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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 April 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (371 of PCT/CN2020/115855, filed 09/17/2020) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 April 2026 have been entered. Claims 11 and 13 have been amended; Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn; and Claims 1-10 and 12 have been canceled. Overall, Claims 11 and 13-20 are pending.
Regarding the rejections of Claim(s) 11 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEN et al. (CN 108328761 A), Applicant’s amendments incorporating the limitations of Claim 12 into Claim 11 are sufficient to overcome the pending rejection; these rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made for Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al. (CN 108328761 A) in view of CHANG et al. (CN 109456431 A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 April 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejections (Remarks, pg. 5-15), Applicant states that the claimed technical feature of “a separation accuracy is D85=0.1 µm is not inherent for the conventional fluidized bed separator” (pg. 5, par. 4).
Regarding the cited art CHEN (pg. 5-7), Applicant states that CHEN fails to define or measure separation accuracy (pg. 5, par. 5) and that “the combination of specific morphological filter materials (such as spherical filter materials mixed with irregular filter materials in a specific ratio) generates local micro-eddies when washing water flows through the filter material layer due to the varying particle morphologies, thus the resulting asymmetric shear flow field can induce a vortex rotation effect… [t]his effect significantly enhances the capture ability of oil droplets for submicron catalyst particles, which is the key to achieving high-precision separation with D85=0.1 µm” (pg. 6, par. 1-2). Applicant argues that the filter material of CHEN “cannot generate the micro-eddy and vortex effects induced by such multi-morphological particles” (pg. 7, par. 1).
Applicant then cites comparative experiments demonstrating that operating based on the typical parameters disclosed by CHEN cannot achieve the claimed separation accuracy (pg .7-8).
Applicant reiterates that “[t]he present disclosure achieves the oil droplet vortex rotation effect and a separation accuracy of D85=0.1 µm through the synergy between specific filter material combinations and operating conditions” arguing a “specific filter material combination”, e.g., spherical quartz sand mixed with irregular anthracite in a specific ratio (pg. 8, par. 5) and “[p]recise matching between filter material combination and operating conditions” (pg. 9, par. 1) renders the resultant separation accuracy critical.
Applicant argues CHEN fails to disclose or suggest step (vi) in amended Claim 11 (pg. 11, par. 3) and argues that step (vi) of amended Claim 11 differs from CHEN because CHEN relies on “selective treatment” (pg. 11, par. 8) and CHEN fails to teach utilizing waste heat as a heat source for the olefin separation device (pg. 12, par. 1). Applicant then argues that CHANG fails to teach applying “recovery of residual heat of reboiler” because CHANG solves a different technical problem, i.e., CHANG is concerned with “closed-loop production method for polyolefins” and “does not involve technical content such as fluidized bed separation, backwash regeneration, or the treatment of MTO washing water containing catalyst fines” (pg. 12, par. 2).
Further, Applicant argues that the “teaching in Chang is contrary to that of Chen”, i.e., CHEN employs a cooler to cool the circulating washing water and the reboiler of CHANG heats fluids to increase bottoms in distillation (pg. 13, par. 2-3). Even further, Applicant argues CHANG “does not disclose or teach that MTO washing water is directly used as the heat source for the propylene rectification column reboiler” (par. spanning pg. 13-14), nor does CHANG teach or disclose “diversion” treatment (pg. 14, par. 1).
Finally, Applicant submits that the claimed invention “produces a synergistic technical effect” (pg. 14, par. 2) and lists a number of considerations (pg. 14-15).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with all arguments.
Regarding the cited “separation accuracy” parameter, in the filed remarks Applicant admits that separation accuracy is a feature dependent on various elements, namely “the combination of specific morphological filter materials”, which results in the production of micro-eddies and induces asymmetric shear and a vortex rotation effect. To this end, when comparing two fluidized bed separators, if both separators are structurally similar or the same, have filter materials with similar or the same morphological characteristics, and if both separators are operated under similar or the same conditions, then similar or the same separation accuracy values are necessarily expected. The cited prior art CHEN discloses all recited features and operating conditions of the claimed fluidized bed separator; as such, a similar or the same separation accuracy is necessarily expected even if the prior art fails to explicitly disclose such a parameter. “[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.” (Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP §2112 II).
As noted, in the filed remarks Applicant has argued that the claimed “separation accuracy” limitation is dependent in part on “specific morphological filter materials”, e.g., spherical quartz sand mixed with irregular anthracite in a specific ratio (pg. 8, par. 5). Such factors are not recited; if such “specific” materials are of utmost importance to achieving the desired/claimed separation accuracy, then the claim should be amended accordingly. Otherwise, Applicant’s basis for their argument is flawed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s comparative experiments comparing CHEN to the claimed invention (pg. 7-8), the Examiner appreciates the effort by Applicant to show secondary considerations. However, such arguments are merely arguments of counsel and cannot take the place of evidence in record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence." "[A]ppellants have not presented any experimental data showing that prior heat-shrinkable articles split. Due to the absence of tests comparing appellant’s heat shrinkable articles with those of the closest prior art, we conclude that appellant’s assertions of unexpected results constitute mere argument."). See also In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991). MPEP 716.01(c).
Finally, regarding Applicant’s arguments concerning Step (vi) in the as-amended Claim 11, with respect to CHEN, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive because they are directed to grounds of rejection that have been withdrawn. Therefore, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the presently pending claims.
With respect to CHANG, Applicant argues CHANG teaches a solution to a different problem than the one envisaged by Applicant that the claimed invention is purported to address, namely, CHANG fails to teach “fluidized bed separation, backwash regeneration, or the treatment of MTO washing water containing catalyst fines” (pg. 12, par. 2). However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). CHEN discloses the claimed fluidized bed separation, backwash regeneration, and treating of wash water. CHANG teaches the recovery of residual heat.
Finally, regarding Applicant’s argument that the teachings of CHANG and CHEN are incongruent, Applicant cites CHEN as teaching cooling washing water whereas CHANG teaches heating washing water. Even further, Applicant One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While CHEN and CHANG may disclose different or seemingly opposite uses of washing water, sufficient motivation is provided by CHANG for the use of washing water to recover residual heat.
In response to Applicant’s argument that CHANG “does not disclose or teach that MTO washing water is directly used as the heat source for the propylene rectification column reboiler” (par. spanning pg. 13-14), the Examiner disagrees. CHANG explicitly discloses that one of the paths of the washing water is to the propylene rectification tower bottom reboiler “as the heat source” (pg. 17, end of par. 5).
In response to Applicant’s argument that CHANG fails to teach/disclose “diversion” treatment (pg. 14, par. 1), Applicant is again pursuing a piecemeal analysis of the cited references. CHEN already discloses diverting/sending a portion of the washing water to the stripper.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments seem to be based on the importance of the “separation accuracy” of the fluidized bed separator. However, Applicant argues that such claimed values for the “separation accuracy” are dependent on critical specific factors that are not actually recited in the claimed invention. As such, the premise of Applicant’s arguments is lacking.
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 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) 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al. (CN 108328761 A) in view of CHANG et al. (CN 109456431 A).
Regarding Claim 11, CHEN discloses a method for treating the washing water of methanol-to-olefin processes (abstract); said washing water contains high oil content and entrained catalyst fine grains (pg. 5, bottom). The washing water is first subjected to a micro-rotational flow separator 5 (i.e., step (i) subjecting methanol-to-olefins washing water to micro-cyclone treatment); the separated washing water is then treated by a fluidized bed separator 7 (i.e., step (ii) sending the washing water deoiled by microcyclone treatment to a fluidized bed separator; pg. 6, top; pg.8-9; FIG. 2). Fluidized bed separator 7 experiences up to 0.30 MPa pressure drop (pg. 7, bottom), which reads on the claimed range of running the fluidized bed separator continuously until an accumulated operating pressure difference reaches 0.05-0.3 MPa. Washing water is also used to backwash and fluidize/boil the fluidized bed separator (i.e., the deoiled washing water is fed for backwashing; pg. 6, top) with optional nitrogen gas mixed into the backwashing water (i.e., optionally nitrogen gas is further added to mix with the deoiled washing water for backwashing; pg. 6, middle) at an overall flow rate of 50-90 m3/hr (i.e., step (iii) adjusting a backwash flow rate to 50-90 m3/h; pg. 6, bottom); such an action releases intercepted catalyst and clears dirt contained in the fluidized bed material thereby ensuring continuous and stable operation (pg. 6, top, middle). Subsequently, the resultant mixture generated by backwashing is processed through a three-phase separation (i.e., step (iv) subjecting a gas-liquid-solid mixture generated by the backwashing to three-phase separation), and the filter material is returned to the bed layer, the backwashing liquid containing entrained catalyst is discharged from the top of the separator, and backwash gas is released through a gas outlet (i.e., a resulting filter material is returned to the granular bed, and a backwash liquid entraining the fine catalyst powder and a backwash gas are discharged separately; pg. 6-7; pg. 8-9). Afterward, the fluidized bed separator is switched to a normal working state (i.e., step (v) switching the fluidized bed separator to a normal working state after the backwashing is finished; pg. 8, middle). CHEN further discloses that the washing water after fluidized bed separator 7 is temporarily stored in buffer tank 8 and is either then sent to a stripping tower 10 for stripping or sent to a cooler 9 for recycle to water washing tower 4 (i.e., step (vi) sending a part of the washing water treated by the fluidized bed separator… to a sewage stripping tower for stripping treatment; pg. 8-9). However, CHEN is deficient in explicitly disclosing sending a part of the washing water treated by the fluidized bed separator to a reboiler under a propylene rectification column of an olefin separating device as a heat source for partial recovery of residual heat of the washing water, and returning it to the water washing tower after heat exchange.
[AltContent: textbox (COOLER)][AltContent: textbox (BUFFER
TANK)][AltContent: textbox (FLUIDIZED BED
SEPARATOR)][AltContent: textbox (STRIPPING
TOWER)][AltContent: textbox (MICRO-ROTATIONAL
FLOW SEPARATOR)][AltContent: textbox (WATER WASHING
TOWER)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CHANG discloses a closed-loop production method for polyolefins utilizing a methanol-to-olefin process (abstract). Washing water from an olefin separation device is sent through a three-phase separator; recovered washing water is recycled back to the olefin separation device via a reboiler under a propylene rectification tower (i.e., step (vi) sending a part of the washing water treated by the fluidized bed separator to a reboiler under a propylene rectification column of an olefin separating device; pg. 17, bottom). Advantageously, such a recycle enables the recovery of waste heat from the recycled washing water (pg. 17, bottom). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the reboiler under a propylene rectification tower taught by CHANG for the cooler in the recycle line of the method taught by CHEN.
Regarding the limitation “a separation accuracy is D85 = 0.1 µm”, even though the prior art fails to explicitly cite a separation accuracy of D85 of 0.1 µm, the prior art does explicitly teach or make obvious every other limitation of Claim 11. “[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.” (Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP §2112 II). In this case, while Applicant may certainly claim the mechanism by which a fluidized granular bed operates, such a discovery does not overcome the fact that the prior art simply teaches the claimed method steps by which said fluidized granular bed is generated; as such, the limitation of “a separation accuracy is D85=0.1 µm” is inherent.
Regarding Claim 13, modified CHEN makes obvious the method of Claim 11. CHEN further discloses the working temperature of the methanol-to-olefin washing water is 85 °C or higher, the content of solid catalyst particles is 0.1 to 1.0 g/L, an average particle diameter of the solid catalyst particles is 0.5 to 5 µm, and the water washing oil content is 200 to 700 mg/L (pg. 4, middle).
Regarding Claim 14, modified CHEN makes obvious the method of Claim 13. CHEN further discloses after treatment by the fluidized bed separator, the water content in the oil phase is reduced to less than 10%, the oil content is reduced below 30 mg/L, and the suspended solids content is reduced to less than 20 mg/L (pg. 4, middle).
Regarding Claim 15, modified CHEN makes obvious the method of Claim 11. CHEN further discloses the granular bed medium is a polymorphous-shaped filter material having grain diameter 0.2 to 3 mm with a higher waste containing rate for lower spherical index and smaller grain size and a higher rotational regeneration efficiency for higher spherical index and larger particle size (pg. 4, middle).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al. (CN 108328761 A) in view of CHANG et al. (CN 109456431 A) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of KOJIMA et al. (US 2006/0283806 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, modified CHEN makes obvious the method of Claim 11. CHEN further discloses the washing water enters from the bottom of the fluidized bed separator at 10 to 20 m/hr flowrate (likely m3/hr given context; pg. 4, bottom). CHEN further discloses the backflushing liquid is discharged after gravity settling, and the lower layer waste is then dehydrated for recovery/recycling (pg. 4, bottom). However, modified CHEN is deficient in explicitly disclosing pressure filtration for dewatering the water-containing waste.
KOJIMA discloses a wastewater treatment process (abstract). KOJIMA further discloses that sludge generated after solid-liquid separations is typically subject to dewatering using a pressure filtration dewatering apparatus; such a practice is so common as to be considered routine in dewatering/wastewater treatment fields (p0006). The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP §2143.01 D). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize pressure filtration as taught by KOJIMA for the dewatering step made obvious by modified CHEN.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights