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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending. This is the first office action on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 14, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 recites “where the changes dC2re and dC4+re in a mass flow ratio dC4+re / dC2re, where the mass flow ratio is between 70% and 130%.” For clarity, Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation as follows: “where are changes in [[a]] mass flowa mass flow ratio dC4+re / dC2re is between 70% and 130%.”
Claims 2-5 and 16: Applicant is suggested to amend “a first state 1” in each of claims 2-5 and 16 to state “[[a]] the first state 1” since it is referring to “a first state 1” in claim 1 in step (d). Similarly, Applicant is suggested to amend “a second state 2” in each of claims 2-5 and 16 to state “[[a]] the second state 2.”
Claim 4: the limitation “the oxygenate-to-olefin O catalyst” appears to have a typographical error and should be amended to state “the oxygenate-to-olefin [[O]] catalyst.”
Claim 6 recites “at least one further olefin product stream selected from the group comprising.” To properly use Markush grouping, Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to state “at least one further olefin product stream selected from the group consisting of.” Applicant is also suggested to add --and-- at the end of line 11 (the “(c32)” element).
Claim 14 and 17: The limitation “the ethylene fill level” lacks antecedent basis. Applicant is suggested to amend “the ethylene fill level” to state “[[the]] an ethylene fill level.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 7-14, and 17 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.
Claim 3 is considered indefinite for reciting “The process according to Claim 1, wherein the movement of the process from a first state 1 with lower ethylene production to a second state 2 with higher ethylene production reduces the sum total of ethylene production + propylene production by at least 8%” (emphasis added). The limitation is inconsistent with the description in the specification because a switch from the first state to the second state increases ethylene production without “a loss of the valuable propylene target product” (see Spec., pg. 7, lines 6-8).
Claims 7-10 each recite “from the group of further olefin product stream,” which lacks antecedent basis. Since the limitation appears to be in reference to “at least one further olefin product stream selected from the group” in claim 6, each of claims 7-10 is treated to be dependent of claim 6.
Claim 11 is indefinite for reciting “wherein all other olefin product streams,” because it is unclear as to what “other olefin product streams” are referring to. For the purpose of examination, claim 11 is construed as follows: The process according to Claim [[1]] 6, wherein all of the further olefin product streams (c31)-(c33) are recycled at least partly to the oxygenate-to-olefin reactor.
Claim 12 is indefinite for reciting “at least one fraction selected from the group comprising: C4+re, C4re, C5re, C6+re” because it is unclear as to what “C4+re, C4re, C5re, C6+re” are referring to. For the purpose of examination, claim 12 is construed as follows: The process according to Claim [[1]] 6, wherein the lowering of the fraction C2re and the increasing of at least one fraction selected from the group consisting of C4+re, C4re, C5re, and C6+re, are affected such that the ethylene/propylene product ratio is between 1 % and 20% by weight.
Claim 13 is indefinite for reciting “at least one fraction selected from the group comprising: C4+re, C4re, C5re, C6+re” because it is unclear as to what “C4+re, C4re, C5re, C6+re” are referring to. For the purpose of examination, claim 13 is construed as follows: The process according to Claim [[1]] 6, wherein the lowering of the fraction C2re and the increasing of at least one fraction selected from the group consisting of C4+re, C4re, C5re, and C6+re, are affected such that steady-state operation of the overall process and of the individual process stages is assured.
Claim 14 is indefinite for reciting “the ethylene” and “at least one fraction selected from the group comprising: C4+re, C4re, C5re, C6+re,” because it is unclear as to what “the ethylene” and “C4+re, C4re, C5re, C6+re” are referring to. For the purpose of examination, claim 14 is construed as follows: The process according to Claim [[1]] 6, wherein the process comprises at least a portion of the ethylene product stream in an ethylene storage tank, and wherein the lowering of the fraction C2re and the increasing of at least one fraction selected from the group consisting of C4+re, C4re, C5re, and C6+re, are affected such that [[the]] an ethylene fill level in the ethylene storage tank does not go above or below a fixed value.
Claim 17 is indefinite for reciting “the ethylene” because it is unclear what it is referring to. For the purpose of examination, claim 17 is construed as follows: The process according to Claim 1, wherein the method comprises at least a portion of the ethylene product stream in an ethylene storage tank, and wherein the process is moved into the state 1 or 2 with the condition that [[the]] an ethylene fill level in the ethylene storage tank does not go above or below a fixed value.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 15, 16, and 18 are allowable over prior art.
Claim 3, 7-14, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. No prior art of record, individually or in combination, teaches a process for producing C2-C4 olefins from oxygenates in an oxygenate-to-olefin reactor, the process comprising separating an reactor effluent into an ethylene product stream, a propylene product stream, and a C4+ product stream; recycling a fraction “C2re” of the ethylene product stream and a fraction “C4+refraction” to the oxygenate-to-olefin reactor; and moving from “a first state 1 with lower ethylene production” to “a second state 2 with higher ethylene production” by lowering the amount of the fraction C2re and increasing the fraction C4+re in the manner require by claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 requires the steps of: lowering the fraction C2re from a first value C2re,1 to a second value C2re,2, resulting in a change dC2re = C2re,1 - C2re,2, and increasing the fraction C4+re from a first value C4+re, 1 to a second value C4+re,2, resulting in a change dC4+re = C4+re,2 - C4+re,1, where dC2re and dC4+re are changes in mass flow, where a mass flow ratio dC4+re / dC2re is between 70% and 130%.
Castillo-Welter et al. (US 2017/0362141 A1, cited in IDS dated 11/07/2023) is considered the closest prior art to the instant invention. Castillo-Welter discloses a process comprising:
(a) providing a feed stream (Fig. 1, 11) containing oxygenates (“methanol”) and converting the oxygenates in the feed stream under heterogeneous catalysis in an oxygenate-to-olefin reactor (10, 20) containing an oxygenate-to-olefin catalyst under oxygenate conversion conditions to a reactor product stream (21) containing water, hydrocarbons and at least one oxygenate (“unconverted methanol an dimethyl ether”) ([0045]-[0049], [0058]);
(b) quenching the reactor product stream in at least one quench stage to obtain the following streams of matter ([0059]):
(b1) a gaseous stream comprising hydrocarbons and comprising specifically olefins (27) ([0068]),
(b2) a first liquid stream comprising water and oxygenates (“aqueous methanol fraction”) (101) ([0098]),
(b3) a second liquid stream comprising hydrocarbons and comprising specifically olefins (26) ([0068]),
(c) separating the gaseous stream and/or the second liquid stream in multiple stages by thermal separation methods to obtain a group of product streams ([0068]-[0084]), where the group of product streams comprises:
(c1) an ethylene-containing ethylene product stream (63) which is at least partly discharged from the process, with recycling of a further fraction C2re (79) of the ethylene product stream to the oxygenate-to-olefin reactor ([0069]-[0074]),
(c2) a propylene-containing propylene product stream (67) which is discharged from the process ([0079]),
(c3) at least one C4+ product stream (46, 51) containing C4+ olefins which is at least partly recycled in a fraction C4+re fraction to the oxygenate-to-olefin reactor ([0080]-[0082], [0089]-[0090]),
(c4) a gasoline product stream (47) which comprises C4+ paraffins and
aromatics and is discharged from the process ([0082]).
However, Castillo-Welter fails to teach or reasonably suggest the claimed feature of switching a “lower ethylene production” state to a “higher ethylene production” state by adjusting the rates of ethylene and C4+ recycle streams in accordance with steps (e)-(f) of claim 1. It is noted that the reference suggests adjusting the amount of C4 fraction that is recycled, e.g., from 0 wt% to 90 wt% depending on the plant requirements ([0090]). The reference also mentions that “the production quantity of ethylene can be regulated” by recycling an ethylene-containing stream ([0074]). However, there is no sufficient guidance which would have motivated one skilled in the art to switch the operation from the first state to the second state by adjusting the amount of C2 and C4+ recycle streams where a mass flow ratio “dC4+re / dC2re” is between 70% and 130%, as required by the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772