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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 March 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 18 are amended. Claims 7, 8, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-6,9-12,14,16 and 18 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9-12, 14, 16, and 18 under USC 103 and USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 12 has been corrected and the argument that Datta does not teach explicitly the limitation of heating the ethanol to a temperature of about 400 to about 550°C is persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of newly discovered prior art in view of the amendments. Datta continues to be used to teach the process comprising distillation of aqueous ethanol and feeding the vaporized ethanol to a dehydration reaction to produce ethylene, and the new art is added to provide motivation for heating the ethanol to the claimed temperature range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11, the claim recites “further comprising heating the gaseous ethanol stream to dehydration temperature.” However, claim 1 already recites heating the gaseous ethanol stream to about 400-550°C. While claim 11 does not specify the specific temperature encompassed by the phrase “reaction temperature”, the recitation of reaction temperature is either not further limiting because the reaction temperature is the same as the claimed heating temperature, or is not further limiting because the recitation of “reaction temperature” is broader than the recitation of about 400-550°C in claim 1. Either way, claim 11 does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) 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 1-6, 9-11, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datta et al. (US 2010/0294642) in view of Caranoni et al (US 2014/0114104).
With regard to claims 1, 6, and 11, Datta teaches a process for producing olefins (paragraph [0001]) comprising the following steps (Figure 1 and corresponding paragraphs [0063]-[0070]):
a) feeding a fermentation broth 42, which is an aqueous solution of ethanol (paragraph [0063]), to the distillation column 38 (paragraph [0065]) to produce an overhead vapor stream 44 comprising ethanol (gaseous ethanol stream) and an ethanol depleted aqueous bottoms stream (liquid water stream) (paragraph [0068]).
b) preheating the gaseous ethanol stream before reacting, where the preferred temperature for the preheating is about 150-350°C (paragraph [0056]).
c) passing the overhead vapor stream 44 (instant claim 6) to the dehydration zone 54 to produce ethylene 56 (paragraph [0070]). Datta teaches that the distillation column is operated at 200 to 500 torr (26.66 to 66.66 kPaa) (paragraph [0068]) and the reaction is operated at 0.1 kPaa to 5 MPaa (paragraph [0057]).
Datta fails to explicitly teach i) that the distillation pressure is selected to be no less than the dehydration reaction pressure or ii) heating the gaseous ethanol stream to about 400 to about 550°C, instead of the range of about 150-350°C recited in Datta paragraph [0056].
With regard to i), the range of 0.1 to 66.66 kPa taught by Datta for the dehydration reaction includes pressures which meet the limitation of a distillation pressure of no less than the dehydration reaction pressure. While Datta does not explicitly teach selecting the distillation pressure such that the distillation column pressure is no less than the dehydration reaction pressure, because Datta teaches pressures which overlap the claimed requirement of a distillation column pressure no less than dehydration reaction pressure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the pressures over Datta which meet the claimed limitation without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, absent any evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
With regard to ii), Caranoni teaches a method for ethanol dehydration (paragraph [0008]). Caranoni further teaches that dehydration of ethanol is endothermic which requires heat input, and the heat is often provided by heating the ethanol containing feedstream above the desired catalyst reaction temperature (paragraph [0053]). Datta teaches that dehydration reaction temperatures include a range of 200-450°C (paragraph [0056]). The temperature of “above the reaction temperature” as taught by Caranoni and applied to the reaction temperature of Datta overlaps the claimed preheating temperature of about 400 to about 550°C (instant claim 1) and the reaction temperature (instant claim 11), rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to heat the ethanol feed stream to above the reaction temperature, overlapping the claimed range of about 400 to about 550°C, because each of Datta and Caranoni teaches dehydration of ethanol to ethylene in a reactor including preheating the ethanol feed, and Caranoni teaches that in order to provide sufficient heat to the reaction, the ethanol feed is often heated above the desired reaction temperature (paragraph [0053]).
With regard to claim 2, Datta teaches that the fermentation broth (aqueous ethanol stream) comprises water, 2-5 wt% ethanol, at least 0.3 wt% acetate and at least 0.1 wt% free acetic acid (claim 18). Thus, the amount of water is up to 94.6 wt%, which overlaps the range of at least 30 wt% of instant claim 2, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 3, Datta teaches that the vapor stream comprises greater than 80 wt% ethanol (less than 20 wt% water) (paragraph [0050]), which is within the range of no more than 21 wt% water of instant claim 3.
With regard to claims 4, 9, and 10, Datta teaches the process above. Datta is silent regarding the presence of heavy oxygenates and metals in the aqueous bottoms (liquid water) and vaporous ethanol (gaseous ethanol) streams. However, Datta teaches a similar process comprising a similar fermentation product which is distilled in a similar manner and at a similar pressure which is at least the pressure of the dehydration reaction section. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the heavy oxygenates and metals, if any, to be present in the aqueous bottoms stream in an amount of at least 99 wt% and present in the gaseous ethanol stream in an amount of less than 1 wt%, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 5, Datta teaches that the vapor stream comprises greater than 80 wt% ethanol (less than 20 wt% water) (paragraph [0050]), which overlaps the range of at least 5 wt% water of instant claim 5, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claims 14 and 18, Datta teaches a process for producing olefins (paragraph [0001]) comprising the following steps (Figure 1 and corresponding paragraphs [0063]-[0070]):
a) feeding a fermentation broth 41, which is an aqueous solution of ethanol (paragraph [0063]), to the distillation column 38 (paragraph [0065]) to produce an overhead vapor stream 44 comprising ethanol (gaseous ethanol stream) and an ethanol depleted aqueous bottoms stream (liquid water stream) (paragraph [0068]).
b) preheating the gaseous ethanol stream before reacting, where the preferred temperature for the preheating is about 150-350°C (paragraph [0056]).
c) passing the overhead vapor stream 44 (instant claim 18) to the dehydration zone 54 to produce ethylene 56 (paragraph [0070]), where the gaseous overhead stream comprises greater than 50 wt% ethanol (less than 50 wt% water) (paragraph [0050]). This overlaps the range of at least 30 wt% water of instant claim 14, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Datta fails to explicitly teach heating the gaseous ethanol stream to about 400 to about 550°C, instead of the preferred range of about 150-350°C recited in Datta paragraph [0056].
Caranoni teaches a method for ethanol dehydration (paragraph [0008]). Caranoni further teaches that dehydration of ethanol is endothermic which requires heat input, and the heat is often provided by heating the ethanol containing feedstream above the desired catalyst reaction temperature (paragraph [0053]). Datta teaches that dehydration reaction temperatures include a range of 20-450°C (paragraph [0056]). The temperature of “above the reaction temperature” as taught by Caranoni and applied to the reaction temperature of Datta overlaps the claimed preheating temperature of about 400 to about 550°C (instant claim 14), rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to heat the ethanol feed stream to above the reaction temperature, overlapping the claimed range of about 400 to about 550°C, because each of Datta and Caranoni teaches dehydration of ethanol to ethylene in a reactor including preheating the ethanol feed, and Caranoni teaches that in order to provide sufficient heat to the reaction, the ethanol feed is often heated above the desired reaction temperature (paragraph [0053]).
With regard to claim 16, Datta teaches the process above. Datta is silent regarding the presence of heavy oxygenates and metals in the aqueous bottoms (liquid water) and vaporous ethanol (gaseous ethanol) streams. However, Datta teaches a similar process comprising a similar fermentation product which is distilled in a similar manner and at a similar pressure which is at least the pressure of the dehydration reaction section. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the heavy oxygenates and metals, if any, to be present in the aqueous bottoms stream in an amount of at least 99 wt%, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aribert et al. (US 2017/0158580) in view of Coupard et al. (FR 2978146).
US 2013/0190547 is used as the English language equivalent of FR 2978146 herein.
With regard to claim 12, Aribert teaches an apparatus comprising a distillation column 3 and a dehydration unit 8 (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0078]). Aribert further teaches that the distillation unit comprises two adiabatic reactors in series, as described in FR 2978146 (paragraph [0060]), where the feed is heated in a furnace (heater) before being passed to the first reactor and the effluent from the first reactor is heated in a second heating means (heater) before being passed to the second reactor (paragraph [0064]). As Aribert shows in Fig. 1, there is no fractionation or conversion unit between the distillation unit 3 and the dehydration unit 8, thus the distillation column and dehydration unit are in direct downstream communication. As seen in Fig. 1 of Coupard, the ethanol feed for dehydration is passed through a first heater H1, a first dehydration reactor R1, and a second heater H2 (Figure 1 and paragraph [0084]), each of which is in direct downstream communication with the previous unit in the order recited herein, as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the claimed apparatus, because Aribert teaches a distillation unit followed by a furnace, dehydration reactor, and second heating means, and further teaches that the series of reactors is formed as shown by Coupard in Figure 1, which includes the claimed first heater, first reactor, and second heater in the claimed order and connected in the claimed manner.
Conclusion
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
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights