DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 2, 4, 14, 17, and 18 are amended. Claim 21 is new. Claim 15 is cancelled.
Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 02 December 2025 with regard to the 102 and 103 rejections over Kuznicki have been fully considered and are persuasive. Kuznicki does not teach that the source of the gas mixture comprising the alkene and alkane is polymer production. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered prior art in view of the amendment. Kuznicki continues to teach the separation of the alkene from the alkane with the barium exchanged ETS-4 (rectified titanium silica molecular sieve).
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 17, the claim recites “A system for separating…the method comprising”. The recitation of “method” is a typographical error of “system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-14 and 16-21 are 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.
With regard to claims 1, 14, and 17, claims 1 and 14 each recite that the method comprises producing the gas mixture “during polymer production” and claim 17 recites that the apparatus comprises “a polymer production system” that produces the gas mixture. The entire scope of “polymer production” is not supported by the application as filed. Applicant points to “at least” instant claim 9 and paragraph [0035] of the instant application as filed for support. Claim 9 recites that the gas comprises a vent stream from “a polyethylene or polypropylene production facility”. Paragraph [0035] also discusses a polyethylene plant. The instant specification also discusses a polyethylene or polypropylene production facility as the source of the gas in paragraph [0059]. However, the application as filed does not recite general “polymer production”, and thus the general recitation of “polymer production” as the source of the gas is new matter.
With regard to claims 2-13, 16, and 18-21, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 17-21 is 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.
With regard to claim 17, the claim recites “the [system] comprising: a polymer production system…; an adsorber comprising a bed of rectified titanium silicate…; or a membrane comprising rectified titanium silicate…” It is unclear whether all the components are options, or if the claim is intended to require the polymer production system and then either an adsorber or a membrane comprising the rectified titanium silicate. As such, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the claim is intended to require the polymer production system and the titanium silicate either as a membrane or a bed, as the system comprising both parts would mirror the amendments to claims 1 and 14 to require both the polymer production and adsorbing steps. The Examiner suggests adding “and” after the polymer production system limitation, and denoting the adsorber comprising the bed as (1) or (a) and the membrane as (2) or (b).
With regard to claims 18-20, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
With regard to claim 21, the claim recites “(2) subjecting the titanium silicate molecular sieve to exhaustive ion exchange of the adsorbent…” The titanium silicate is previously recited as adsorbing the alkene, thus it appears to be an adsorbent. As such, the phrasing in claim 21 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the titanium silicate molecular sieve is the adsorbent which is subjected to exhaustive ion exchange, or if somehow the titanium silicate is exchanged with the adsorbent. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that it is the titanium silicate molecular sieve which is subjected to exhaustive ion exchange, as recited in paragraph [0022] of the instant specification. The Examiner suggests deleting the phrase “of the adsorbent” would correct the issue without changing the scope.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With regard to claim 10, the claim recites that the gas is produced “at least in part” by oxidative coupling and/or thermal cracking. However, claim 1 already requires that the gas be produced by polymer production. Thus, claim 10 does not further limit claim 1.
With regard to claim 13, the claim recites “thermally cracking a hydrocarbon liquid to form the gas…” However, claim 1 already requires that the gas be produced by polymer production. Thus, claim 13 does not further limit claim 1.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the source of the feed is a combination of the polymer production of claim 1 and the thermal cracking and/or oxidative coupling of claims 10 and 13.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuznicki et al. (US 6,517,611) in view of Ramachandran et al. (US 5,470,925).
With regard to claims 1 and 2, Kuznicki teaches a method comprising:
contacting a gaseous mixture comprising an olefin and a paraffin having the same carbon content as said olefin with a barium (instant claims 1 and 2) exchanged (ion-exchanged) ETS-4 titanium silicate to selectivity adsorb said olefin
and size exclude said paraffin from the pores; and
recovering a product stream which has a higher concentration of said olefin than said mixture (column 14, claim 1). Kuznicki teaches that the barium exchanged ETS-4 has a titania/silica molar ratio of 1:1 to 1:10 (column 8, lines 63-65), which overlaps the range of about 1 to about 10 of instant claim 1, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Kuznicki further teaches that the gaseous mixture is a product of thermal cracking, FCC, hydrocracking, or other sources (column 7, lines 25-26 and 38-41).
Kuznicki does not specifically teach that the source is a gas from polymer production.
Ramachandran teaches a process for production of alkene polymers (Title). Ramachandran further teaches withdrawing a gas stream comprising olefins and paraffins having the same carbon number from a polymerization process, and passing the gas stream to pressure swing or temperature swing absorption comprising an absorbent which preferentially removes alkenes from the gas mixture (column 2, lines 29-44). Thus, Ramachandran teaches that it is known to use an absorbent to preferentially absorb alkenes over alkanes in a gas mixture resulting from polymer production.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the gas from polymerization of Ramachandran as the source to the absorbent of Kuznicki, because each of Kuznicki and Ramachandran teach selectively absorbing alkenes over alkanes in a gas stream comprising the mixture, Kuznicki teaches that the source can be other gas mixtures, and Ramachandran teaches that the gas resulting from polymerization is a known source of alkanes and alkenes which can be passed to an absorbent to absorb the alkenes (column 2, lines 29-44).
With regard to claim 3, Kuznicki teaches calcining the ETS-4 at a temperature of 150-250°C and cooling (column 14, claim 4), which is within the range of about 100 to about 300°C of instant claim 3. Kuznicki further teaches the calcining adjusts the pore size to the desired size (column 9, line 50).
With regard to claims 4 and 5, Kuznicki teaches pressure swing adsorption (instant claim 5) using the ETS-4 adsorbent in a particulate bed (instant claim 4) (column 15, claim 16). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that pressure swing adsorption includes a step of reducing the pressure of the particulate bed relative to a pressure of the particulate bed during the contacting, as claimed in instant claim 5.
With regard to claim 7, Kuznicki alternatively teaches a membrane comprising the titanium silicate where the olefin passes through the pores, said olefin being obtained downstream (column 15, claim 23).
With regard to claim 8, Kuznicki teaches the feed stream to the adsorbing further comprises acetylene with the alkene and alkane, and that the product recovered from the adsorbing has a higher concentration of acetylene than the feed (column 16, claim 27).
With regard to claim 9, Ramachandran teaches that the polymerization is to make polyethylene or polypropylene (column 1, lines 13-14). Ramachandran further teaches the gas comprising the alkane and alkene used to be purged (vented) and is now being passed to the adsorber to obtain the alkenes (column 2, lines 1-5 and 30-35). Thus, Ramachandran teaches the source of the gas is a vent gas stream from polyethylene or polypropylene production, as claimed.
With regard to claims 10 and 13, Kuznicki teaches cracking gas oil to produce the product comprising olefin and alkane (column 1, lines 14-15).
With regard to claim 11, Ramachandran teaches the gaseous mixture from the polymer production comprises ethylene and ethane (column 2, lines 31-32).
With regard to claim 12, Ramachandran teaches the gaseous mixture from the polymer production comprises propylene and propane (column 2, line 33).
With regard to claim 14, Kuznicki teaches a method comprising:
calcining ETS-4 to contract the pores to a desired smaller size (column 9, lines 49-50);
contacting a gaseous mixture comprising an olefin and a paraffin having the same carbon content as said olefin with the ETS-4 titanium silicate to selectivity adsorb said olefin
and size exclude said paraffin from the pores; and
recovering a product stream which has a higher concentration of said olefin than said mixture (column 14, claim 1). Kuznicki teaches that the barium exchanged ETS-4 has a titania/silica molar ratio of 1:1 to 1:10 (column 8, lines 63-65), which overlaps the range of about 1 to about 10 of instant claim 14, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Kuznicki further teaches that the gaseous mixture is a product of thermal cracking, FCC, hydrocracking, or other sources (column 7, lines 25-26 and 38-41).
Kuznicki does not specifically teach that the source is a gas from polymer production.
Ramachandran teaches a process for production of alkene polymers (Title). Ramachandran further teaches withdrawing a gas stream comprising olefins and paraffins having the same carbon number from a polymerization process, and passing the gas stream to pressure swing or temperature swing absorption comprising an absorbent which preferentially removes alkenes from the gas mixture (column 2, lines 29-44). Thus, Ramachandran teaches that it is known to use an absorbent to preferentially absorb alkenes over alkanes in a gas mixture resulting from polymer production.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the gas from polymerization of Ramachandran as the source to the absorbent of Kuznicki, because each of Kuznicki and Ramachandran teach selectively absorbing alkenes over alkanes in a gas stream comprising the mixture, Kuznicki teaches that the source can be other gas mixtures, and Ramachandran teaches that the gas resulting from polymerization is a known source of alkanes and alkenes which can be passed to an absorbent to absorb the alkenes (column 2, lines 29-44).
With regard to claim 16, Kuznicki teaches the pore size is 2.5 to 4 Angstroms (column 6, lines 46-47), which is identical to the range of 2.5 to 4 Angstroms of instant claim 16.
With regard to claims 17 and 18, Kuznicki teaches a system for separating a mixture comprising alkene and alkane comprising a membrane (instant claim 17) comprising a titanium silicate which has been exchanged with barium (instant claim 18), such that the alkene passes through the pores and across the plane of the membrane to provide a downstream product having a higher concentration of alkene than the feed (column 15, claims 14 and 23). Kuznicki teaches that the barium exchanged ETS-4 has a titania/silica molar ratio of 1:1 to 1:10 (column 8, lines 63-65), which overlaps the range of about 1 to about 10 of instant claim 17, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Kuznicki further teaches that the gaseous mixture is a product of a unit for thermal cracking, FCC, hydrocracking, or other sources (column 7, lines 25-26 and 38-41).
Kuznicki does not specifically teach that the system comprises a unit for polymer production as the source of the gaseous mixture.
Ramachandran teaches production of alkene polymers (Title). Ramachandran further teaches a system comprising a unit for polymerization which produces a gas stream comprising olefins and paraffins having the same carbon number from a polymerization process, and a unit comprising an adsorbent for pressure swing or temperature swing adsorption, which preferentially removes alkenes from the gas mixture (column 2, lines 29-44). Thus, Ramachandran teaches that it is known to have a system comprising a polymer production unit and an adsorption unit for separating alkenes from alkanes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the polymerization unit of Ramachandran to the system of Kuznicki, because Kuznicki and Ramachandran each teach a system comprising a source of a gaseous mixture comprising alkanes and alkenes, Kuznicki teaches that the unit can be another source not listed, and Ramachandran teaches that the polymerization unit is a known source of alkanes and alkenes which can be passed to an absorbent unit to absorb the alkenes (column 2, lines 29-44).
With regard to claim 19, Kuznicki teaches calcining the titanium silicate at a temperature of 150-250°C and cooling (column 14, claim 4), which is within the range of about 100 to about 300°C of instant claim 19.
With regard to claim 20, Kuznicki alternatively teaches a system comprising pressure swing adsorption (instant claim 20) instead of the membrane, comprising contacting a mixture comprising alkane and alkene with an ETS-4 adsorbent in a particulate bed (column 15, claim 16). While Kuznicki does not explicitly teach the presence of an inlet and at least one outlet for the particulate bed, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the particulate bed used in PSA of Kuznicki implicitly involves the feed gas entering the bed in an inlet, removing the non-adsorbed gas through an outlet, and removing the product gas during desorption through an outlet, as claimed.
With regard to claim 21, Kuznicki teaches that ion-exchange is performed multiple times such that more than 95% of the original sodium is exchanged with the barium cation (column 12, lines 35-39 and 51-53). This is considered to be exhaustive ion exchange, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuznicki et al. (US 6,517,611, Kuznicki I below) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kuznicki et al. (US 2009/0187053, Kuznicki II below).
With regard to claim 6, Kuznicki I teaches the method above where the adsorption is performed with a PSA bed (column 15, claim 16).
Kuznicki I does not specifically teach pulling a vacuum or heating to increase recovery.
Kuznicki II teaches PSA adsorption for separation of ethane and ethylene with a cation exchanged ETS-10 (Abstract). Kuznicki further teaches vacuum swing adsorption (VSA) or thermal swing adsorption (TSA) can be used with the modified ETS-10 (paragraph [0089]). TSA is known in the art to mean a variant of PSA where the temperature is increased. VSA is known in the art to mean adding a vacuum to PSA to increase the desorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use TSA or VSA as a variant of the PSA to increase the recovering in the process of Kuznicki I, as Kuznicki I and Kuznicki II each teaches PSA with a cation exchanged ETS to separate ethylene and ethane, and Kuznicki II teaches TSA and VSA are known alternatives to use instead of base PSA to recover the olefin (paragraph [0089]).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772