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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/24/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valladares Barrocas et al. US Patent 4,232,179 in view of Kuechler et al. US Patent 7,678,953 and in further view of Kurukchi et al. US Patent 9,969,944.
Regarding claim 1, Valladares Barrocas teaches a dehydration process of converting ethanol into ethylene (column 10 lines 15-20) using a heat carrying fluid comprising steam (column 3 lines 27-31).
Valladares Barrocas teaches that the steam may be supplied by an external source (column 3 line 31) but does not explicitly teach the steam is sourced from an oligomerization process.
Kuechler teaches an oligomerization process where steam is supplied to the reactor 30 overhead through heat exchanger 26 preceding the oligomerization reactor 26 (column 18 lines 38-40). A side stream of steam is recovered through line 34 and may be used in further applications (column 18 lines 43-54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the steam generated from the oligomerization of Kuechler as the carrying fluid for the dehydration reaction in Vallardes Barrocas because the combination would provide an integrated process converting an alcohol into an oligomer. Kuechler teaches the feed for their oligomerization may derive from the conversion of an oxygenate (column 6 lines 66-67), thus suggesting integration with an ethanol dehydration process. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it conventional to combine the Kuechler oligomerization process with Valladares Barrocas and expect a reasonable amount of success. One would further be motivated to use the steam generated from Kuechler’s oligomerization because it is expected that the steam recovered from the oligomerization process would be nearly pure steam as the heavier hydrocarbons and impurities would be easily condensed out. Thus, it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the steam from Kuechler in the dehydration process of Valladares Barrocas to provide a renewable and efficient means for the dehydration carrier fluid.
Valladares Barrocas and Kuechler does not explicitly teach said steam is generated from a treated process water produced by a wastewater stripper. However, Kurukchi teaches a process for recovering wastewater from a hydrocarbon process, stripping out acids and oils from the water, and generating steam from said water in order to reduce waste costs and material. In Kurukchi, separator 130 separates a hydrocarbon effluent into water 135 and hydrocarbon product stream 132 (Figure 1, column 6 lines 3-26). The water is further processed to remove oil and is recovered as NQW line 171 which is sent to stripper 180 (Figure 3). The clean water 181 is sent to a dilution steam generator and produces steam 380 (115 in Figure 1) (column 6 line 55 – column 7 line 10 and column 8 lines 1-7). The dilution steam may be recycled back to the process (column 6 lines 64-66).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include stripping steps for wastewater to further process into the steam source in order to avoid extra costs from steam sources. Kuechler implies that water is obtained as a byproduct from a process (Example 5) and may be treated and used as the source for steam. The water is submitted to heat exchanger 26, connected to the oligomerization reactor 28, where it is heated to steam (column 18 line 52). Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a known water treatment process as in Kurukchi to produce a clean steam source.
Regarding claim 3, a portion of boiling water is carried down through the heat exchanger 26 (column 18 lines 46-47).
Regarding claim 4, Kuechler teaches a hydrogenation step in Example 4. Since hydrogenation is strongly exothermic, one would expect steam to be generated from the carrying fluid. Thus, the recovered steam would be an obvious source to use for the dehydration process in Valladares Barrocas. Valladares Barrocas teaches that the steam may be supplied by an external source (column 3 line 31), thus a byproduct steam from hydrogenation would be an obvious source.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches an integrated dehydration and oligomerization process where steam heat exchange step occurs on the effluent before oligomerization. Kuechler teaches the olefin recycle (analogous to the oligomerization feedstream and dehydration effluent) should be cooled to no greater than 182 ⁰C (column 7 line 23). Thus, since this range overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 6, Valladares Barrocas teaches that the ratio between steam and feed is in the range of 0.2:1 to 20:1, thus overlapping with the claimed range of about 0.3 to about 0.5 wt/wt.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kuechler appears to teach the heat exchanger accepts a mixed feed, however one would expect that the heat exchanger would function the same on a sole steam/water feed absent any evidence to the contrary. Further repeating a heat exchange step is considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. One would be motivated to do so in order to meet the needed temperature for oligomerization.
Regarding claims 9, Kuechler teaches that the oligomerization reactor and heat exchanger can be repeated in series (column 3 line 66). Thus, Kuechler suggests an arrangement where a plurality of steam generators 26 are used to make steam.
Regarding claims 11-15, Kuechler teaches that the oligomerization reactor and heat exchanger can be repeated in series (column 3 line 66). Thus, Kuechler suggests an arrangement where a plurality of steam generators 26 are used to make steam and function as an intercooler steam generator that removes heat from the oligomerization effluent obtained from the prior reactor and/or bed before passing to the next reactor/bed.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valladares Barrocas et al. US Patent 4,232,179, evidenced by Valladares Barrocas et al. US Patent 4,396,789 (hereinafter Barrocas ‘789) in view of Kuechler et al. US Patent 7,678,953.
Regarding claims 16, 17, and 20 Valladares Barrocas teaches a dehydration process of converting ethanol into ethylene (column 10 lines 15-20) using a heat carrying fluid comprising steam (column 3 lines 27-31).
Valladares Barrocas teaches that the products are recovered (column 8 line 59). Barrocas ‘789 teaches that cooling a dehydration effluent to condense out water is well known in the art (column 3 lines 55-68).
Valladares Barrocas teaches that the steam may be supplied by an external source (column 3 line 31) but does not explicitly teach the steam is sourced from an oligomerization process.
Kuechler teaches an oligomerization process where steam and water are supplied to the reactor 30 overhead through heat exchanger 26 preceding the oligomerization reactor 26 (column 18 lines 38-40). A side stream of steam is recovered through line 34 and may be used in further applications (column 18 lines 43-54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the steam generated from the oligomerization of Kuechler as the carrying fluid for the dehydration reaction in Vallardes Barrocas because the combination would provide an integrated process converting an alcohol into an oligomer. Kuechler teaches the feed for their oligomerization may derive from the conversion of an oxygenate (column 6 lines 66-67), thus suggesting integration with an ethanol dehydration process. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it conventional to combine the Kuechler oligomerization process with Valladares Barrocas and expect a reasonable amount of success. One would further be motivated to use the steam generated from Kuechler’s oligomerization because it is expected that the steam recovered from the oligomerization process would be nearly pure steam as the heavier hydrocarbons and impurities would be easily condensed out. Thus, it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the steam from Kuechler in the dehydration process of Valladares Barrocas to provide a renewable and efficient means for the dehydration carrier fluid.
Therefore, the combination of Kuechler and Valladares Barrocas teach:
1. Adding steam as the carrying fluid to a dehydration feed (Valladares Barrocas column 3 line 31)
2. Dehydrating the feedstream to produce a dehydration effluent (Valladares Barrocas column 10 lines 15-20);
3. Removing the product from the byproducts by cooling thus recovering water (Valladares Barrocas column 8 line 59 and Barrocas ‘789 column 3 lines 55-68); and
4. Producing steam from the separated water/steam (column 18 lines 38-40)
Regarding claim 18, Kuechler implies that water is obtained as a byproduct from a process (Example 5) and may be treated and used as the source for steam. The water is submitted to heat exchanger 26, connected to the oligomerization reactor 28, where it is heated to steam (column 18 line 52). As noted in the combination above, it is obvious to use the steam generated here as the carrying fluid in Valladares Barrocas’s dehydration process.
Regarding claim 19, Valladares Barrocas and Kuechler teach the combination above. Kuechler further teaches that water recovered is combined with an olefin stream in mixing drum 22 and sent to heat exchanger 26 to generate steam (column 18 lines 33-37).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights