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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 20th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7-8 (as numbered by the Applicant) of the Remarks, filed February 20th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Van Egmond et al. (US Patent No. 7,479,468).
Applicant's arguments filed February 20th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 8-9 (as numbered by the Applicant) of the Remarks, “Applicant submits that the Office Action relies on impermissible hindsight by extracting isolated features from multiple references and reconstructing Applicant's claimed reflux architecture without any teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the art to do so.” In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the claimed features of a first side stream to a reflux compressor to provide a compressed first side stream; passing said compressed first side stream to the heat exchanger to heat exchange with said olefin stream and said refrigerant stream and provide a heat exchanged first side stream; passing said heat exchanged first side stream to an overhead heat exchanger to provide a cooled reflux stream; and passing said cooled reflux stream to the demethanizer column are taught by Zhang in order to provide reflux to the demethanizer column to improve the separation efficiency of the demethanizer column (Zhang, Pg. 2, paragraph 9). See the rejection of claim 14 below.
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, 8-9, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowles et al. (US Patent No. 4,720,293), hereinafter Rowles in view of Gouriou et al. (US Patent No. 9,638,462), hereinafter Gouriou and Van Egmond et al. (US Patent No. 7,479,468), hereinafter Van Egmond.
Regarding claim 1, Rowles discloses a process for separating an olefin stream from a methane stream (Figure, feed gas stream 10; Col. 5, lines 3-7, With reference to the single FIGURE of the drawing, feed gas stream 10 containing ethane, methane, hydrogen, and other light gases is cooled in first heat exchanger 12, wherein a portion of the components C2+ components are condensed) comprising:
providing the olefin stream comprising C2 and/or C3 olefins (Figure, feed gas stream 10; Col. 5, lines 3-7, With reference to the single FIGURE of the drawing, feed gas stream 10 containing ethane, methane, hydrogen, and other light gases is cooled in first heat exchanger 12, wherein a portion of the components C2+ components are condensed);
cooling said olefin stream in a heat exchanger with a mixed refrigerant stream to provide a cooled olefin stream (Figure, first heat exchanger 12, mixed refrigerant vapor stream 130, condensed mixed refrigerant 134; Col. 5, lines 3-7, With reference to the single FIGURE of the drawing, feed gas stream 10 containing ethane, methane, hydrogen, and other light gases is cooled in first heat exchanger 12, wherein a portion of the components C2+ components are condensed);
passing the cooled olefin stream to a demethanizer column (Figure, first distillation column 62; Col. 5, lines 32-36, The condensed portions of feed stream 10 in C2+ lines SO and 56 arc pumped using pumps 52 and 58, respectively, warmed in first heat exchanger 12, and fed to first distillation column 62 (the demethanizer), via lines 54 and 60, respectively); and
fractionating said cooled olefin stream in the demethanizer column to provide a demethanizer column overhead vapor stream and a demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream (Figure, line 63, line 76, first distillation column 62; Col. 5, lines 36-49, In first distillation column 62, these two streams are fractionated, an overhead stream is removed via line 63, partially condensed in condenser 65 and separated in separator 64. The liquid portion separated in separator 64, in line 68, is pumped using pump 70 as reflux for column 62, via line 72. The gaseous portion separated in separator 64 is reduced in pressure and mixed with stream 24, via line 66. A portion of the bottom liquid is removed from column 62, via line 74, vaporized and returned to column 62 as reboil. The remaining bottom portion is removed via line 76, reduced in pressure, partially vaporized in heat exchanger 78 and fed to second distillation column 82 (the de-ethanizer), via line 80).
However, Rowles does not disclose the demethanizer column operating at an overhead pressure of about 344 kPa gauge (50 psig) to about 2069 kPa gauge (300 psig).
Gouriou teaches the demethanizer column operating at an overhead pressure of about 344 kPa gauge (50 psig) to about 2069 kPa gauge (300 psig) (Fig. 1, column 28; Col. 7, lines 16-21, The turbine feed fraction 70 is expanded in the first turbine 26 up to a pressure substantially equal to the operating pressure of the column 28. This pressure is below 40 bars, and in particular comprised between 10 bars and 30 bars, while advantageously being equal to approximately 24 bars). Further, it has been held In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the overhead pressure of the demethanizer column of the process of Rowles to be between about 344 kPa gauge (50 psig) to about 2069 kPa gauge (300 psig) as taught by Gouriou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to lower the compressor work in order to reduce overall power consumption of the process.
However, Rowles as modified does not disclose wherein the olefin stream comprising C2 and/or C3 olefins is obtained from a methanol-to-olefin process.
Van Egmond teaches wherein the olefin stream comprising C2 and/or C3 olefins is obtained from a methanol-to-olefin process (Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 35-41, The most preferred process is generally referred to as an oxygenate-to-olefins (OTO) reaction process. In an OTO process, typically an oxygenated feedstock, most preferably a methanol- and ethanol-containing feedstock, is converted in the presence of a molecular sieve catalyst composition into one or more olefins, preferably and predominantly, ethylene and/or propylene, referred to herein as light olefins; Col. 8, lines 18-30, FIG. 1 shows an exemplary OTO reaction system. In the figure, an oxygenate such as methanol is directed through lines 100 to an OTO fluidized reactor 102 wherein the oxygenate is converted to light olefins and various by-products which are yielded from the fluidized reactor 102 in an olefin containing stream in line 104. The olefin-containing stream in line 104 optionally comprises methane, ethylene, ethane, propylene, propane, various oxygenate byproducts, C4+ olefins, water and hydrocarbon components. The olefin-containing stream in line 104 is directed to a quench unit or quench tower 106 wherein the olefin-containing stream in line 104 is cooled and water and other readily condensable components are condensed).
Rowles as modified fails to teach wherein the olefin stream comprising C2 and/or C3 olefins is obtained from a methanol-to-olefin process, however Van Egmond teaches that it is a known method in the art of separating olefins from methane containing streams to include wherein the olefin stream comprising C2 and/or C3 olefins is obtained from a methanol-to-olefin process. This is strong evidence that modifying Rowles as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. separating olefins from a methanol feedstock). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rowles as modified by Van Egmond and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of separating olefins from a methanol feedstock.
Regarding claim 8, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above) further comprising:
passing said demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream to a heat exchanger to provide a heat exchanged bottoms liquid stream (Figure, line 76, heat exchanger 78; Col. 5, lines 46-49, The remaining bottom portion is removed via line 76, reduced in pressure, partially vaporized in heat exchanger 78 and fed to second distillation column 82 (the de-ethanizer), via line 80); and
passing said heat exchanged bottoms liquid stream to a deethanizer column (Figure, second distillation column 82, The remaining bottom portion is removed via line 76, reduced in pressure, partially vaporized in heat exchanger 78 and fed to second distillation column 82 (the de-ethanizer), via line 80).
However, Rowles as modified does not disclose passing said demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream to the main heat exchanger.
Gouriou teaches passing said demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream to the main heat exchanger (Fig. 1, first bottoms stream 92, first compressed bottoms stream 94, first heat exchanger 20; Col. 9, lines 1-5, The first compressed bottoms stream 94 is then injected into the first heat exchanger 20, advantageously without passing through the second heat exchanger 24, to be heated to a temperature above 0° C., and in particular equal to 11.6° C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow of the demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream of the process of Rowles as modified to be routed to the main heat exchanger as taught by Gouriou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide additional refrigeration capacity within the main heat exchanger for improved heat transfer capabilities in the main heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 9, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Rowles as modified does not disclose wherein said olefin stream comprising C2 and/or C3 olefins is produced from reacting oxygenates over a SAPO catalyst.
Van Egmond teaches wherein said olefin stream comprising C2 and/or C3 olefins is produced from reacting oxygenates over a SAPO catalyst (Col. 5, lines 26-53, Typically, molecular sieve catalysts have been used to convert oxygenate compounds to light olefins. Ideally, the molecular sieve catalyst composition comprises an alumina or a silica-alumina catalyst composition. Silicoaluminophosphate (SAPO) molecular sieve catalysts are particularly desirable in such conversion processes, because they are highly selective in the formation of ethylene and propylene. A nonlimiting list of preferable SAPO molecular sieve catalyst compositions includes SAPO-17, SAPO-18, SAPO-34, SAPO-35, SAPO-44, the substituted forms thereof, and mixtures thereof. Preferably, the molecular sieve catalyst composition
comprises a molecular sieve selected from the group consisting of: SAPO-5, SAPO-8, SAPO-11, SAPO-16, SAPO-17, SAPO-18, SAPO-20, SAPO-31, SAPO-34, SAPO-35, SAPO-36, SAPO-37, SAPO-40, SAPO-41, SAPO-42, SAPO-44, SAPO-47, SAPO-56, AEI/CHA intergrowths, metal containing forms thereof, intergrown forms thereof, and mixtures thereof. The feedstock that is directed to an OTO reaction system optionally contains one or more aliphatic-containing compounds such as alcohols, amines, carbonyl compounds for example aldehydes, ketones and carboxylic acids, ethers, halides, mercaptans, sulfides, and the like, and mixtures thereof. The aliphatic moiety of the aliphatic-containing compounds typically contains from 1 to about 50 carbon atoms, preferably from 1 to 20 carbon atoms, more preferably from 1 to 10 carbon atoms, and more preferably from 1 to 4 carbon atoms, and most preferably methanol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the olefin stream of the process of Rowles as modified to be produced from reacting oxygenates over a SAPO catalyst as taught by Van Egmond. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because they are highly selective in the formation of ethylene and propylene (Van Egmond, Col. 5, lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 10, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above) further comprising passing said demethanizer column overhead vapor stream to the heat exchanger to heat exchange with said olefin stream and said refrigerant stream to provide a heat exchanged overhead vapor stream (Figure, line 63, line 66, line 26, line 30, line 32, line 34, line 36; Col. 5, lines 25-31, This warmed light gas stream, now in line 24, is mixed with the overhead stream of first distillation column 62, in line 66 to form stream 26. Stream 26 is work expanded in expander 28, returned to dephlegmator 20, via line 30, and warmed to provide additional refrigeration required to operate dephlegmator 20; Col. 5, lines 41-43, The gaseous portion separated in separator 64 is reduced in pressure and mixed with stream 24, via line 66; Col. 6, lines 29-34, The combined ethane byproduct and light gas stream, now in line 34, is heat exchanged in the demethanizer condenser 65 and in first heat exchanger 12 to recover refrigeration and then compressed in compressor 38 to recover the work produced by expander 28 before being removed from the process via line 40).
Regarding claim 11, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above) further comprising passing said demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream to a heat exchanger to provide a heat exchanged bottoms liquid stream (Figure, line 76, heat exchanger 78; Col. 5, lines 46-49, The remaining bottom portion is removed via line 76, reduced in pressure, partially vaporized in heat exchanger 78 and fed to second distillation column 82 (the de-ethanizer), via line 80).
However, Rowles as modified does not disclose passing said demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream to the main heat exchanger to heat exchange with said olefin stream and said refrigerant stream to provide a heat exchanged bottoms liquid stream.
Gouriou teaches passing said demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream to the main heat exchanger to heat exchange with said olefin stream and said refrigerant stream to provide a heat exchanged bottoms liquid stream (Fig. 1, first bottoms stream 92, first compressed bottoms stream 94, first heat exchanger 20, feed stream 16, first fraction 60, first headstream 84, second headstream 98; Col. 9, lines 1-5, The first compressed bottoms stream 94 is then injected into the first heat exchanger 20, advantageously without passing through the second heat exchanger 24, to be heated to a temperature above 0° C., and in particular equal to 11.6° C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow of the demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream of the process of Rowles as modified to be routed to the main heat exchanger as taught by Gouriou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide additional refrigeration capacity within the main heat exchanger for improved heat transfer capabilities in the main heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 12, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above) further comprising:
passing said mixed refrigerant stream to a refrigerant compressor to provide a compressed mixed refrigerant stream (Figure, compressor 132; Col. 6, lines 41-45, The condensed mixed refrigerant in line 134 is then subcooled in first heat exchanger 12, flashed to a lower pressure via valve 136 and revaporized in first heat exchanger 12 before being returned to compressor 132);
passing said compressed mixed refrigerant stream to the heat exchanger to provide said cooled olefin stream and a cooled refrigerant stream (Figure, feed stream 14, Col. 6, lines 41-45, The condensed mixed refrigerant in line 134 is then subcooled in first heat exchanger 12, flashed to a lower pressure via valve 136 and revaporized in first heat exchanger 12 before being returned to compressor 132); and
passing said cooled refrigerant stream to the refrigerant compressor (Col. 6, lines 41-45, The condensed mixed refrigerant in line 134 is then subcooled in first heat exchanger 12, flashed to a lower pressure via valve 136 and revaporized in first heat exchanger 12 before being returned to compressor 132).
Regarding claim 13, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 12 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above) further comprising:
expanding said cooled refrigerant stream to provide an expanded refrigerant stream (Figure, valve 136, Col. 6, lines 41-45, The condensed mixed refrigerant in line 134 is then subcooled in first heat exchanger 12, flashed to a lower pressure via valve 136 and revaporized in first heat exchanger 12 before being returned to compressor 132);
passing said expanded refrigerant stream to the heat exchanger to provide a heat exchanged refrigerant stream (Figure, mixed refrigerant vapor stream 130, Col. 6, lines 41-45, The condensed mixed refrigerant in line 134 is then subcooled in first heat exchanger 12, flashed to a lower pressure via valve 136 and revaporized in first heat exchanger 12 before being returned to compressor 132); and
passing said heat exchanged refrigerant stream to the refrigerant compressor (Col. 6, lines 41-45, The condensed mixed refrigerant in line 134 is then subcooled in first heat exchanger 12, flashed to a lower pressure via valve 136 and revaporized in first heat exchanger 12 before being returned to compressor 132).
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowles as modified by Gouriou and Van Egmond as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bauer et al. (US 20150052938), hereinafter Bauer.
Regarding claim 2, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above) wherein said olefin stream is separated into a vapor olefin stream and a liquid olefin stream (Figure, separator 16, line 18, line 50, line 56; Col. 5, lines 7-21, This mixed phase feed stream is removed from first heat exchanger 12 via line 14 and fed to separator 16. The uncondensed portion of feed stream 14 is then fed to dephlegmator 20, via line 18, wherein the bulk of the remaining C.sub.2.sup.+ components is condensed. The condensed, rectified C.sub.2.sup.+ material is removed from dephlegmator 20 and returned to separator 16 via line 18. It should be noted that there is two-way flow in line 18, vapor entering dephlegmator 20 from separator 16 and liquid condensate leaving dephlegmator 20 and returning to separator 16. It should also be noted that separator 16 is constructed so as to segregate the condensates produced in first heat exchanger 12 and in dephlegmator 20, as C.sub.2.sup.+ liquid streams in lines 50 and 56 respectively).
However, Rowles as modified does not disclose wherein said olefin stream is separated into a vapor olefin stream and a liquid olefin stream which are passed to the demethanizer column separately.
Bauer teaches wherein said olefin stream is separated into a vapor olefin stream and a liquid olefin stream which are passed to the demethanizer column separately (Fig. 2, line 1, separator D1, separator D3, gas fraction 44, liquid fraction 43, Pg. 2, paragraph 38, The two fractions are subsequently fed to a further separator D3 and again separated therein into a liquid fraction 43, which is fed via expansion valve V3 to 1st removal stage T1, and a gas fraction 44, which is partially condensed in heat exchanger E2 and fed to downstream separator D1; Further, Fig. 2 of Bauer depicts separator D1 to provide a gas stream to compressor X1 and a liquid stream to valve V1 which are directed to the demethanizer column T1 along with liquid fraction 43 from separator D3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Rowles as modified wherein said olefin stream is separated into a vapor olefin stream and a liquid olefin stream which are passed to the demethanizer column separately as taught by Bauer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce the load on the demethanizer by introducing previously separated fractions to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 3, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above) further comprises:
passing said vapor olefin stream to the heat exchanger (Bauer, Pg. 2, paragraph 38, The two fractions are subsequently fed to a further separator D3 and again separated therein into a liquid fraction 43, which is fed via expansion valve V3 to 1st removal stage T1, and a gas fraction 44, which is partially condensed in heat exchanger E2 and fed to downstream separator D1);
cooling said vapor olefin stream in the heat exchanger to provide a cooled vapor olefin stream (Bauer, Pg. 2, paragraph 38, The two fractions are subsequently fed to a further separator D3 and again separated therein into a liquid fraction 43, which is fed via expansion valve V3 to 1st removal stage T1, and a gas fraction 44, which is partially condensed in heat exchanger E2 and fed to downstream separator D1);
separating said cooled vapor olefin stream to provide an overhead vapor olefin stream and a bottom liquid olefin stream (Bauer, Fig. 2, line 1, separator D1, separator D3, gas fraction 44, liquid fraction 43, Pg. 2, paragraph 38, The two fractions are subsequently fed to a further separator D3 and again separated therein into a liquid fraction 43, which is fed via expansion valve V3 to 1st removal stage T1, and a gas fraction 44, which is partially condensed in heat exchanger E2 and fed to downstream separator D1; Further, Fig. 2 of Bauer depicts separator D1 to provide a gas stream to compressor X1 and a liquid stream to valve V1 which are directed to the demethanizer column T1 along with liquid fraction 43 from separator D3); and
fractionating said overhead vapor olefin, said bottom liquid olefin stream, and said liquid olefin stream in the demethanizer column (Bauer, Fig. 2, line 1, separator D1, separator D3, gas fraction 44, liquid fraction 43, Pg. 2, paragraph 38, The two fractions are subsequently fed to a further separator D3 and again separated therein into a liquid fraction 43, which is fed via expansion valve V3 to 1st removal stage T1, and a gas fraction 44, which is partially condensed in heat exchanger E2 and fed to downstream separator D1; Further, Fig. 2 of Bauer depicts separator D1 to provide a gas stream to compressor X1 and a liquid stream to valve V1 which are directed to the demethanizer column T1 along with liquid fraction 43 from separator D3). Further, the limitations of claim 3 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 7, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Rowles does not disclose further comprising:
taking a second side stream from the demethanizer column;
passing said second side stream to the heat exchanger to provide a heated second side stream; and
passing said heated second side stream to the demethanizer column.
Bauer teaches further comprising:
taking a second side stream from the demethanizer column (Fig. 2 of Bauer depicts a side stream b to be removed from demethanizer column T1, routed through heat exchanger E2, and returned to demethanizer column T1);
passing said second side stream to the heat exchanger to provide a heated second side stream (Fig. 2 of Bauer depicts a side stream b to be removed from demethanizer column T1, routed through heat exchanger E2, and returned to demethanizer column T1); and
passing said heated second side stream to the demethanizer column (Fig. 2 of Bauer depicts a side stream b to be removed from demethanizer column T1, routed through heat exchanger E2, and returned to demethanizer column T1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Rowles as modified to pass a second side stream through the heat exchanger for heating before being returned to the demethanizer column as taught by Bauer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide additional refrigeration capacity within the main heat exchanger for improved heat transfer capabilities in the main heat exchanger.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowles as modified by Gouriou and Van Egmond as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110617640), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 4, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Rowles as modified does not disclose further comprising:
taking a first side stream from the demethanizer column;
passing said first side stream to the heat exchanger to provide a heat exchanged first side stream; and
passing said heat exchanged first side stream to the demethanizer column.
Zhang teaches further comprising:
taking a first side stream from the demethanizer column (See annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang below, first side stream A);
passing said first side stream to the heat exchanger to provide a heat exchanged first side stream (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, paragraph 8-9, the T11 overhead external dry gas is cold box E13, E12, E11 provide cooling enters the turbo-expander booster end (K12), then the output to the downstream after the output compressor (K13) pressurized air cooling. step S102, part of the outer conveying dry gas enters the T11 top as top reflux after cooling throttling through the cold box E11, E12, E13. providing cold T11 side line drawing 3 stream respectively is E11, E12, E13); and
passing said heat exchanged first side stream to the demethanizer column (See annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang below, heat exchanged first side stream B is passed to the demethanizer column T11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Rowles as modified to remove a first side stream from the demethanizer column to be passed through the first heat exchanger and returned to the demethanizer column as taught by Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide reflux to the demethanizer column to improve the separation efficiency of the demethanizer column (Zhang, Pg. 2, paragraph 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang
Regarding claim 5, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 4 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 4 above) further comprising:
passing said first side stream to a reflux compressor to provide a compressed first side stream (Zhang, Fig. 1, output compressor K13; See annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang below, compressed first side stream C);
passing said compressed first side stream to the heat exchanger to provide a heat exchanged first side stream (Zhang, Fig. 1; Pg. 2, paragraph 8-9, the T11 overhead external dry gas is cold box E13, E12, E11 provide cooling enters the turbo-expander booster end (K12), then the output to the downstream after the output compressor (K13) pressurized air cooling. step S102, part of the outer conveying dry gas enters the T11 top as top reflux after cooling throttling through the cold box E11, E12, E13. providing cold T11 side line drawing 3 stream respectively is E11, E12, E13);
passing said heat exchanged first side stream to the demethanizer column (See annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang below, heat exchanged first side stream B is passed to the demethanizer column T11). Further, the limitations of claim 5 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 4 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang
Regarding claim 6, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above) further comprising:
passing said heat exchanged first side stream to an overhead heat exchanger to provide a cooled reflux stream (Zhang, Fig. 1, cold box E13; See annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang below, cooled reflux stream D);
expanding said cooled reflux stream to provide an expanded reflux stream (See annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang below, expanded reflux stream E; Fig. 1; Pg. 2, paragraph 8-9, the T11 overhead external dry gas is cold box E13, E12, E11 provide cooling enters the turbo-expander booster end (K12), then the output to the downstream after the output compressor (K13) pressurized air cooling. step S102, part of the outer conveying dry gas enters the T11 top as top reflux after cooling throttling through the cold box E11, E12, E13. providing cold T11 side line drawing 3 stream respectively is E11, E12, E13); and
passing said expanded reflux stream to the demethanizer column (See annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang below, expanded reflux stream E is passed to the demethanizer column T11). Further, the limitations of claim 6 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang
Claims 14-18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowles et al. (US Patent No. 4,720,293), hereinafter Rowles in view of Gouriou et al. (US Patent No. 9,638,462), hereinafter Gouriou, Bauer et al. (US 20150052938), hereinafter Bauer, and Zhang et al. (CN 110617640), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 14, Rowles as modified discloses a process for separating an olefin stream from a methane stream comprising (Figure, feed gas stream 10; Col. 5, lines 3-7, With reference to the single FIGURE of the drawing, feed gas stream 10 containing ethane, methane, hydrogen, and other light gases is cooled in first heat exchanger 12, wherein a portion of the components C2+ components are condensed):
providing the olefin stream comprising C2 and/or C3 olefins (Figure, feed gas stream 10; Col. 5, lines 3-7, With reference to the single FIGURE of the drawing, feed gas stream 10 containing ethane, methane, hydrogen, and other light gases is cooled in first heat exchanger 12, wherein a portion of the components C2+ components are condensed);
cooling said olefin stream in a heat exchanger with a mixed refrigerant stream to provide a cooled olefin stream (Figure, first heat exchanger 12, mixed refrigerant vapor stream 130, condensed mixed refrigerant 134; Col. 5, lines 3-7, With reference to the single FIGURE of the drawing, feed gas stream 10 containing ethane, methane, hydrogen, and other light gases is cooled in first heat exchanger 12, wherein a portion of the components C2+ components are condensed);
a demethanizer column (Figure, first distillation column 62);
fractionating in the demethanizer column to provide a demethanizer column overhead vapor stream and a demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream (Figure, line 63, line 76; Col. 5, lines 36-49, In first distillation column 62, these two streams are fractionated, an overhead stream is removed via line 63, partially condensed in condenser 65 and separated in separator 64. The liquid portion separated in separator 64, in line 68, is pumped using pump 70 as reflux for column 62, via line 72. The gaseous portion separated in separator 64 is reduced in pressure and mixed with stream 24, via line 66. A portion of the bottom liquid is removed from column 62, via line 74, vaporized and returned to column 62 as reboil. The remaining bottom portion is removed via line 76, reduced in pressure, partially vaporized in heat exchanger 78 and fed to second distillation column 82 (the de-ethanizer), via line 80); and
passing said demethanizer column overhead vapor stream to the heat exchanger to heat exchange with said olefin stream and said refrigerant stream and provide a heat exchanged overhead vapor stream (Figure, line 63, line 66, line 26, line 30, line 32, line 34, line 36; Col. 5, lines 25-31, This warmed light gas stream, now in line 24, is mixed with the overhead stream of first distillation column 62, in line 66 to form stream 26. Stream 26 is work expanded in expander 28, returned to dephlegmator 20, via line 30, and warmed to provide additional refrigeration required to operate dephlegmator 20; Col. 5, lines 41-43, The gaseous portion separated in separator 64 is reduced in pressure and mixed with stream 24, via line 66; Col. 6, lines 29-34, The combined ethane byproduct and light gas stream, now in line 34, is heat exchanged in the demethanizer condenser 65 and in first heat exchanger 12 to recover refrigeration and then compressed in compressor 38 to recover the work produced by expander 28 before being removed from the process via line 40), and
passing said demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream to a heat exchanger to provide a heat exchanged bottoms liquid stream (Figure, line 76, heat exchanger 78; Col. 5, lines 46-49, The remaining bottom portion is removed via line 76, reduced in pressure, partially vaporized in heat exchanger 78 and fed to second distillation column 82 (the de-ethanizer), via line 80).
However, Rowles does not disclose the demethanizer column operating at an overhead pressure of about 344 kPa gauge (50 psig) to about 2069 kPa gauge (300 psig) and passing said demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream to the heat exchanger to heat exchange with said olefin stream and said refrigerant stream and provide a heat exchanged bottoms liquid stream.
Gouriou teaches the demethanizer column operating at an overhead pressure of about 344 kPa gauge (50 psig) to about 2069 kPa gauge (300 psig) (Fig. 1, column 28; Col. 7, lines 16-21, The turbine feed fraction 70 is expanded in the first turbine 26 up to a pressure substantially equal to the operating pressure of the column 28. This pressure is below 40 bars, and in particular comprised between 10 bars and 30 bars, while advantageously being equal to approximately 24 bars; Further, it has been held In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.) and passing said demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream to the heat exchanger to heat exchange with said olefin stream and said refrigerant stream and provide a heat exchanged bottoms liquid stream (Fig. 1, first bottoms stream 92, first compressed bottoms stream 94, first heat exchanger 20, feed stream 16, first fraction 60, first headstream 84, second headstream 98; Col. 9, lines 1-5, The first compressed bottoms stream 94 is then injected into the first heat exchanger 20, advantageously without passing through the second heat exchanger 24, to be heated to a temperature above 0° C., and in particular equal to 11.6° C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the overhead pressure of the demethanizer column of the process of Rowles to be between about 344 kPa gauge (50 psig) to about 2069 kPa gauge (300 psig) as taught by Gouriou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to lower the compressor work in order to reduce overall power consumption of the process. Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow of the demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream of the process of Rowles as modified to be routed to the main heat exchanger as taught by Gouriou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide additional refrigeration capacity within the main heat exchanger for improved heat transfer capabilities in the main heat exchanger.
Further, Rowles as modified does not disclose passing an overhead vapor olefin stream taken from said cooled olefin stream and a liquid olefin stream taken from said cooled olefin stream to the demethanizer column; and
fractionating said overhead vapor olefin stream and said liquid olefin stream in the demethanizer column to provide the demethanizer column overhead vapor stream and the demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream.
Bauer teaches passing an overhead vapor olefin stream taken from said cooled olefin stream and a liquid olefin stream taken from said cooled olefin stream to the demethanizer column (Fig. 2, line 1, separator D1, separator D3, gas fraction 44, liquid fraction 43, Pg. 2, paragraph 38, The two fractions are subsequently fed to a further separator D3 and again separated therein into a liquid fraction 43, which is fed via expansion valve V3 to 1st removal stage T1, and a gas fraction 44, which is partially condensed in heat exchanger E2 and fed to downstream separator D1; Further, Fig. 2 of Bauer depicts separator D1 to provide a gas stream to compressor X1 and a liquid stream to valve V1 which are directed to the demethanizer column T1 along with liquid fraction 43 from separator D3); and
fractionating said overhead vapor olefin stream and said liquid olefin stream in the demethanizer column to provide the demethanizer column overhead vapor stream and the demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream (Fig. 2, heavies-depleted gas fraction 10, liquid fraction 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Rowles as modified wherein said olefin stream is separated into a vapor olefin stream and a liquid olefin stream which are passed to the demethanizer column separately to be fractionated into the demethanizer column overhead vapor stream and the demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream as taught by Bauer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce the load on the demethanizer by introducing previously separated fractions to improve overall system efficiencies.
Even further, Rowles as modified does not disclose fractionating a first side stream in the demethanizer column;
passing said first side stream to a reflux compressor to provide a compressed first side stream;
passing said compressed first side stream to the heat exchanger to heat exchange with said olefin stream and said refrigerant stream to provide a heat exchanged first side stream;
passing said heat exchanged first side stream to an overhead heat exchanger to provide a cooled reflux stream; and
passing said cooled reflux stream to the demethanizer column.
Zhang teaches fractionating a first side stream in the demethanizer column (See annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang below, first side stream A; Fig. 1, demethanizer T11);
passing said first side stream to a reflux compressor to provide a compressed first side stream (Fig. 1, output compressor K13; See annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang below, compressed first side stream C; Pg. 2, paragraph 8, the T11 overhead external dry gas is cold box E13, E12, E11 provide cooling enters theturbo-expander booster end (K12), then the output to the downstream after the output compressor(K13) pressurized air cooling.);
passing said compressed first side stream to the heat exchanger to heat exchange with said olefin stream and said refrigerant stream to provide a heat exchanged first side stream (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, paragraph 8-9, the T11 overhead external dry gas is cold box E13, E12, E11 provide cooling enters the turbo-expander booster end (K12), then the output to the downstream after the output compressor (K13) pressurized air cooling. step S102, part of the outer conveying dry gas enters the T11 top as top reflux after cooling throttling through the cold box E11, E12, E13. providing cold T11 side line drawing 3 stream respectively is E11, E12, E13);
passing said heat exchanged first side stream to an overhead heat exchanger to provide a cooled reflux stream (Fig. 1, cold box E13; See annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang below, cooled reflux stream D); and
passing said cooled reflux stream to the demethanizer column (See annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang below, cooled reflux stream D is passed to the demethanizer column T11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Rowles as modified to include fractionating a first side stream in the demethanizer column; passing said first side stream to a reflux compressor to provide a compressed first side stream; passing said compressed first side stream to the heat exchanger to heat exchange with said olefin stream and said refrigerant stream to provide a heat exchanged first side stream; passing said heat exchanged first side stream to an overhead heat exchanger to provide a cooled reflux stream; and passing said cooled reflux stream to the demethanizer column as taught by Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide reflux to the demethanizer column to improve the separation efficiency of the demethanizer column (Zhang, Pg. 2, paragraph 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Zhang
Regarding claim 15, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 14 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above) wherein said olefin stream is separated into a vapor olefin stream and a liquid olefin stream which are passed to the demethanizer column separately (Bauer, Fig. 2, line 1, separator D1, separator D3, gas fraction 44, liquid fraction 43, Pg. 2, paragraph 38, The two fractions are subsequently fed to a further separator D3 and again separated therein into a liquid fraction 43, which is fed via expansion valve V3 to 1st removal stage T1, and a gas fraction 44, which is partially condensed in heat exchanger E2 and fed to downstream separator D1; Further, Fig. 2 of Bauer depicts separator D1 to provide a gas stream to compressor X1 and a liquid stream to valve V1 which are directed to the demethanizer column T1 along with liquid fraction 43 from separator D3). Further, the limitations of claim 15 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 16, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 14 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above) further comprises:
passing said vapor olefin stream to the heat exchanger (Bauer, Pg. 2, paragraph 38, The two fractions are subsequently fed to a further separator D3 and again separated therein into a liquid fraction 43, which is fed via expansion valve V3 to 1st removal stage T1, and a gas fraction 44, which is partially condensed in heat exchanger E2 and fed to downstream separator D1);
cooling said vapor olefin stream in the heat exchanger to provide a cooled vapor olefin stream (Bauer, Pg. 2, paragraph 38, The two fractions are subsequently fed to a further separator D3 and again separated therein into a liquid fraction 43, which is fed via expansion valve V3 to 1st removal stage T1, and a gas fraction 44, which is partially condensed in heat exchanger E2 and fed to downstream separator D1);
separating said cooled vapor olefin stream to provide an overhead vapor olefin stream and a bottom liquid olefin stream (Bauer, Fig. 2, line 1, separator D1, separator D3, gas fraction 44, liquid fraction 43, Pg. 2, paragraph 38, The two fractions are subsequently fed to a further separator D3 and again separated therein into a liquid fraction 43, which is fed via expansion valve V3 to 1st removal stage T1, and a gas fraction 44, which is partially condensed in heat exchanger E2 and fed to downstream separator D1; Further, Fig. 2 of Bauer depicts separator D1 to provide a gas stream to compressor X1 and a liquid stream to valve V1 which are directed to the demethanizer column T1 along with liquid fraction 43 from separator D3); and
passing said overhead vapor olefin, said bottom liquid olefin stream, and said liquid olefin stream to the demethanizer column (Bauer, Fig. 2, line 1, separator D1, separator D3, gas fraction 44, liquid fraction 43, Pg. 2, paragraph 38, The two fractions are subsequently fed to a further separator D3 and again separated therein into a liquid fraction 43, which is fed via expansion valve V3 to 1st removal stage T1, and a gas fraction 44, which is partially condensed in heat exchanger E2 and fed to downstream separator D1; Further, Fig. 2 of Bauer depicts separator D1 to provide a gas stream to compressor X1 and a liquid stream to valve V1 which are directed to the demethanizer column T1 along with liquid fraction 43 from separator D3). Further, the limitations of claim 16 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 18, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 14 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above) wherein the step of passing said demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream to the heat exchanger comprises:
taking a second side stream and said demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream from the demethanizer column (Fig. 2 of Bauer depicts a side stream b to be removed from demethanizer column T1, routed through heat exchanger E2, and returned to demethanizer column T1; Rowles, Figure, line 76, heat exchanger 78; Col. 5, lines 46-49, The remaining bottom portion is removed via line 76, reduced in pressure, partially vaporized in heat exchanger 78 and fed to second distillation column 82 (the de-ethanizer), via line 80);
passing said second side stream and said demethanizer column bottoms liquid stream to the heat exchanger to provide a heated side stream and a heat exchanged bottoms liquid stream (Fig. 2 of Bauer depicts a side stream b to be removed from demethanizer column T1, routed through heat exchanger E2, and returned to demethanizer column T1; Fig. 1, first bottoms stream 92, first compressed bottoms stream 94, first heat exchanger 20, feed stream 16, first fraction 60, first headstream 84, second headstream 98; Gouriou, Col. 9, lines 1-5, The first compressed bottoms stream 94 is then injected into the first heat exchanger 20, advantageously without passing through the second heat exchanger 24, to be heated to a temperature above 0° C., and in particular equal to 11.6° C);
passing said heated side stream to the demethanizer column (Fig. 2 of Bauer depicts a side stream b to be removed from demethanizer column T1, routed through heat exchanger E2, and returned to demethanizer column T1); and
passing the heat exchanged bottoms liquid stream to a deethanizer column (Rowles, Figure, second distillation column 82, The remaining bottom portion is removed via line 76, reduced in pressure, partially vaporized in heat exchanger 78 and fed to second distillation column 82 (the de-ethanizer), via line 80). Further, the limitations of claim 18 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 19, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 18 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 18 above) wherein the deethanizer column is in downstream fluid communication with the demethanizer column (Rowles, Figure, second distillation column 82, The remaining bottom portion is removed via line 76, reduced in pressure, partially vaporized in heat exchanger 78 and fed to second distillation column 82 (the de-ethanizer), via line 80).
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowles as modified by Gouriou, Bauer, and Zhang as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Van Egmond et al. (US Patent No. 7,479,468), hereinafter Van Egmond.
Regarding claim 20, Rowles as modified discloses the process of claim 14 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above).
However, Rowles as modified does not disclose wherein said olefin stream comprising C2 and/or C3 olefins is produced from reacting oxygenates over a SAPO catalyst.
Van Egmond teaches wherein said olefin stream comprising C2 and/or C3 olefins is produced from reacting oxygenates over a SAPO catalyst (Col. 5, lines 26-53, Typically, molecular sieve catalysts have been used to convert oxygenate compounds to light olefins. Ideally, the molecular sieve catalyst composition comprises an alumina or a silica-alumina catalyst composition. Silicoaluminophosphate (SAPO) molecular sieve catalysts are particularly desirable in such conversion processes, because they are highly selective in the formation of ethylene and propylene. A nonlimiting list of preferable SAPO molecular sieve catalyst compositions includes SAPO-17, SAPO-18, SAPO-34, SAPO-35, SAPO-44, the substituted forms thereof, and mixtures thereof. Preferably, the molecular sieve catalyst composition
comprises a molecular sieve selected from the group consisting of: SAPO-5, SAPO-8, SAPO-11, SAPO-16, SAPO-17, SAPO-18, SAPO-20, SAPO-31, SAPO-34, SAPO-35, SAPO-36, SAPO-37, SAPO-40, SAPO-41, SAPO-42, SAPO-44, SAPO-47, SAPO-56, AEI/CHA intergrowths, metal containing forms thereof, intergrown forms thereof, and mixtures thereof. The feedstock that is directed to an OTO reaction system optionally contains one or more aliphatic-containing compounds such as alcohols, amines, carbonyl compounds for example aldehydes, ketones and carboxylic acids, ethers, halides, mercaptans, sulfides, and the like, and mixtures thereof. The aliphatic moiety of the aliphatic-containing compounds typically contains from 1 to about 50 carbon atoms, preferably from 1 to 20 carbon atoms, more preferably from 1 to 10 carbon atoms, and more preferably from 1 to 4 carbon atoms, and most preferably methanol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the olefin stream of the process of Rowles as modified to be produced from reacting oxygenates over a SAPO catalyst as taught by Van Egmond. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because they are highly selective in the formation of ethylene and propylene (Van Egmond, Col. 5, lines 29-32).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chang et al. (US Patent No. 7,678,958) discloses a similar process for separating an olefin stream from a methane stream wherein the olefin stream comprising C2 and/or C3 olefins is obtained from a methanol-to-olefin process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 March 12th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763