DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 7 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 7 January 2026 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and Examiner’s reconsideration of the record.
New grounds for rejection of claims 1-20 are made under 35 U.S.C. 103. In addition, a new ground for rejection of claim 20 is entered under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 20, the claim recites the limitation “said off-gas stream.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga (US 2016/0194572) in view of Peitz (US 11,254,631).
With respect to claims 1, 2, and 19, Lilga discloses a process for oligomerizing an olefin stream (see Lilga, Abstract) comprising: (a) oligomerizing an olefin feed over a first stage oligomerization catalyst to produce a first-stage oligomerized stream (see Lilga, paragraph [0020]); (b) oligomerizing the first-stage oligomerized stream over a second-stage oligomerization catalyst to provide a second-stage oligomerized stream (see Lilga, paragraph [0021]); and (c) dealkanizing the second-stage oligomerized stream to provide a light alkane (normal paraffin) stream and a dealkanized stream (see Lilga, column 3, lines 61-65). Lilga further discloses wherein alkanes (paraffins) and unreacted (i.e. separated/fractionated) ethylene may be separated/fractionated and recycled back to the first or second oligomerization stages in order to increase carbon number and product yield is the desired distillation range (see Lilga, paragraph [0069]).
Lilga does not explicitly disclose wherein the disclosed fractionation is by way of a “deethanizer column” or “depropanizer column” or the specific bottoms operating temperature of such separator.
However, Lilga clearly discloses wherein such separator may be one that performs “distillation” in order to achieve a light fraction and unreacted ethylene fraction which may be recycled to the first or second reactors (see Lilga, paragraphs [0051], [0067], and [0069]). Thus, the separator/fractionator/distillation of Lilga clearly performs the function of a deethanizer or depropanizer column. Moreover, with regard to bottoms temperature, Peitz (in a related process) (see Peitz, Abstract) explains that the precise conditions of distillation such as temperature and pressure are typically determined by column height, number of trays, type of trays/packing, tray spacing, etc., all of which are known to persons having ordinary skill in the art to achieve the desired separation (see Peitz, column 5, lines 7-17). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art could easily adjust column variables to achieve any bottoms temperature desired in order to meet the process objectives of Lilga.
Thus, claims 1, 2, and 19 are unpatentable in view of Lilga and Peitz.
With respect to claims 3-8, 10, 12-18, Lilga discloses wherein the recycle ethylene may be a purified condensate (see Lilga, paragraph [0057]).
With respect to claim 9, Lilga discloses wherein the light recycle fraction may comprise C4 to C8 hydrocarbons (see Lilga, paragraphs [0020], [0064], and [0067]).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga (US 2016/0194572) in view of Peitz (US 11,254,631) and Chen (US 2017/0088490).
With respect to claims 11 and 20, Lilga discloses wherein residual liquids from the oligomerization reactor may be removed in a gas/liquid separator (see Lilga, paragraph [0061]), such separated light gases known to be useful as fuels for combustion to provide to meet the necessary heat requirements of the process (see Chen, paragraph [0051]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are considered moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Brown (US 7,786,337); Han (US 10,399,912); Kreischer (US 11,230,514); and Vora (US 2006/0135832). The cited references generally disclose single or multi-stage processes for oligomerization of hydrocarbon fractions (see respective Abstracts for each cited reference).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771