teaches operating the deethanizer column (24) at an overhead pressure of no more than 250 psig (table 1, 10 barg = 145 psig).
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou (CN 109028758) see translation provided. See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, Zhou teaches a process (see whole disclosure) for separating ethane from propane (page 2, para. 2) comprising: passing a deethanizer feed stream (see at least from 5 to 7) comprising the ethane and the propane to a deethanizer column (7) to provide a deethanizer overhead stream (overhead of 7) rich in the ethane (page 3, last para.) and a deethanized bottoms stream (bottoms of 7) rich in the propane (page 3, last para.; page 2 para. 8); reboiling the deethanized bottoms stream (bottoms of 7) by heat exchange with a refrigerant stream (see 10).
In regard to claim 2, Zhou teaches cooling said deethanizer overhead stream (overhead of 7) by heat exchange in a cryogenic heat exchanger (1) to provide a cooled deethanizer overhead stream (to 8).
In regard to claim 3, Zhou teaches cooling a reactor effluent stream (feed stream) in said cryogenic heat exchanger (1) to provide a cooled reactor effluent stream (to 2)(process performs the cooling step recited).
In regard to claim 4, Zhou teaches separating said cooled reactor effluent stream in a single-stage separator (2) to provide a net gas overhead stream (overhead of 2) and heating said net gas overhead stream (2) in said cryogenic heat exchanger (1) (at least when such vapor is eventually sent to compressor (at 4).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the obvious modification of Zhou (CN 109028758) in view of Mak (US 2009/0308101). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 7, Zhou teaches separating said cooled deethanizer overhead stream (overhead of 5) in a deethanizer receiver (8) to provide an off-gas stream (off top) but does not explicitly teach heating said off-gas stream (off top) in said cryogenic heat exchanger (1). However, it is routine to provide recuperative heat exchange with process streams as taught by Mak. Mak teaches separating (in 57) a cooled deethanizer overhead stream (10) in a deethanizer receiver (57) to provide an off-gas stream (11) and heating said off-gas stream (11) in a cryogenic heat exchanger (51, 60). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Zhou with the heating of Mak for the purpose of obtaining cooling therefrom to aide the process efficiency.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the obvious modification of Zhou (CN 109028758) in view of Bellinger (US 3411308). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
Zhou teaches most of the claim limitations, including cooling a refrigerant stream in the cryogenic heat exchanger (1), expanding (with 12) the cooled refrigerant stream (to 12) to provide a cold refrigerant stream (after 12) and heating the cold refrigerant stream (after 12) in the cryogenic heat exchanger (1) and then compressing the refrigerant stream (in 3), but does not explicitly teach rejecting heat from the compressed refrigerant in the reboiler (6). However, it is well known to reject heat from compressed refrigerant for reboiling as taught by Bellinger. Bellinger teaches distilling a feed stream (column 2, line 40-45) comprising ethane and propane in a distillation column (12) and reboiling a bottoms stream (16) from the distillation column (12) with heat from a compressed refrigerant stream 32). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the heat rejector of Zhou to employ the compressed refrigerant (from 3) to heat the reboiler (6) for the purpose of providing greater utility with the heat rejected from the compressed refrigerant and reducing the need for other cooling streams thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form 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
JFPIII
June 9, 2022
Prosecution Insights