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 .
This is a response to applicant’s amendment filed on March 18, 2026. Claim 6 has been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-14 are pending in the application. Claims 8-14 have been withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Response to Amendment
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) of Claims 6-7 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103 of Claims 1-7 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s remarks. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Language inconsistency.
Claim 1 recites: “…a carbon dioxide capture unit and process to extract a CO2 stream from a flue gas source feed; a CO2 reactor downstream of the carbon capture configured to…” Language consistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 1 a reciting: “…a carbon dioxide capture unit and process to extract a CO2 stream from a flue gas source feed; a CO2 reactor downstream of the carbon capture unit configured to…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinn et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0068398, hereinafter Chinn) in view of Schulz et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2019/01856396, hereinafter Schulz) and further in view of Chewter et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0112314, hereinafter Chewter).
In regards to Claim 1, Chinn discloses a carbon dioxide capture unit and process to extract a CO2 stream from a flue gas source feed. Carbon dioxide capture unit (D carbon dioxide separation system) recovers high purity CO2 from a flue gas stream (A). Flue gas stream (A), i.e. flue gas source feed, enters absorber (D) and an aqueous solution containing ionic absorbent for capturing CO2 is introduced into the absorber (D). The flue gas stream (A) and ionic absorbent stream (C) are contacted in the absorber (D), and the ionic absorbent stream (E) which has absorbed carbon dioxide from the flue gas stream comes out of the absorber (D). The ionic absorbent stream (E) which has absorbed carbon dioxide from the flue gas stream is sent to a regenerator to extract the CO2 (L wet CO2 gas stream) from the ionic absorbent stream (S). Further, the separated/extracted CO2 (L wet CO2 gas stream) is further cooled, condensed, sent to a separator, dehydrated and compressed, and a carbon dioxide product (Z) is obtained which can be used on-site or can be made available for sale to a co-located facility (see figure 5 and paragraphs [0066]-[0075]).
Chinn fails to disclose:
a CO2 reactor downstream of the carbon capture unit configured to react CO2 from the CO2 stream with hydrogen to produce a methanol product stream; and
a catalytic olefin reactor downstream of the CO2 reactor configured to receive the methanol product stream and a hydrocarbon feed (olefinic co-feed) and catalytically react methanol from the methanol product stream to give an intermediate olefin stream.
In regards to (a), Schulz teaches a plant and process for producing methanol by reaction of carbon dioxide and hydrogen. An external carbon dioxide source, i.e. CO2 stream, is provided via a conduit (#11), and hydrogen is provided via conduit (#20) to a compressor (#12) and the combined feed mixture of CO2 and H2 are then fed via conduit (#21) into a methanol synthesis reactor (#22), i.e. CO2 reactor, where CO2 and H2 are reacted to produce a methanol product stream (#23). The methanol product stream (#23) is further separated, compressed and distilled to generate a methanol product (#32) which may be stored in tanks (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0062]-[0066]).
Since Chinn clearly discloses that the CO2 product obtained can be used on-site or made available for sale to a co-located facility, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the carbon dioxide capture unit as disclosed by Chinn by further taking the CO2 product and substitute it as the external carbon dioxide source in Schulz and react the CO2 product with hydrogen in a CO2 reactor downstream of the carbon capture to produce a methanol product stream, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Schulz teaches a plant and process for producing methanol by reaction of carbon dioxide and hydrogen, wherein an external carbon dioxide source is provided via a conduit, and hydrogen is provided via conduit to a compressor and the combined feed mixture of CO2 and H2 are then fed via conduit into a methanol synthesis reactor, where CO2 and H2 are reacted to produce a methanol product stream, and the methanol product stream is further separated, compressed and distilled to generate a methanol product which may be stored in tanks, wherein methanol is a very valuable product for industries (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0062]-[0066]).
Chinn, in view of Schulz, fails to disclose a catalytic olefin reactor downstream of the CO2 reactor configured to receive the methanol product stream and a hydrocarbon feed (olefinic co-feed) and catalytically react methanol from the methanol product stream to give an intermediate olefin stream.
However, Chewter teaches a system and process for producing olefins. The system comprises an oxygenate synthesis system (#11), i.e. CO2 reactor, where hydrogen and carbon dioxide streams are reacted to form an oxygenate product stream comprising methanol (#13). The oxygenate feedstock comprising methanol (#13) and an olefinic co-feed, i.e. hydrocarbon feed, are provided to an oxygenate-to-olefins conversion system (#15) comprising an OTO zone for converting oxygenates to lower olefins, e.g. ethylene and propylene, i.e. intermediate olefin stream, which is retrieved via conduit (#17) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0119], [0123] and [0138]).
Since Schulz clearly teaches that the methanol produce may be stored in tanks, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the integrated carbon dioxide capture unit and methanol production as disclosed by Chinn, in view of Schulz, by further taking the methanol product stream from the storage tanks of Schulz and further substituting it as the oxygenate feedstock comprising methanol in a catalytic olefin reactor downstream of the CO2 reactor to receive the methanol product stream and a hydrocarbon feed and catalytically react methanol from the methanol product stream to give an intermediate olefin stream, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Chewter teaches a system and process for producing olefins comprising an oxygenate synthesis system, i.e. CO2 reactor, where hydrogen and carbon dioxide streams are reacted to form an oxygenate product stream comprising methanol, wherein the oxygenate feedstock comprising methanol and an olefinic co-feed, i.e. hydrocarbon feed, are provided to an oxygenate-to-olefins conversion system comprising an OTO zone for converting oxygenates to lower olefins, e.g. ethylene and propylene, i.e. intermediate olefin stream, which is retrieved via conduit, thereby obtaining valuable lower olefins for industries (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0119], [0123] and [0138]).
In regards to Claims 2-3, Chinn, in view of Schulz and Chewter discloses the integrated system for carbon capture and olefins production as recited in claim 1. Chewter further teaches wherein the hydrocarbon feed is mixed with the methanol product stream before it enters the catalytic olefin reactor, and wherein the hydrocarbon feed comprises C4-C12 paraffinic, olefinic fluid hydrocarbon feed stock streams, or any combination thereof (see paragraphs [0104], [0123]-[0128] and [0138]; Chewter teaches wherein an olefinic co-feed is provided to oxygenate-to-olefins conversion system together with the oxygenate feedstock. Chewter further teaches wherein suitable olefinic co-feed may contain olefins, and other hydrocarbons compounds, such as paraffinic compounds. This is considered equivalent to wherein the hydrocarbon feed is mixed with the methanol product stream before it enters the catalytic olefin reactor, as claimed by the applicant.).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the integrated system for carbon dioxide capture unit and methanol production as disclosed by Chinn, in view of Schulz, by having the hydrocarbon feed mixed with the methanol product stream before it enters the catalytic olefin reactor, wherein the hydrocarbon feed comprises C4-C12 paraffinic, olefinic fluid hydrocarbon feed stock streams, or any combination thereof, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Chewter further teaches wherein an olefinic co-feed is provided to oxygenate-to-olefins conversion system together with the oxygenate feedstock, which aids in favoring the production of light olefins while improving catalyst stability within the reactor (see paragraphs [0123] and [0138]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinn, in view of Schulz and Chewter, and further in view of Mandal et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0357912, hereinafter Mandal).
In regards to Claim 4,Chinn, in view of Schulz and Chewter, discloses the integrated system as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the catalytic olefin reactor comprises integrated gas oil and light olefin cracking zones having a petrochemical product stream comprising ethylene and/or propylene.
However, Mandal teaches a thermo-neutral catalytic conversion process and catalyst system for catalytic conversion of low value hydrocarbon feedstock to improve the yield of light olefins, particularly propylene and ethylene by allowing sequential multizone cracking reaction in a single riser which is divided in high, intermediate and low severity zones for sequential cracking of a wide range of feedstock from C4 to residue. Near thermo-neutrality of this process is realized in the overall reaction section by any or both of the following options: (i) Sequential processing of endothermic cracking reaction of C4 to residue, combining with exothermic methanol cracking (ii) Combining low coke making feedstock e.g. C4 to naphtha with high coke making feed stock like residue, slurry oil and the like and then burn off the coke thus produced in separate regenerator to satisfy the heat balance requirement (see paragraph [0023]). The catalyst system comprises a pre-heated cracking reactor having a riser, charged with a solid acidic FCC catalyst, said riser being provided with at least three temperature zones, feeding a first hydrocarbon feed having C4 hydrocarbons and other paraffinic streams to the first zone, feeding a second hydrocarbon feed having olefinic naphtha stream to the second zone, and a third hydrocarbon feed comprising heavy hydrocarbons to the third zone. Cracking the first, second and third hydrocarbons feeds sequentially, with the help of heat generated by introducing an oxygenate feed to the third zone and converting the oxygenate feed to a gaseous state, thereby obtaining light olefins with comparatively higher yield (see paragraphs [0026]-[0027]). The third feed comprises heavy hydrocarbons that include gas oil and the oxygenate feed comprises methanol (see paragraphs [0029]-[0030]). The light olefins comprising propylene and ethylene are obtained in accordance with this disclosure in an amount higher than 20wt.% and 6wt.%, respectively (see paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the integrated system as disclosed by Chinn, in view of Schulz and Chewter, by substituting a known catalytic olefin reactor for another known catalytic olefin reactor comprising an integrated gas oil and light olefin cracking zones having a petrochemical product stream comprising ethylene and/or propylene, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mandal teaches a thermo-neutral catalytic conversion process and catalyst system for catalytic conversion of low value hydrocarbon feedstock to improve the yield of light olefins, particularly propylene and ethylene by allowing sequential multizone cracking reaction in a single riser which is divided in high, intermediate and low severity zones for sequential cracking of a wide range of feedstock from C4 to residue, wherein the catalyst system comprises a pre-heated cracking reactor having a riser, charged with a solid acidic FCC catalyst, said riser being provided with at least three temperature zones, feeding a first hydrocarbon feed having C4 hydrocarbons and other paraffinic streams to the first zone, feeding a second hydrocarbon feed having olefinic naphtha stream to the second zone, and a third hydrocarbon feed comprising heavy hydrocarbons to the third zone, whereby cracking the first, second and third hydrocarbons feeds sequentially, with the help of heat generated by introducing an oxygenate feed to the third zone and converting the oxygenate feed to a gaseous state, thereby obtaining light olefins with comparatively higher yield, and the third feed comprises heavy hydrocarbons that include gas oil and the oxygenate feed comprises methanol, thereby obtaining a petrochemical product stream comprising propylene and ethylene in compatible higher yields of higher than 20wt.% and 6wt.%, respectively (see paragraph [0037]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinn, in view of Schulz and Chewter, and further in view of Eng et al. (US Pat. No. 7,491,315, hereinafter Eng).
In regards to Claim 5, Chinn, in view of Schulz and Chewter, discloses the integrated system as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the catalytic olefin reactor comprises a fluid catalytic cracker comprising a first riser reactor to maximize gasoline range molecules recycled to a second riser reactor to maximize ethylene and propylene yields.
However, Eng teaches a dual riser fluidized catalytic cracking (FCC) units to process light hydrocarbons in both risers to favor olefins and/or aromatics, i.e. gasoline range molecules, production (see column 3, lines 27-29). By segregating feeds to the risers, each feed can be processed at conditions that optimize olefin production (see column 3, lines 32-33). A dual riser FCC process includes cracking a first light hydrocarbon feed in a first riser under first-riser FCC conditions to form a first effluent enriched in ethylene, propylene or a combination thereof, and cracking a second light hydrocarbon feed in a second riser under second-riser FCC conditions to form a second effluent enriched in ethylene, propylene or a combination thereof. The process further includes recovering catalyst and separating gas from the first and second FCC effluents in a common separation device. The recovered catalyst is regenerated from the first and second risers by combustion of coke in a regenerator to obtain hot, regenerated catalyst, and the hot regenerated catalyst can be recirculated to the first and second rises to sustain a continuous operating mode (see column 3, lines 48-65). The first and second light hydrocarbon feeds can be a hydrocarbon feedstock with four or more carbon atoms, such as paraffinic, olefinic, cycloparaffinic, naphthenic and aromatic hydrocarbons, and hydrocarbon oxygenates, such as methanol (see column 3, line 66 to column 4, line 18).
Eng further teaches in an embodiment, the dual riser process includes conditioning the gas separated from the first and second effluents to form a conditioned stream. The conditioned stream can be separated into at least a tail gas stream, an intermediate stream and a heavy stream. The heavy stream can include C6 and higher hydrocarbons, i.e. gasoline range molecules. The heavy stream can be recycled to the second riser to further produce ethylene and/or propylene (see column 5, lines 14-35).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the integrated system as disclosed by Chinn, in view of Schulz and Chewter, by further substituting a known catalytic olefin reactor for another known catalytic olefin reactor comprising a fluid catalytic cracker comprising a first riser reactor to maximize gasoline range molecules recycled to a second riser reactor to maximize ethylene and propylene yields, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success as Eng teaches a dual riser fluidized catalytic cracking (FCC) units to process light hydrocarbons in both risers to favor olefins and/or aromatics, i.e. gasoline range molecules, production, wherein a dual riser FCC process includes cracking a first light hydrocarbon feed in a first riser under first-riser FCC conditions to form a first effluent enriched in ethylene, propylene or a combination thereof, and cracking a second light hydrocarbon feed in a second riser under second-riser FCC conditions to form a second effluent enriched in ethylene, propylene or a combination thereof, wherein the first and second light hydrocarbon feeds can be a hydrocarbon feedstock with four or more carbon atoms and hydrocarbon oxygenates, such as methanol, whereby after cracking, the dual riser process includes conditioning the gas separated from the first and second effluents to form a conditioned stream, which can be separated into at least a tail gas stream, an intermediate stream and a heavy stream, and the heavy stream can include C6 and higher hydrocarbons, i.e. gasoline range molecules, which can be recycled to the second riser to further produce ethylene and/or propylene (see column 5, lines 14-35).
In regards to Claim 6, Chinn, in view of Schulz and Chewter, discloses the integrated system as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a recovery unit for separating the intermediate olefin from the catalytic olefin reactor into at least one olefin product stream.
However, Eng teaches a dual riser fluidized catalytic cracking (FCC) units to process light hydrocarbons in both risers to favor olefins and/or aromatics, i.e. gasoline range molecules, production (see column 3, lines 27-29). By segregating feeds to the risers, each feed can be processed at conditions that optimize olefin production (see column 3, lines 32-33). A dual riser FCC process includes cracking a first light hydrocarbon feed in a first riser under first-riser FCC conditions to form a first effluent enriched in ethylene, propylene or a combination thereof, and cracking a second light hydrocarbon feed in a second riser under second-riser FCC conditions to form a second effluent enriched in ethylene, propylene or a combination thereof. The process further includes recovering catalyst and separating gas from the first and second FCC effluents in a common separation device, i.e. recovery unit (see column 3, lines 48-60). The first and second light hydrocarbon feeds can be a hydrocarbon feedstock with four or more carbon atoms, such as paraffinic, olefinic, cycloparaffinic, naphthenic and aromatic hydrocarbons, and hydrocarbon oxygenates, such as methanol (see column 3, line 66 to column 4, line 18). The dual riser FCC units is considered equivalent to the catalytic olefinic reactor, as claimed by the applicant.
Eng further teaches in an embodiment, the dual riser process includes conditioning the gas separated from the first and second effluents to form a conditioned stream. The conditioned stream can be separated into at least a tail gas stream, an intermediate stream and a heavy stream. For example, the tail gas stream can include an ethylene product stream, a propylene product stream, a light stream comprising ethane, propane, or a combination thereof, i.e. at least one olefin product stream (see column 5, lines 14-25).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the integrated system as disclosed by Chinn, in view of Schulz and Chewter, by further comprising a recovery unit for separating the intermediate olefin stream from the catalytic olefin reactor into at least one olefin product stream, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Eng teaches a dual riser fluidized catalytic cracking (FCC) units to process light hydrocarbons in both risers to favor olefins and/or aromatics, i.e. gasoline range molecules, production, wherein a dual riser FCC process includes cracking a first light hydrocarbon feed in a first riser under first-riser FCC conditions to form a first effluent enriched in ethylene, propylene or a combination thereof, and cracking a second light hydrocarbon feed in a second riser under second-riser FCC conditions to form a second effluent enriched in ethylene, propylene or a combination thereof, wherein the first and second light hydrocarbon feeds can be a hydrocarbon feedstock with four or more carbon atoms and hydrocarbon oxygenates, such as methanol, whereby after cracking, the dual riser process includes conditioning the gas separated from the first and second effluents to form a conditioned stream, which can be separated into at least a tail gas stream, an intermediate stream and a heavy stream, and the tail gas stream can include an ethylene product stream, a propylene product stream, a light stream comprising ethane, propane, or a combination thereof, i.e. at least one olefin product stream (see column 5, lines 14-35).
In regards to Claim 7, Chinn, in view of Schulz, Chewter and Eng, discloses the integrated system as recited in claim 6. Eng further teaches further comprising at least one pyrolysis furnace adapted to feed at least one olefin to the recovery unit (see column 9, lines 16-26; Eng teaches that the present dual riser, dual light hydrocarbon feed process can be integrated with one or more steam pyrolysis units, i.e. pyrolysis furnace. Integration of the catalytic and pyrolytic cracking units allow for flexibility in processing a variety of feedstocks. The integration allows thermal and catalytic cracking units to be used in a complementary fashion in a new or retrofitted petrochemical complex. The petrochemical complex can be designed to use the lowest value feed streams available. Integration allows for production of an overall product slate with maximum value through routing of various by-products to the appropriate cracking technology.).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the integrated system as disclosed by Chinn, in view of Schulz and Chewter, by further comprising at least one pyrolysis furnace adapted to feed at least one olefin to the recovery unit, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Eng teaches that the present dual riser, dual light hydrocarbon feed process can be integrated with one or more steam pyrolysis units, i.e. pyrolysis furnace, wherein integration of the catalytic and pyrolytic cracking units allow for flexibility in processing a variety of feedstocks, whereby the integration allows thermal and catalytic cracking units to be used in a complementary fashion in a new or retrofitted petrochemical complex and the petrochemical complex can be designed to use the lowest value feed streams available, and integration allows for production of an overall product slate with maximum value through routing of various by-products to the appropriate cracking technology (see column 9, lines 16-26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 102 (a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Chinn, in view of Schulz and Chewter.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Chewter have been considered but are moot because Chewter is now used under a different interpretation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights