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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risch (US 2005/0043575) in view of Van Egmond (US 2004/0102669).
Regarding claims 1-20, Risch teaches that C4+ olefin streams from MTO processes are fed to selective hydrogenation [0028-0031], [0016-0019], followed by oligomerization [0019], [0034-35].
Risch does not explicitly disclose the MTO process steps, or how the C4+ olefins are separated.
However, Van Egmond teaches a similar process for selective hydrogenation of C4+ olefins recovered from MTO processes [0118]. Van Egmond separates the effluent from the MTO reactor by a quench device to separate water from light olefins, and dimethyl ether [0075-0077], followed by additional conventional separation devices to recover C4+ from the lighter materials [0108-0118]. Van Egmond additionally teaches using conventional demethanizers, deethanizer, depropanizer, wash towers, caustic tours, splitters, etc [0109].
Therefore, it would have been obvious the person having ordinary skill in the art to have separated water from the light olefins, followed by conventional separation such as stripping, as described by Van Egmond in order to recover the C4+ fraction to be fed to selective hydrogenation. Examiner notes that as disclosed by Van Egmond, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate separation equipment and steps in order to obtain the desired C4+ olefins to be fed to the selective hydrogenation step [0108-0118].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shutt (US 2004/0039239) – teaches MTO followed by separation, recover of C4+ components which are fed to hydrogenation (see figure 2)
Van Egmond (US 2005/0033104) – teaches MTO, water wash, and separation of C4+ components
Ding (US 2004/0267077) – teaches oxygenate to olefin reaction, quenching, washing, and olefin product recovery
Schindlbeck (US 2020/0047079) - teaches separation of MTO effluent
Xu (US 2005/0101815) – from ISR teaches oxygenate to olefin conversion and separation of effluents
Martens (US 2005/0182282) – from ISR teaches C4+ from oxygenate to olefin reactor fed to oligomerization
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights