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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 20 July 2026 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1-20, it is not clear what is meant by the combination of “stripping said second olefinic stream to provide a first vapor stream comprising C4- olefins and a first liquid olefin stream comprising C4+ olefins” with “stripping said second olefinic stream comprises stripping oxygenates into a stripper overhead line”. It appears that these are separate steps, but it is not clear how they are related in the claim language. It is not clear what is performed in the “stripping said second olefinic stream” step. Applicant has referenced [0042] for support. Examiner notes that Applicant’s instant specification teaches sending the second olefin rich stream 87 to compression steps, knockout drum 90, oxygenate absorber 50, knockout drum 60, and stripper 66 – which recovers oxygenates in the boot 67 [0036-0042]. In this regard, it is not clear how the second olefin stripping step recovers oxygenates in the overhead.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-20, it is not clear where the instant specification supports the combination of “stripping said second olefinic stream to provide a first vapor stream comprising C4- olefins and a first liquid olefin stream comprising C4+ olefins” with “stripping said second olefinic stream comprises stripping oxygenates into a stripper overhead line”. It appears that these are separate steps, but it is not clear how they are related in the claim language. It is not clear what is performed in the “stripping said second olefinic stream” step. Applicant has referenced [0042] for support. Examiner notes that Applicant’s instant specification teaches sending the second olefin rich stream 87 to compression steps, knockout drum 90, oxygenate absorber 50, knockout drum 60, and stripper 66 – which recovers oxygenates in the boot 67 [0036-0042]. In this regard, it is not clear how the second olefin stripping step recovers oxygenates in the overhead.
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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are addressed by the updated rejections, as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/MICHELLE STEIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights