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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over.
Claims 1–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Beato (WO 2022/063994 A1) in view of Stewart et al. (US 7,268,265 B1).
Beato teaches a methanol-to-jet (“MTJ”) overall process/plant combining MTO, OLI, and Hydro to convert oxygenates such as methanol into jet fuel-range hydrocarbons (Beato, Summary: “MTJ means… combining MTO, OLI and Hydro… feedstock comprising oxygenates such as methanol is converted into jet fuel”). Beato teaches supplying hydrogen to process sections/vessels, including hydrogen stream 108 to the combined hydro-oligomerization section 300 (Beato, Detailed Description, Fig. 1: conversion “under the presence of hydrogen being fed as stream 108”), and optionally hydrogen stream 102 in association with the oxygenate conversion section 200 (Beato, Fig. 1 description: “optional hydrogen stream 102”).
Stewart teaches hydrogenation reactor operation with hydrogen addition and the presence of unconsumed hydrogen in hydrogenation effluent, with recovery and recycle of hydrogenation effluent (Stewart, Fig. 1 description: hydrogenation effluent exits reactor 26 in line 42 and “is split between the hydrogenation effluent recycle in the line 24 and [a]… feed in a line 44”; and hydrogen is supplied from line 36). Stewart further teaches selective hydrogenation/acetylene conversion in a light olefin recovery context and the use of hydrogen in such units.
Beato teaches (a): hydrogen supplied to process vessels/sections in an MTJ plant (hydrogen stream 108 to section 300; optional hydrogen stream 102 to section 200) (Beato, Fig. 1 description). Stewart teaches (b): hydrogenation effluent recycle (line 42 split to recycle line 24), evidencing recovery and reuse of hydrogen from a reaction where hydrogen is not fully consumed (Stewart, Fig. 1 description).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Stewart’s recovery/recycle of hydrogen-containing hydrogenation effluent within the Beato MTJ plant to reduce fresh hydrogen demand and improve overall hydrogen utilization and operating efficiency, because both references relate to integrated hydrocarbon processing schemes with hydrogenation and recycle streams.
Claims 4–6
Beato teaches oligomerization and hydrogenation combined in a Hydro/OLI step/section (Beato, Summary and Fig. 1 description of section 300 performing combined oligomerization/hydrogenation under presence of hydrogen). Stewart teaches recovery/recycle of hydrogenation effluent from a hydrogenation reactor (Stewart, lines 42/24 split). Recovering unconsumed hydrogen from such hydrogenation and methanol synthesis units and using it as recycle hydrogen in an integrated plant would have been obvious for the same efficiency reasons stated above. Claims 7–14
Stewart teaches selective hydrogenation in a light olefin recovery scheme and hydrogen supply to such reactors, and teaches recycle handling of hydrogenation effluent streams (Stewart, discussion of selective hydrogenation and Fig. 1 recycle split lines 42/24, with hydrogen supply line 36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Beato/Stewart by routing recovered hydrogen within the MTJ plant of Beato to hydrogen-consuming units such as selective hydrogenation/acetylene conversion reactors in order to reduce external hydrogen consumption and improve plant hydrogen efficiency.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doty (US 2010/0280135 A1).
Both Beato and Stewart do not explicitly teach that hydrogen is produced from an electrolyzer.
Doty teach hydrogen is produced from an electrolyzer. (See [0005], [0025], [0035])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Beato/Stewart by utilizing hydrogen from an electrolyzer as suggested by Doty because it is within the level of one of skill in the art to use hydrogen from any source including from an electrolyzer.
Claim 3
Beato teaches hydrogen supplied to the Hydro/OLI section 300 for hydrogenation (Beato, Fig. 1 description: hydrogen stream 108). Beato also describes methanol synthesis as a known upstream/front-end that may be encompassed by the “process,” describing methanol production “via a methanol synthesis reactor” and methanol synthesis gas comprising mainly hydrogen (Beato, Summary/Description discussing methanol synthesis reactor and synthesis gas). Thus, routing hydrogen to both hydrogenation and methanol synthesis reactors would have been obvious in an integrated methanol-based plant. Claims 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bowman (US 4,226,795) in view of Beato (WO 2022/063994 A1), and further in view of Stewart et al. (US 7,268,265 B1) as necessary.
Bowman teaches recovering hydrogen from purge/recycle streams and processing the stream through a hydrogen enrichment/purification unit (“hydrogen enricher”) using PSA/permeators/absorption/adsorption/cryogenics to increase hydrogen concentration, and then using the hydrogen-enriched stream as a feed/recycle supply rather than wasting it (Bowman, Fig. 1 description: purge stream → jet compressor → hydrogen enricher 14; inerts removed; hydrogen-enriched stream line 17 to downstream use including methanol synthesis).
Beato provides the MTJ process environment and hydrogen-consuming vessels, including the Hydro/OLI section 300 operating under the presence of hydrogen fed as stream 108 (Beato, Fig. 1 description), and broader integration discussion.
Claim 15 is similar to claim 1 but further requires that additional hydrogen be “recovered from a purification unit” in recycle stream(s) and sent to supplement the first supply.
Bowman teaches recovering hydrogen via a hydrogen enrichment/purification unit (hydrogen enricher 14) from purge streams and reusing the hydrogen-enriched stream (Bowman, Fig. 1 description). Beato teaches the MTJ plant context and vessels requiring hydrogen input (Beato, hydrogen stream 108 to Hydro/OLI section 300).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bowman’s purification-based hydrogen recovery into the MTJ plant of Beato, to recover and reuse hydrogen that would otherwise be lost in purge/recycle streams, thereby reducing overall hydrogen make-up demand and improving plant efficiency.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Doty (US 2010/0280135 A1).
Claim 16
Both Beato and Stewart do not explicitly teach that hydrogen is produced from an electrolyzer.
Doty teach hydrogen is produced from an electrolyzer. (See [0005], [0025], [0035])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Beato/Stewart by utilizing hydrogen from an electrolyzer as suggested by Doty because it is within the level of one of skill in the art to use hydrogen from any source including from an electrolyzer.
Claim 17
Beato teaches hydrogen supplied to the hydrogenation-containing Hydro/OLI section (Beato, hydrogen stream 108 to section 300). Bowman teaches methanol synthesis reactors supplied by hydrogen-enriched streams (Bowman, converter feed and methanol synthesis zone description). Thus, routing the hydrogen supply to both hydrogenation and methanol synthesis reactors would have been obvious in an integrated methanol-based complex. Claim 18
Beato teaches combined oligomerization and hydrogenation in a hydro-oligomerization step/section (Beato, Summary: “combined in a single hydro-oligomerization step”; Fig. 1 description of section 300). Stewart teaches recycle of hydrogenation effluent from a hydrogenation reactor (Stewart, Fig. 1 description: line 42 split to recycle line 24). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to recover unconsumed hydrogen from hydrogenation effluent in such an oligomerization/hydrogenation arrangement and route it as recycle hydrogen, while Bowman teaches purification-based recovery when purification is employed. Claim 19 essentially combines the features of claims 15 and 16 into one independent claim: hydrogen production unit (electrolyzer/steam reformer/ATR) and additional supplies recovered from reactions not fully consuming hydrogen and recovered from a purification unit and recycled.
Bowman teaches purification-unit recovery/reuse of hydrogen (hydrogen enricher 14 and downstream reuse). Beato provides the MTJ environment and hydrogen-consuming vessels (hydrogen stream 108).
Claim 20
Beato teaches routing the first supply to hydrogenation and methanol synthesis reactors. (hydrogen to Hydro/OLI hydrogenation) and Bowman (hydrogen-enriched stream used in methanol synthesis).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771