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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 100, Specification page 28, line 10. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 1-3, 8-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lempert et al. (US 3,492,220) in view of Jacquin (US 3,702,291).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Lempert et al. discloses a system, suitable for separating and purifying aromatic hydrocarbons (see Abstract; Figure), which comprises:
a feedstock feed line (11, 14), suitable for supplying of an aromatic hydrocarbon-containing feedstock having a bromine index of at least 30 (see col. 2, lines 57-72; col. 6, lines 62-75; Figure);
a hydrogen feed line (57, 64);
a hydrogenation reactor (16, 23, 32) communicating with each of the feed line of the feedstock and the hydrogen feed line, the hydrogenation reactor filled with a multi-stage catalyst bed, in which the multi-stage catalyst bed comprises a first catalyst bed (16) comprising at least one stage (18, 19) and at least one second catalyst bed (24, 34) disposed at the downstream of the first catalyst bed along a flow direction of the feedstock transferred through the feed line (see col. 5, lines 58-70; col. 7, lines 5-30; Figure); and
at least one separator (49) communicating with the hydrogenation reactor, the separator, suitable for separating a product containing at least one aromatic hydrocarbon selected from the group consisting of C6 aromatics, C7 aromatics, C8 aromatics and C9+ aromatics, among products discharged from the hydrogenation reactor (see col. 7, lines 35-48; Figure),
wherein, the first catalyst bed (18, 19) comprises a support containing inorganic oxide, and Ni in a sulfide form (which is identified as an active but relatively mild hydrogenation catalyst as compared to elemental nickel and nickel oxide catalyst) (see col. 3, lines 4-25), and the second catalyst bed comprises a support containing inorganic oxide and a relatively more active hydrogenation catalyst than the first catalyst bed (see col. 5, lines 25-40). The reference Lempert et al., however, does not specifically specify wherein the second catalyst bed comprises Ni-Mo and/or Ni-W in a reduced form as an active metal.
However, as evidenced by the reference Jacquin (see col. 1, lines 23-32; lines 57-61; col. 3, lines 37-43; lines 59-75; col. 4, lines 1-3), it is conventional in the art to employ a hydrogenation catalyst comprising Ni-Mo and/or Ni-W in a reduced form as a hydrogenation catalyst for selective hydrogenation of undesirable components such as diolefins and olefins from a feedstock comprising aromatic hydrocarbons.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize hydrogenation catalyst comprising Ni-Mo and/or Ni-W in a reduced form as taught by Jacquin as the active hydrogenation catalyst in the second catalyst bed of Lempert et al., since the reference Jacquin teaches that the disclosed hydrogenation catalyst helps attain purification of aromatic hydrocarbons with minimal loss of aromatics (see col. 1, lines 57-61; Example 1; Table 1). Furthermore, the reference Lempert et al. teaches that any suitable hydrogenation catalyst active under a more severe hydrogenation conditions can be used as a hydrogenation catalyst in the second catalyst bed (see col. 5, lines 25-55).
Regarding claim 2, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed system, and the system of Lempert et al. and Jacquin, the system of Lempert et al. and Jacquin is considered capable of performing the function recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed system, and the system of Lempert et al. and Jacquin, the system of Lempert et al. and Jacquin is considered capable of performing the function recited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, the references Lempert et al. and Jacquin disclose the system, wherein the inorganic oxide can be alumina or silica-alumina (see Lempert et al: col. 5, lines 36-40; Jacquin: col. 3, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 9, the references Lempert et al. and Jacquin are silent with respect to an amount of the at least one first catalyst bed is in a range of 10% to 90%, based on the total volume of the at least one first catalyst bed and the second catalyst bed. However, depending upon the level of undesired olefins needed to be removed from the aromatic hydrocarbon feedstock, to provide the first catalyst bed in an amount in a range of 10% to 90% based on the total volume of the at least one first catalyst bed and the second catalyst bed as claimed by applicant, since the reference Lempert et al. teaches that the first catalyst be should be provided in an amount sufficient to eliminate any diolefins present in the aromatic hydrocarbon feedstock (see col. 3, lines 10-25).
Regarding claim 10, the references Lempert et al. and Jacquin disclose the system, wherein the support in each of the at least one first catalyst bed and the second catalyst bed is in a shape of granule (see Lempert et al. Table II).
Regarding claim 11, the reference Lempert et al. discloses a system, suitable for separating and purifying aromatic hydrocarbons (see Abstract; Figure), which comprises:
a feedstock feed line (11, 14), suitable for supplying of an aromatic hydrocarbon-containing feedstock having a bromine index of at least 30 (see col. 2, lines 57-72; col. 6, lines 62-75; Figure);
a hydrogen feed line (57, 64);
a multi-stage hydrogenation unit (16, 23, 32) communicating with each of the feed line of the feedstock and the hydrogen feed line, in which the multi-stage hydrogenation unit comprises a first reaction unit (16) containing at least one first catalyst (18, 19) and a second reaction unit (23, 32) communicating with the first reaction unit at the downstream of the first reaction unit and containing a second catalyst (24, 34) along a flow direction of the feedstock transferred through the feed line (see col. 5, lines 58-70; col. 7, lines 5-30; Figure); and
at least one separator (49) communicating with the multi-stage hydrogenation unit, the separator, suitable for separating a product containing at least one aromatic hydrocarbon selected from the group consisting of C6 aromatics, C7 aromatics, C8 aromatics and C9+ aromatics, among products discharged from the hydrogenation reactor (see col. 7, lines 35-48; Figure),
wherein, the first catalyst (18, 19) comprises a support containing inorganic oxide, and Ni in a sulfide form (an active but relatively mild hydrogenation catalyst as compared to elemental nickel and nickel oxide catalyst) (see col. 3, lines 4-25), and the second catalyst comprises a support containing inorganic oxide and a relatively more active hydrogenation catalyst than the first catalyst bed (see col. 5, lines 25-40). The reference Lempert et al., however, does not specifically specify wherein the second catalyst bed comprises Ni-Mo and/or Ni-W in a reduced form as an active metal.
However, as evidenced by the reference Jacquin (see col. 1, lines 23-32; lines 57-61; col. 3, lines 37-43; lines 59-75; col. 4, lines 1-3), it is conventional in the art to employ a hydrogenation catalyst comprising Ni-Mo and/or Ni-W in a reduced form as a hydrogenation catalyst for selective hydrogenation of undesirable components such as diolefins or olefins from a feedstock comprising aromatic hydrocarbons.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize hydrogenation catalyst comprising Ni-Mo and/or Ni-W in a reduced form as taught by Jacquin as the active hydrogenation catalyst in the second catalyst bed of Lempert et al., since the reference Jacquin teaches that the disclosed hydrogenation catalyst helps attain purification of aromatic hydrocarbons with minimal loss of aromatics (see col. 1, lines 57-61; Example 1; Table 1).). Furthermore, the reference Lempert et al. teaches that any suitable hydrogenation catalyst active under a more severe hydrogenation conditions can be used as a hydrogenation catalyst in the second catalyst bed (see col. 5, lines 25-55).
Regarding claim 12, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed system, and the system of Lempert et al. and Jacquin, the system of Lempert et al. and Jacquin is considered capable of performing the function recited in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed system, and the system of Lempert et al. and Jacquin, the system of Lempert et al. and Jacquin is considered capable of performing the function recited in claim 13.
Regarding claim 18, the references Lempert et al. and Jacquin disclose the system, wherein the inorganic oxide can be alumina or silica-alumina (see Lempert et al: col. 5, lines 36-40; Jacquin: col. 3, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 19, the references Lempert et al. and Jacquin disclose the system, wherein the support in each of the at least one first catalyst bed and the second catalyst bed is in a shape of granule (see Lempert et al. Table II).
Regarding claim 20, the references Lempert et al. and Jacquin disclose the system, wherein the first reaction unit comprises a plurality of reactors connected in series (see col. 5, lines 58-70; col. 7, lines 5-30; Figure).
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lempert et al. in view of Jacquin as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Bender et al. (US 2016/0075618).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the references Lempert et al. and Jacquin do not disclose a transalkylation unit for converting a fraction containing C6 aromatics, C7 aromatics and/or C9+ aromatics among the product separated from the at least one separator, into C8 aromatics. The reference Bender et al. teaches a transalkylation unit for converting feedstreams containing C6 aromatics, C7 aromatics and/or C9+ aromatics into a product stream comprising xylenes (see paras. [0002]; [0020]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a transalkylation unit as taught by Bender et al. downstream of the at least one separator of Lempert et al. and Jackquin in application where it is desired to produce xylenes from a fraction containing C6 aromatics, C7 aromatics and/or C9+ aromatics among the product separated from the at least one separator, as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of a known apparatus for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the reference Lempert et al., Jacquin, and Bender et al. disclose that the system may further comprise a recycling line for recycling unrecovered C8 aromatics after separating and recovering para-xylene from the C8 aromatics (see Bender et al.: para. [0006]).
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lempert et al. in view of Jacquin as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Porter (US 2013/0274532).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the references Lempert et al. and Jacquin do not disclose a para-xylene separation and/or recovery unit for separating and/or recovering para-xylene from the C8 aromatics among the product separated from the at least one separator; and a xylene isomerization unit for isomerizing unseparated/unrecovered C8 aromatics, other than the para-xylene to form an increased content of para-xylene. The reference Porter teaches a para-xylene separation and/or recovery unit (6, 8) for separating and/or recovering para-xylene from the C8 aromatics among the product separated from the at least one separator (see paras. [0004]; [0020]; Fig. 1); and a xylene isomerization unit (5) for isomerizing unseparated/unrecovered C8 aromatics, other than the para-xylene to form an increased content of para-xylene (see para. [0026]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the para-xylene separation and/or recovery unit as well as the xylene isomerization unit as taught by Porter downstream of the at least one separator of Lempert et al. and Jackquin in application where it is desired to produce para-xylene from the C8 aromatics among the product separated from the at least one separator Lempert et al. and Jacquin, as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of a known apparatus for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the reference Lempert et al., Jacquin, and Porter disclose that the system may further comprises a recycling line for recycling the remaining xylene fraction after separating and/or recovering para-xylene among the aromatic fraction discharged from the xylene isomerization unit (see Porter: paras. [0020]; [0026]; Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights