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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 10/06/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/06/2025.
Response to Amendments/Status of Claims
Claims 1-17, filed on 10/06/2025, are under consideration. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 6-7; respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Here, it seems that claim 16 should depend from claim 15 (not 5) and claim 17 should depend from claim 16 (and not 6).
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are 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.
Claims 1 and 11 both recite “fractionating a propane stream into a propane charge stream and a C4+ hydrocarbon stream and a deethanized pyrolyzed stream into a C3 pyrolyzed stream and said C4+ hydrocarbon stream” which is not clear because the C4+ hydrocarbon stream is being fractionated from two different streams. The claims are indefinite because they produce one effluent stream (C4+ hydrocarbons) from the fractionation of two different streams! The scope of this claim can be envisaged by reading [0062]-[0066] of the instant Specification which discuss combined fractionation of C3 hydrocarbon feed and deethanized C3 pyrolyzed stream, in a single (divided wall) column, to separate propane dehydrogenation feed and C4+ hydrocarbons. Here, the claimed invention is lacking essential details/limitations that facilitate the separation of C4+ hydrocarbon stream from the claimed fractionating step because limitations directed to single divided wall column are not included. For purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted in view of [0062]-[0066] of the instant Specification; claims 1 and 2 are interpreted together and claims 11 and 12 are interpreted together.
Also, claims 5 and 15 recite “a single C4+ hydrocarbon stream” which makes it unclear if this stream is referring to the same C4+ hydrocarbon stream in claims 1 and 11; respectively, or to a different stream. In view of the discussion above, it is assumed that these C4+ hydrocarbon streams are the same.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 2-8 and 12-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claims 1 and 11, a search of pertinent prior art did not locate a teaching or suggestion for a process that fractionates, in a column, a propane stream and a deethanized pyrolyzed stream into a propane charge stream (that is dehydrogenated), a C3 pyrolyzed stream, and a C4+ hydrocarbon stream.
The fractionation of propane, that is dehydrogenated and recycled to extinction, from refinery streams comprising propylene and C2-C4 hydrocarbons, including FCC products (e.g. pyrolyzed stream) and propane dehydrogenation products, together is disclosed by US 2010/0331589 ([0010]-[0013, [0035], [0043], and [0047]-[0048]); the separation of various components including C2- hydrocarbons in deethanizer, propylene and propane in C3 splitter, and C4+ hydrocarbons in depropanizer and/pr debutanizer.
Also, US 20200165177 discloses a process for production of propylene comprising: propane dehydrogenation (label A in Fig. 1), steam cracking (label B in Fig 1), separating product (P1) which contains at least predominantly propylene using one or more first separation steps (S1), forming a second separation product (P2) containing at least predominantly propane using the first separation step(s) (S1), forming a third separation product (P3) containing at least predominantly ethylene using one or more second separation steps (S2) and forming a fourth separation product (P4) containing at least predominantly ethane using the second separation step(s) (S1).
However, no reference was found to teach or suggest the claimed fractionation, in a column, of the propane stream and a deethanized pyrolyzed stream into a propane charge stream (that is dehydrogenated), a C3 pyrolyzed stream, and a C4+ hydrocarbon stream.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI Z FADHEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0267. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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.
/ALI Z FADHEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772