DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 18 August 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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 1, 4-8, 11-15, 19, and 25-27 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 25, the claim requires “compressing the process gas to produce a compressed process gas” and then further refers to “compressed and/or partially-compressed process gas”. It is unclear what the partially-compressed process gas is referring to.
Claims 4-8, 11-15, 19, and 26-27 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above, as they depend from claims 1 or 25.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 18, 30, 36, and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lattner (US 2014/0061100) in view of Keusenkothen (US 2014/0303416), Farrell (US 4,002,565), Green (US 3,829,521) and White (US 2,621,216).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6, and 18, Lattner teaches a process for steam cracking a hydrocarbon feed comprising nitrogen to obtain an upgraded cracker effluent and separating the cracker effluent into various product fractions [0063-0066], see figures.
Examiner notes that since the steam cracker feedstock of Lattner comprises nitrogen, it is expected that the product fractions produced would also contain nitrogen, since Lattner teaches the same steps of cracking hydrocarbons comprising nitrogen.
Lattner does not explicitly disclose (1) the specifics of the product separation (2) separating the process gas into hydrocarbon water mixture and purge fluid, sending the hydrocarbon water mixture with the pygas to a nitrogen separation step (3) compressing the process gas prior to separation and caustic treatment.
Regarding (1), Keusenkothen teaches that following steam cracking and fractionation, it is conventional to treat the light gas fraction with caustic wash, amine wash, nitrogen removal steps, and water removal [0078].
Further, Farrell teaches a method for treating pyrolysis gas to separate water, ammonia, and acid gases from the light gas fraction (column 1, lines 1-45). Farrell teaches a separation of concentrated py gas from water (column 3, lines 1-65). The separated water component is further treated to remove ammonia from the water in a stripping distillation column (column 4, lines 1-65, see figure). Farrell teaches condensation steps to separate ammonia from the water fraction at temperatures of 93-149°C (column 5, lines 22-45), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have applied the Keusenkothen/Farrell light gas separation steps to the process of Lattner, for the benefit of separating ammonia and acid gas from the light pyrolysis product streams of Lattner.
Regarding (2), Green teaches a method for separating pyrolysis gas effluent 2 into a process gas 8 and a pygas stream 20. The py gas stream 20 is separated into a concentrated stream 40 which is fed to amine stripper unit 30 with the hydrocarbon water mixture 16 from the separation of the process gas (see figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Green separation steps, for the benefit of obtaining the desired purified products.
Regarding (3), White teaches it is conventional to perform compressions and separation steps on pygas prior to caustic separation steps and to combine caustic separation treatment of gas components from cracking (see figure, column 6, lines 1-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have compressed the gas streams prior to caustic treatment, and to perform combined treatment, in order to obtain the desired purified stream.
Regarding claim 5, Lattner teaches primary fractionator to separate the fractions and quench steps [0043]. Lattner additionally notes that light hydrocarbon fractions recovered from the fractionation column may be taken as quench oil [0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skilled in the art to have used the purified light effluent as quench fluid, since it is a suitable boiling range inert hydrocarbon material that may be utilized as quench.
Regarding claim 30, Lattner teaches conventional furnace using convection and radiant section using dilution steam [0063]. Examiner notes that the person having ordinary skill in the art would appropriately supply dilution steam from any appropriate source, such as a generator. It is further expected that there is nitrogen in the feeds and it is converted to ammonia, since ammonia is separated downstream in the prior art references.
Regarding claim 36, it is expected that the same purity nitrogen would result, since the prior art teaches the same process steps as claimed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps from the prior art in this regard.
Regarding claims 39-41, Green teaches conventional separation equipment including quench tower (4), compression stages, condensers (coolers) and ko drums (separators) (see figures).
Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have linked appropriate separation equipment, such as disclosed by Green, for the benefit of achieving the desired separation of nitrogen and acid gas from the pyrolysis gas products.
Claims 7-8, 11-15, 19-21, 24-25, 31-35, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lattner (US 2014/0061100) in view of Keusenkothen (US 2014/0303416) and Farrell (US 4,002,565), Green (US 3,829,521) and White (US 2,621,216), as applied to claim1 above, with further evidence from Reyneke (US 2006/0135840) and Wang (US 2010/0104498).
Regarding claims 7-8, 11-15, 19-21, and 24-25, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Keusenkothen teaches that following steam cracking and fractionation, it is conventional to treat the light gas fraction with caustic wash, amine wash, nitrogen removal steps, and water wash removal [0078]. As discussed above, Farrell teaches stripping to recover ammonia from water streams (column 4, lines 45-65).
Reyneke is provided as evidence to show that light gas is conventionally fed to compressors and condensation units prior to amine units and caustic towers [0007].
Wang is provided as evidence to show that amine units are conventionally paired with amine regeneration towers in order to recover the solution [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the well-known amine unit equipment and steps including compressors, condensation steps, and regeneration units, caustic units, water wash, ammonia stripping towers, etc, in order to perform the desired gas purification.
Regarding claims 31-35, Examiner notes that conventional amine beds contain absorbents for purifying the streams. Examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the known amine units, caustic towers, and regenerators, in order to achieve the desired separation of nitrogen containing components. It is not seen where such modifications would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claims 37-38, it is expected that the same purity nitrogen would result, since the prior art teaches the same process steps as claimed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps from the prior art in this regard.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lattner (US 2014/0061100) in view of Keusenkothen (US 2014/0303416), Farrell (US 4,002,565), Green (US 3,829,521) and White (US 2,621,216)further evidence from Reyneke (US 2006/0135840) and Wang (US 2010/0104498) as applied to claim 25 above and further in view of Kelly (US 5,698,760).
Regarding claims 26-27, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 25, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose separation of isobutene and production of MTBE.
However, Kelly teaches that it is known in the art to separate pyrolysis byproduct streams to recover isobutene and reacting the isobutene to produce more valuable MTBE products (column 1, lines 1-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Kelly steps to recover the more valuable MTBE from the pyrolysis effluent.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou (US 2011/0005970) in view of Keusenkothen (US 2014/0303416) and Farrell (US 4,002,565).
Regarding claims 28-29, Ou teaches an apparatus comprising a steam cracker 112, fluidly connected to flash 103, quench stage, tar knock out drum 188, and fractionator, with bottoms from the fractionator coupled to the quench tower (see figure, [0044-0050]).
Ou does not explicitly disclose the specifics of the gaseous product separation.
However, Keusenkothen teaches that following steam cracking and fractionation, it is conventional to treat the light gas fraction with caustic wash, amine wash, nitrogen removal steps, and water removal [0078].
Further, Farrell teaches a method for treating pyrolysis gas to separate water, ammonia, and acid gases from the light gas fraction (column 1, lines 1-45). Farrell teaches a separation of concentrated py gas from water (column 3, lines 1-65). The separated water component is further treated to remove ammonia from the water in a stripping distillation column (column 4, lines 1-65, see figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have applied the Keusenkothen/Farrell light gas separation steps to the process of Ou, for the benefit of separating ammonia and acid gas from the light pyrolysis product streams of Lattner. Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have configured the well-known separation equipment in order to achieve the desired separations. It is not seen where such modifications would result in any new or unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are addressed by the updated rejections as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 17904682, 17904849, 18000238, and 17998166 – related applications drawn to similar steam cracking processes. The instant specification deals with nitrogen containing feeds, differing from the sulfur, silicon, halogen, and mercury containing feeds of the respective applications.
McCoy (US 2008/0128326) – teaches steam cracking and separation of products (see figure).
Neumann (US 2016/0310616) -teaches separation of water from pyrolysis gasoline (abstract).
Hunt (US 2011/0094150) – teaches that water is collected from multiple locations in the refinery and sour water strippers are used to dissolve ammonia [0085].
Shafi (US 2013/0197283) – teaches steam pyrolysis, quench, and treatment of recovered gases to remove high purity streams.
Verma (US 5,421,167) -teaches compression, condensation, amine units, and caustic wash to obtain purified gas streams (see figure).
Wirth (US 3,617,493) – teaches flash and steam cracking of heavy hydrocarbon feedstocks (abstract)
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 MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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 C 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771