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
Since a new Non-Final Office Action is follows, Applicant’s argument will not be address.
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, 15, 19 and 20 are Rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 5,817,902) in view of Eugene (EP 0 254 277 B1).
Xie discloses a process for oligomerization of ethylene in a gas/liquid reactor. Xie teaches a vertically elongated reactor chamber having a central guide tube positioned along the reactor axis, wherein the guide tube defines a descending central flow zone and an ascending outer flow zone. Gas and liquid are introduced into the upper portion of the guide tube such that the injected gas is entrained downward through the guide tube and upward through the annular region outside the guide tube. Xie further teaches oligomerization temperatures of about 100-140°C and pressures of about 2-10 MPa. (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 23-35; col. 4, line 6 – col. 5, line 53). Xie further teaches oligomerization of ethylene to produce alpha-olefins including butene-1, hexene-1, and octene-1, and teaches that hexene-1 and octene-1 are desirable products of the oligomerization process. (col. 1, line 63 – col. 2, line 43).
Xie does not disclose a catalytic system comprising at least one metal precursor chosen from compounds based on nickel, titanium, or chromium.
Eugene discloses a process for the oligomerization of ethylene, or cooligomerization of ethylene and propylene, to alpha-olefins utilizing a catalyst comprising a transition metal compound. Specifically, Eugene teaches that the catalyst comprises a transition metal compound wherein the transition metal is selected from nickel, chromium, cobalt, iron, and copper. (page 2, lines 25-33). Eugene further teaches that the transition metal compound can be an organometallic compound, an organic salt, or an inorganic salt wherein the transition metal is selected from nickel, chromium, cobalt, iron, and copper. (page 3, lines 27-33). Eugene additionally teaches specific nickel and chromium precursor compounds including NiCl2, NiCl2·6H2O, Ni(BF4)2·6H2O, NiSO4·6H2O, nickel benzoate, nickel tosylate, nickel acetate·4H2O, chromium(III) chloride·6H2O, and chromium(II) chloride. (page 3, lines 43-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the nickel- or chromium-based catalyst systems taught by Eugene in the ethylene oligomerization process and reactor configuration of Xie because Eugene teaches that such nickel and chromium catalyst precursors are effective for oligomerization of ethylene to alpha-olefins, while Xie teaches performing ethylene oligomerization to produce butene-1, hexene-1, and octene-1 in a gas/liquid oligomerization reactor. The modification merely substitutes one known ethylene oligomerization catalyst system for another known ethylene oligomerization catalyst system to obtain the predictable result of producing alpha-olefins from ethylene.
Claims 2 and 3 are met by Xie's disclosure of introducing gas and liquid in the upper portion of the guide tube and positioning the liquid introduction above the gas introduction (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 6-47).
Claim 4 is met by Xie's guide tube 36, which is depicted and described as a continuous solid-wall tube extending between its upper and lower openings without side apertures (Fig. 1; col. 4, line 6 – col. 5, line 31).
Clam 6 is met by Xie, who discloses block-off plate 37 positioned beneath the outlet of guide tube 36. The plate faces the lower outlet of the guide tube and redirects flow exiting the guide tube, thereby constituting a deflector positioned beneath the lower aperture of the central pipe. (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 28-31).
Claims 15, 19 and 20 are obvious because ethylene, propylene and butenes are conventional olefinic feedstocks for oligomerization and Eugene expressly teaches ethylene and ethylene/propylene oligomerization.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Eugene and further in view of Ore et al. (US 4,196,172).
Xie and Eugene do not expressly disclose a lower end aperture exhibiting flaring or tapering.
Ore discloses a draft tube reactor having an outwardly flared lower skirt portion at the lower end of the draft tube. (col. 7, lines 18-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lower end of Xie's guide tube with the flared configuration taught by Ore in order to improve circulation and flow transition at the draft tube outlet.
Claims 7, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Eugene and further in view of Hochman (US 3,737,288).
Xie and Eugene do not disclose the claimed dimensional relationships between the deflector and the central pipe.
Hochman discloses a draft-tube reactor comprising a flow deflector positioned beneath the draft-tube outlet and teaches dimensional relationships between the draft tube and the deflector, including spacing and radial extension relationships. (col. 2, lines 44-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the spacing and diameter relationships between the guide tube outlet and the deflector as taught by Hochman because such dimensions are result-effective variables affecting flow redirection and circulation.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Eugene and further in view of Augier et al. (US 10,857,514 B2).
Xie and Eugene do not disclose a recirculation loop comprising withdrawal means at the reactor base, an external heat exchanger, and introduction means for introducing cooled liquid into the reactor.
Augier discloses a gas/liquid olefin oligomerization reactor comprising a recirculation loop having withdrawal means, a heat exchanger, and introduction means for reintroducing cooled liquid into the reactor. Augier further teaches withdrawing liquid from the lower part of the reactor, cooling the liquid in an external heat exchanger, and reintroducing the cooled liquid into the upper part of the reactor. (col. 6, lines 21-30; col. 6, lines 55-65; col. 9, lines 16-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Augier's recirculation cooling loop into Xie's reactor in order to remove heat generated during the exothermic oligomerization reaction and thereby improve temperature control.
It would have been further obvious to route the cooled recycle liquid through Xie's upper liquid injection arrangement because Xie already employs an upper liquid injection device for circulation and gas entrainment.
Claims 11, 12 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Eugene and further in view of Zheng et al. (US 2018/0119083 A1).
Xie and Eugene do not expressly disclose the claimed diameter and height ratios.
Zheng discloses a draft-tube reactor wherein the draft-tube diameter ratio d/D is approximately 2/3. (¶¶ [0045]-[0047]). Zheng further discloses in Example 1: B/D = 1, h1/D = 0.5, and h2/D = 0.2, corresponding to a draft-tube height ratio of: B/(B+h1+h2) = 1/(1+0.5+0.2) ≈ 0.588, which falls within the ranges recited in claims 12 and 18. (Example 1; ¶¶ [0045]-[0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the draft-tube dimensions taught by Zheng because Zheng teaches such dimensions provide effective circulation and gas-liquid contact.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Eugene and further in view of Koppehele et al. (US 4,361,285).
Xie and Eugene do not disclose gas and liquid injection orifices arranged to reduce gas bubble size by liquid shear, nor do they disclose gas and liquid injection orifices extended by injection tubes.
Koppehele discloses a gas-liquid nozzle having adjacent annular gas and liquid discharge passages terminating at neighboring outlet openings. Koppehele teaches interaction of gas and liquid streams at the nozzle outlet to produce fine dispersions through shear forces and atomization. (col. 4, line 56 – col. 5, line 68; Figs. 1-3). Koppehele further teaches elongated gas and liquid discharge passageways extending to the nozzle outlet, corresponding to the claimed injection tubes. (col. 3, lines 49-68; col. 4, lines 1-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the gas-liquid injector arrangement of Koppehele in the reactor of Xie because positioning gas and liquid outlets adjacent one another promotes shear-induced reduction of dispersed phase size and improves gas-liquid mass transfer. The resulting reduction in gas bubble size is a predictable consequence of the shear-producing injector arrangement taught by Koppehele.
Claim 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of
Eugene and further in view of JP 2009-088078 A.
Xie discloses the oligomerization process and reactor configuration discussed above. Xie
does not disclose:
a gas injection device comprising a cylindrical tube having a circular ring shape;
a liquid injection device comprising a cylindrical tube having a circular ring shape;
concentric annular gas and liquid injection devices;
gas and liquid discharge trajectories arranged to intersect or be substantially perpendicular.
JP 2009-088078 A discloses a two-fluid injection nozzle comprising an annular liquid
discharge port and an annular gas discharge port. JP 2009-088078 further teaches that the gas
discharge port may be positioned inwardly and/or outwardly of the liquid discharge port and that
the gas and liquid discharge ports are preferably formed concentrically. JP 2009-088078
additionally teaches that gas discharged from the gas outlet collides with liquid discharged from
the liquid outlet to produce fine dispersion and atomization of the liquid. (See JP 2009-088078,
Figs. 8-10 and corresponding description.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the annular gas/liquid injector arrangement of JP 2009-088078 in the reactor of Xie because JP 2009-088078 teaches that concentric annular gas and liquid injection devices improve gas-liquid contacting and dispersion. Employing such known injector geometry in the oligomerization reactor of Xie would have yielded the predictable result of improved gas-liquid mass transfer and mixing.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Eugene and further in view of Brown et al. (US 2005/0049447 A1).
Xie and Eugene do not expressly disclose the specific nickel precursor recited in claim 24.
Brown teaches nickel-based oligomerization catalyst systems employing nickel salts including nickel acetate and nickel carboxylate compounds. (¶¶ [0007], [0009]-[0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the specific nickel precursor taught by Brown in the oligomerization process resulting from the combination of Xie and Eugene because Brown teaches such nickel compounds are suitable catalyst precursors for olefin oligomerization and would have been expected to provide predictable oligomerization activity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights