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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-11, 14-16, 18-20, 23-25, 30-31, 34-37, 41-42 and 44 are pending. Claims 1, 3-11, 14-16, 18-20, and 23-25 are under examination. Claims 1, 3-11, 14-16, 18-20, and 23-25 are rejected. No claims allowed.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 30-31, 34-37, 41-42 and 44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/16/2026.
Specie Election
Applicant elected the specie “a cooler heat exchanger” without traverse in the reply filed on 07/16/2026.
The elected specie reads on claims 1, 3-11, 14-16, 18-20, and 23-25.
Filing Receipt
PNG
media_image1.png
71
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
22
972
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
25
972
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
25
974
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
69
972
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
94
972
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, 14-16, 18-20, and 23-25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In general there are many references to “the effluent”. At times the origins and destinations of “the effluent” are vague at best. It is suggested the use of descriptors of the effluents can better educate the reader of the claims as to where effluents originate from and the destinations thereof.
Claim 1 recites “the effluent” in lines 10 and 11. The effluent may be referring to the “an effluent” in line 4 or the effluent in line 8. This generates confusion as to when steps in lines 10 and 11 of claim 1 occur. Note: the effluent in line 7 explicitly recites the
origin of the effluent, rendering the effluent “from the steam-generation heat
exchanger” definite.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “thereby condensing water in the effluent, comprising separating the effluent as further cooled and having the water as condensed into raw
acetic acid and gas,” in lines 2-4. This phrase is wordy and fails to articulate the intended method steps. Water cannot be “as condensed into raw acetic acid and a gas”. Upon condensation into a liquid, a gas cannot be formed. Clarification is needed.
Claims 10-11 and 14 utilize the hyphenated word “cross-exchange”. the hyphenated word “cross-exchange” is not defined in the specification and is not an industry accepted term. The hyphenated word “cross-exchange” is exemplified as a heat exchanger page 25 line 24, and page 32, line 8. Herein for example is written “cross-exchanger 1402 (heat exchanger)”. A parenthetical phrase is not a definition and is deemed an example. Yes, the cross-exchanger may be a heat exchanger. If so, why use a more ambiguous hyphenated word in place of the heat-exchanger. Additionally, the hyphenated word “cross-exchange” may be imparting unknown limitations in the claim. Without a definition, possible unknown imparted limitations cannot be excluded.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the acetic acid product" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no recitation of “acetic acid product” in claim 4 from where claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "acetic acid unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no recitation of “acetic acid unit” in claim 4 from where claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " the raw acetic acid" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no recitation of “raw acetic acid” in claim 4 from where claim 15 depends.
Claim 16 recites the “the effluent” in the second to last line and is indefinite for similar reasons argued in the 112(b) rejection of claim 1. The “the effluent” in claim 16 second to last line may be referring to several effluents in the claim. Thus, it is unclear when the step of forwarding process gas comprising ethylene from the effluent” occurs. If ethylene is separated from the effluent in claim 16 line 4 or the third line from the
bottom of claim 16. Clarification is needed.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the quench vessel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no quench vessel in claim 16 from where claim 23 depends.
Claim 23 recites “the effluent” in line 2. The effluent is indefinite. The effluent may be referring to anyone of the effluents in claim 16 from where claim 23 depends. Thus, when the effluent is subjected to the quench vessel is unknown. For example, claim 16 lines 4, and 6-8 all recite an effluent. The effluent of claim 23 may be referring to any and all of them.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the quench vessel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no quench vessel in claim 16 from where claim 24 depends.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the quench vessel" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no quench vessel in claim 16 from where claim 25 depends.
Claim 25 recites “the gas” in line 2. “The gas” in claim 25 line 2 may be referring to the “process gas” second to last line in claim 16. However, this scenario cannot be because claim 25 line 2 utilizes “the gas” to prepare “the process gas”. Clarification is needed.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Binghai et al. (CN112142547, Published 12-2020. Cited in the IDS filed 10/27/2023. All references to Binghai et al. are made to an attached Machine translation).
Scope of the Prior Art
Binghai et al. teach preparing ethylene via the oxidative dehydrogenation (ODH) reaction of ethane in the presence of the current catalyst. See Figure 3 and Example 2 below on the following page.
PNG
media_image7.png
703
821
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
69
448
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
286
1084
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
149
1066
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
148
1061
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
111
1076
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The above device 10 has a few options wherein high-pressure steam production is one option. Thus, the current steam-generation heat exchanger is quickly envisaged as the device 10 disclosed by Binghai et al. Water is necessarily heated in the steam generation heat exchanger to prepare steam. If water is not being heated, then steam will not be the outcome. A generic disclosure will anticipate a claimed species covered by that disclosure when the species can be at once envisaged from the disclosure (See MPEP 2131.02 III).
Meeting Feed Heat Exchanger Limitation
Note: the disclosed numerical (6) feed preheater (Feed Heat Exchanger) in
paragraph 0075 is item (6’) in Figure 3 above. The reason being Figure 3 represents Example 2 in Binghai et al.
Item 6/6’ is the current feed heat exchanger though which flows the effluent from the steam-generation heat exchanger item 10 of Figure 3 in Binghai et al.
Concerning the cooling of the effluent, this is a property of a heat exchanger and the effluent coming into contact with the heat exchanger. Moreover, Binghai et al. disclose the crude product gas 11 after waste heat is obtained, being cooled by the feed preheater 6’ (par. 75, top p. 9).
Concerning cooling the effluent downstream of the feed heat exchanger, thereby condensing water in the effluent, 14 (gas-liquid separator) in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. cools the effluent from feed preheater 6’ into a liquid and gas. Herein the water in the effluent is necessarily condensed.
Concerning the current forwarding a process gas comprising the effluent for
further processing to give ethylene product, Binghai et al. disclose crude deaerated
product item 28 (par. 76).
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) 1, 4-6, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanfu et al. (CN111892473, Published 06-2020. Cited in the IDS filed 10/27/2023. All references to Wanfu et al. are made to an attached Machine translation) and Binghai et al. (CN112142547, Published 12-2020. Cited in the IDS filed 10/27/2023. All references to Binghai et al. are made to an attached Machine translation).
Scope of the Prior Art
Wanfu et al. teach a oxidative dehydrogenation reaction of ethane to produce ethylene via the use of the below apparatus (par. 65-68, Figures 1-2). Wherein, R1 is
PNG
media_image13.png
697
926
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
735
972
media_image14.png
Greyscale
the oxidative dehydrogenation (ODH) reactor, S5-7 is ethane, oxygen containing gas and dilution gas respectively. E6 is the current feed heat exchanger which cools the effluent S8. When heating the feed (S5-7) with the effluent (S8), the effluent is necessarily cooled. The acetic acid product being S11 which is subject to acetic acid recovery (par. 84). The ethylene is compressed with a compressor E8 (par. 114).
Wanfu et al. teach high-pressure steam production (par. 141). Wanfu et al. teach molten salt recirculating through a heat exchanger E7 on the reactor (par. 131).
Concerning claim 5, the following teachings of Wanfu et al. are pertinent. Wanfu et al. teach D2 being an acid-water separation unit that has a bottom S11 going to D3 and acid-water treatment device. Herein, item D2 separates the acid and water from the effluent S8 post the feed heat exchanger E6. See above Figures in Wanfu et al.
Wanfu et al. goes on to limitingly describe D2 (acid-water separation unit) as utilizing an absorbent that yields the bottoms S11 acetic acid containing stream (par. 113). The absorbent is preferably water (par. 113, last line). Wanfu et al. does not teach as to how the water absorbent is applied to the ODH effluent in the D2 apparatus to achieve the bottoms S11 in the Figures of Wanfu et al.
Item D1 of Wanfu et al. is a deoxygenation treatment device.
Thus, items E6 and D1 in the above right Figure of Wanfu et al. establishes the boundaries just outside of the D2 acid-water separation unit in the above right figure of Wanfu et al.
Ascertain the Differences
Wanfu et al. does not teach the steam-generation heat exchanger. Wanfu et al. does not teach further cooling the effluent downstream of the feed heat exchanger, thereby condensing water in the effluent, comprising separating the effluent as further cooled and having the water as condensed into raw acetic acid (with water) and gas comprising ethylene, water, acetic acid, ethane, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide
Secondary References
Binghai et al. teach the effluent from a oxidative dehydrogenation reaction of
ethane to produce ethylene being sent through a waste heat recovery device 10 in the
below figure 3.
PNG
media_image7.png
703
821
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Binghai et al. teach the waste heat recovery device can be utilized in producing high-pressure steam (par. 53). Binghai et al. teach molten salt recirculating through a heat exchanger 32 on the reactor (par. 47).
Binghai et al. teach a waste heat recovery device 10 being in between an ODH reactor and a feed heat exchanger, item 6’ (Figure 3).
Concerning claim 5, item 12 (deacidification gas preheater) and 14 (gas-liquid separator) in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. cools the effluent from feed preheater 6’ into a liquid and gas. Finally, separates the liquid effluent and gas effluent. The gas component would necessarily be ethylene, water, acetic acid, ethane, carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) (item 15 Figure 3 of Binghai et al.). The water in the effluent would have been condensed (item 16 in Figure 3).
Items 11-26 post feed heat exchanger 6’ in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. are a more detailed apparatus of the limitingly describe D2 (acid-water separation unit) taught by Wanfu et al. The reason being both apparatuses separate out acetic acid bottoms from an ethane ODH reactor using a water absorbent.
Item 27 of Binghai et al. is a deaerator which is immediately post the acetic acid absorption tower item 20 (current scrubbing tower) in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. This deaerator apparatus mirrors Item D1 of Wanfu et al.
Thus items 6’ (feed heat exchanger) and Item 27 of Binghai et al. are the comparable items E6 and D1 in the above right Figure of Wanfu et al. which establishes the boundaries just outside of the D2 acid-water separation unit in the above right figure
of Wanfu et al.
The teachings of Binghai et al. and Wanfu et al. are deemed to be overlapping in scope and are deemed to be analogous art to the invention.
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have installed the waste heat recovery device 10 taught by Binghai et al. immediately after the effluent leaving the oxidative dehydrogenation reactor R1 taught by Wanfu et al.
The ordinary artisan would have done so with a reasonable expectation of
success to capture any and all waste heat and utilize the heat to produce high-pressure steam and because Binghai et al. teach a waste heat recovery device 10 being in between an ODH reactor and a feed heat exchanger, item 6’ (Figure 3) of which both are presently taught by Wanfu et al.
The ordinary artisan would have looked to the teachings of Binghai et al. due to the overlapping teachings with respect to Wanfu et al. and being analogous art to the invention. Moreover, the ordinary artisan would have looked to Binghai et al. because both Binghai et al. and Wanfu et al. teach ODH reactors equipped with molten salt heat exchangers.
Concerning claim 5, it would have been obvious to have substituted the limitedly described D2 acid-water separation unit that utilizes a water absorbent to achieve an acetic acid bottoms S11 as taught by Wanfu et al. with the Items 11-26 post feed heat exchanger 6’ in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. The ordinary artisan would have done so to substitute one known method for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2141 III (B). The ordinary artisan would have additionally done so to satisfy a need for a more detailed D2 (acid-water separation unit) taught by Wanfu et al. A reasonable expectation of success because both methods of the prior art use an absorbent water to achieve an acetic acid bottoms and an overhead going to a deoxygenator / deaerator.
Upon doing so, the effluent post the feed heat exchanger would have been further cooled, thereby condensing water in the effluent, comprising separating the effluent as further cooled and having the water as condensed into raw acetic acid and gas, wherein the gas comprises ethylene, water, acetic acid, ethane, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide, and wherein the raw acetic acid comprises acetic acid and water.
Note: upon placing items 11-26 post feed heat exchanger 6’ in Figure 3 of
Binghai et al. in place of item D2 in the above right Figure of Wanfu et al. the acetic acid bottoms of the absorbent tower of Binghai et al. would have been necessarily attached to the acetic acid recovery unit D3 of Wanfu et al. Whereby the acetic acid product would have been achieved.
Concerning claim 4 and 6, the addition of the water absorbent 21 in the tower 20 of Figure 3 of Binghai et al. is the quenching section of the acetic acid scrubber.
Concerning claim 8, upon performing the steps arrived at by the ordinary artisan as argued above, the claimed concentrations of 50 parts per million volume (ppmv) of acetic acid and less than 5 mole percent of water vapor would have been met. The reason being substantially identical methods yield substantially identical products.
The combinational teachings of the prior art teach the method steps of claim 1 and 5. See above. Thus, the method steps of the prior art are substantially identical to those of the current invention. Substantially identical method steps would have led to substantially identical products of 50 parts per million volume (ppmv) of acetic acid and less than 5 mole percent of water vapor in the current process gas.
Substantially identical methods yield substantially identical products. See MPEP 2112.01 I. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Concerning claim 15 and the raw and product acetic acid having concentrations of 0.3 to 45 wt% and 99 wt% respectively, these wt%’s would have been met when practicing the method steps arrived at by the ordinary artisan. The reason being, substantially identical methods yield substantially identical products.
The above 103 rejection has successfully argued the current method steps of claim 4 are obvious. Upon performing the method steps, the current crude and product acetic acid would have been met.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Wanfu et al. (CN111892473, Published 06-2020. Cited in the IDS filed 10/27/2023. All references to Wanfu et al. are made to an attached Machine translation) and Binghai et al. (CN112142547, Published 12-2020. Cited in the IDS filed 10/27/2023. All references to Binghai et al. are made to an attached Machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 15 and in further view of Olayiwola et al. (CA3058072, published 04-2020).
Scope of the Prior Art
The individual and combinational teachings of Wanfu et al. and Binghai et al. are written in the above 102 and 103 rejections and are incorporated by reference.
Ascertain the Differences
Wanfu et al. and Binghai et al. do not teach a flash drum being the gas liquid separator.
Secondary References
Olayiwola et al. teach a flash drum being a vapor-liquid separator (p. 24, lines 5-
6). Olayiwola et al. teach overlapping subject matter, for example ODH reactions of
ethane to prepare ethylene as compared to Binghai et al. See Olayiwola et al. page 14, line 23 to the bottom. The teachings of Olayiwola et al. are deemed analogous art to the invention.
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the flash drum taught by Olayiwola et al. in place of the gas liquid separator taught by the combinational teachings of Wanfu et al. and Binghai et al. The ordinary artisan would have done so with a reasonable expectation of success to satisfy a need for gas-liquid separator, item 14 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. and because Olayiwola et al. teach a flash drum being a vapor-liquid separator. The ordinary artisan would have looked to Olayiwola et al. due to the teachings overlapping in scope with Binghai et al. and being analogous to the invention.
Concerning the heat exchanger in claim 7, heat exchanger is not defined in the specification nor the claim. The flash drum is considered to be the heat exchanger. Upon evaporation in the flash drum, heat would have been exchanged to achieve the
evaporation.
Claim(s) 16, 18, 20 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binghai et al. (CN112142547, Published 12-2020. Cited in the IDS filed 10/27/2023. All references to Binghai et al. are made to an attached Machine translation) and Olayiwola et al. (CA3058072, published 04-2020).
Scope of the Prior Art
The disclosure/teachings of Binghai et al. are written in the above 102 rejection and incorporated by reference. Additionally, Binghai et al. teach a gas liquid separator post the ODH reactor (item 14 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al.).
Concerning claim 20, Binghai et al. teach the overhead of the gas liquid separator is sent to item 20 of Figure 3, which separated the acetic acid and water (bottoms) from the ethylene, ethane, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide (overhead).
Meeting limitations 50 ppmv acetic acid and less than 5 mole percent of water vapor is met with the following discussion.
Item 20 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al., which deacidifies the gaseous overhead
from the gas-liquid separator (item 15, Figure 3) is described as an absorbent tower. Binghai et al. teach the absorbent is preferably water (par. 32).
PNG
media_image15.png
236
1027
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The methods of the invention utilize a substantially identical method to remove the acetic acid and water. The specification details an acetic acid scrubber (p. 11).
PNG
media_image16.png
204
968
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
199
958
media_image17.png
Greyscale
The absorbing tower and the instant scrubber are substantially identical.
Ascertain the Differences
Binghai et al. does not teach a flash drum being the gas liquid separator.
Secondary References
Olayiwola et al. teach a flash drum being a vapor-liquid separator (p. 24, lines 5-
6). Olayiwola et al. teach overlapping subject matter, for example ODH reactions of
ethane to prepare ethylene as compared to Binghai et al. See Olayiwola et al. page 14, line 23 to the bottom. The teachings of Olayiwola et al. are deemed analogous art to the invention.
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the flash drum taught by Olayiwola et al. in place of the gas liquid separator taught by Binghai et al. The ordinary artisan would have done so with a reasonable expectation of success to satisfy a need for a gas liquid separator and because Olayiwola et al. teach a flash drum being a vapor-liquid separator. The ordinary artisan would have looked to Olayiwola et al. due to the teachings overlapping in scope with Binghai et al. and analogous to the invention.
Upon utilizing the flash-drum and performing the absorbent step arrived at by the ordinary artisan, the claimed concentrations of 50 parts per million volume (ppmv) of acetic acid and less than 5 mole percent of water vapor would have been met.
Substantially identical methods yield substantially identical products. See MPEP 2112.01 I. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Concerning claims 24-25, the prior art is shown to remove water and acetic acid from a gas item 15 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. Additionally, due to the indefiniteness of the claims, the gas as claimed is being interpreted to be item 15 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. Concerning the 50 parts per million volume of acetic acid and less than 5 mole percent of water vapor. These limitation were argued to be obvious in the rejection of claim 8 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 16, 18-20 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanfu et al. (CN111892473, Published 06-2020. Cited in the IDS filed 10/27/2023. All references to Wanfu et al. are made to an attached Machine translation), Binghai et al. (CN112142547, Published 12-2020. Cited in the IDS filed 10/27/2023. All references to Binghai et al. are made to an attached Machine translation), Olayiwola et al. (CA3058072, published 04-2020) and Mitkids et al. (WO2017/072086, published 05-2017). This rejection was written to address claim 19.
Scope of the Prior Art
The combinational teachings of Wanfu et al., Binghai et al. and Olayiwola et al. are in the above 103 rejection of claim 7 which depend from rejected claim 1 and are incorporated by reference.
The combinational teachings of Binghai et al. Olayiwola et al. are in the above 103 rejection of claims 16, 18, and 20 and are incorporated by reference.
As a reminder Binghai et al. teach the bottoms of the item 14 in the below Figure 3 going into a recycle loop back to the ODH reactor 8 or a waste stream 24.
PNG
media_image7.png
703
821
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As a reminder Wanfu et al. teach an acetic acid recovery unit D3. See below
Figure.
PNG
media_image14.png
735
972
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Ascertain the Differences
Wanfu et al. does not teach the flash drum as required in claims 18 and 19 nor the acetic acid unit comprising a liquid-liquid extractor column and a solvent recovery distillation column.
Secondary References
Mitkids et al. teach acetic acid extracted from a liquid stream comprising water and acetic acid using a solvent. Wherein the solvent is recovered via use of a distillation column (bridging pages 14-15 and the aqueous acetic acid page 13).
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the solvent extraction teachings of Mitkids et al. in place of the acetic acid recovery unit D3 of Wanfu et al. to satisfy a method to recover acetic acid with a reasonable expectation of success.
The ordinary artisan would have then combined the teachings Wanfu et al. with Binghai et al. to effectively allow the waste stream item 24 in Figure 3 taught by Binghai et al. to have flowed into the acetic acid recovery unit D3 of Wanfu et al. Wherein, the acetic acid recovery unit D3 of Wanfu et al. being replaced with solvent extraction teachings of Mitkids et al.
Next, the ordinary artisan would have replaced the gas liquid separator item 14 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. with the flash drum taught by Olayiwola et al. In doing so the ordinary artisan would have arrived at claim 19.
Concerning claim 23, the water absorbent 21 in the tower 20 of Figure 3 of
Binghai et al. is the quenching section of the acetic acid scrubber. This is the claimed
quench vessel.
Concerning claims 24-25, the prior art is shown to remove water and acetic acid from a gas item 15 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. Additionally, due to the indefiniteness of the claims, the gas as claimed is being interpreted to be item 15 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. Concerning the 50 parts per million volume of acetic acid and less than 5 mole percent of water vapor. These limitation were argued to be obvious in the rejection of claim 8 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Allowable subject matter
Upon overcoming all outstanding 112 rejections the following would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 does not pertain to the prior art for the following reason. The further cooling of the effluent downstream of the feed heat exchanger is occurring in the gas-liquid separator item 14 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. There is no other downstream cooling of the effluent because the effluent is separated, and would no longer exist post item 14 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al.
It would not have been obvious to have replaced the gas-liquid separator item 14 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. with the inventive cooler heat exchanger or an air cooler to arrive at the current invention. There being no motivation to do so.
Additionally, none of the heat-exchangers in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. that could be substituted for the claimed cooler heat exchanger or an air cooler, condense water. See item 19 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. Item 19 is taught by Binghai et al. to be a cooler. However, Binghai et al. does not teach the cooler condenses water.
Claim 9 does not pertain to the prior art for the following reason. The gas from where water and acetic acid was removed, is occurring in item 20 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. and the water/acetic acid is item 23, which flows away from the recycled line item 17 in Figure 3 of Binghai et al. to waste.
Thus, it would not have been obvious to have recycled any waste water and acetic acid to saturate the feed comprising ethane and water.
Concerning claim 10 and 11, claim 10 and 11 depend from claim 9.
Claim 14 does not pertain to the prior art because the prior art does not teach heating the extract in a cross-exchanger with a heating medium, wherein the heating
medium comprises the effluent downstream of the feed heat exchanger, or wherein
the heating medium comprises quench water.
It would not have been obvious to have modified the prior art to arrive at the
current invention. There being no motivation to do so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE G DOLETSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)270-5241. 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.
/B.G.D/Examiner, Art Unit 1692 /Andrew D Kosar/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights