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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 1/27/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18/661,294 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
In view of the applicant's broadening of independent claims 1 and 20, a new Final Office Action is issued as follows.
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.
Claim 9 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.
Claim 9 is indefinite because the claim recites “a 2nd purge stream comprising between about 5% and about 50%…” without specifying what is done with the purge stream. Thus, the scope of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1–7, 9–19, 20–27, and 29–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (US 7,297,825 B2) in view of Glover et al. (US 2014/0353215 A1).
Fujimoto discloses a process for producing LPG from synthesis gas comprising CO and H₂ using a catalyst system (col. 1, lines 54–58; col. 2; Figs. 2–4). Fujimoto teaches reacting synthesis gas in a catalytic reaction zone to produce hydrocarbons including C3–C4 LPG components (see Figures 2–4 showing C3+C4 hydrocarbon production as a function of CO conversion). Thus, Fujimoto teaches synthesizing an LPG-enriched gaseous effluent from synthesis gas in a catalytic reaction zone.
Fujimoto does not explicitly disclose downstream hydrocarbon absorption and recovery of LPG using a liquid absorption solvent.
Glover discloses a process for recovering LPG hydrocarbons from hydrogen-containing reactor effluent streams including:
• separating vapor and liquid phases from a catalytic reactor effluent (¶[0018]);• recovering hydrocarbons such as propane and butane as LPG products;• contacting streams with hydrocarbon liquids and separation zones to recover LPG fractions.
Glover further discloses that hydrogen-containing vapor streams from catalytic hydrocarbon conversion processes contain light hydrocarbons including methane, ethane, propane and butane which may be separated and recovered using separation systems (¶[0009]). Thus Glover teaches separation and recovery of LPG hydrocarbons from gas streams and recycle of hydrogen-containing gas streams.
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LPG synthesis process of Fujimoto by incorporating the hydrocarbon recovery and gas-separation techniques of Glover in order to improve recovery of LPG hydrocarbons from the reactor effluent and to recycle hydrogen-containing gas streams to the reaction zone, which is a conventional objective in hydrocarbon conversion processes.
Claims 2–7 depend from claim 1 and further recite features including:
fractional distillation recovery of LPG
solvent absorption conditions
specific hydrocarbon solvents
purge stream and recycle stream configurations.
Glover discloses multiple vapor-liquid separation zones, hydrocarbon recovery systems, and recycle of hydrogen-containing gas streams (¶[0009]–[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate conventional fractionation, solvent absorption, and purge stream configurations into the modified Fujimoto process in order to efficiently recover LPG hydrocarbons from the reactor effluent.
Claim 8 further recites adsorption of C₂⁻ hydrocarbons, CO and CO₂ from a recycle stream
and returning hydrogen to the process.
Glover discloses the use of pressure swing adsorption (PSA) systems to separate hydrogen
from hydrocarbons and other components in hydrogen-containing streams (¶[0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to incorporate a PSA separation system into the modified Fujimoto process in
order to purify hydrogen recycle streams and remove hydrocarbons and other impurities.
Claims 9–19 recite additional process features including:
purge stream percentages
methanol synthesis followed by oxygenate conversion
catalyst compositions
reaction temperatures and pressures.
Fujimoto teaches syngas conversion to LPG using hybrid catalyst systems including methanol synthesis catalyst components and zeolitic catalyst components (col. 1–2).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to employ conventional reaction temperatures, pressures, catalyst
compositions, and oxygenate-conversion processes in the modified Fujimoto process because
such process parameters are routinely optimized in syngas conversion systems.
Claim 20 recites a similar method including:
splitting a dewatered gaseous effluent into recycle and purge streams
contacting the purge stream with a liquid absorption solvent
recovering hydrocarbons and recycling gas streams.
Glover discloses separation of hydrogen-containing effluent streams into vapor and liquid fractions and recovery of LPG hydrocarbons through multiple separation zones (¶[0009]–[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to apply the separation and recycle configuration of Glover to the LPG
synthesis process of Fujimoto to improve recovery of LPG hydrocarbons and to recycle gas
streams.
Claims 21–27 and 29–31
These claims further recite:
purge stream ratios
LPG recovery by fractional distillation
solvent selections
adsorption of light hydrocarbons
hydrogen recycle streams.
Glover discloses hydrogen purification and hydrocarbon recovery systems including vapor-liquid separation zones and adsorption systems (¶[0009]–[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the claimed purge stream ratios, solvent recovery, adsorption steps, and recycle streams as routine design variations of hydrocarbon recovery systems in the modified Fujimoto process.
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 TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771