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 1–14 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 teaches 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).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Beato does not disclose recovery of unconsumed hydrogen from hydrogenation or oligomerization reactors, and that Stewart allegedly fails to disclose recovery of hydrogen from hydrogenation effluent or supplementation of a hydrogen production unit. The arguments are not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Beato alone for the claimed hydrogen recycle/supplementation arrangement. Rather, Beato is relied upon for the methanol-to-jet (“MTJ”) process including hydrogenation and oligomerization operations, while Stewart is relied upon for teaching hydrogen-containing recycle streams recovered from hydrogenation operations and reused within the process.
Beato teaches an MTJ process in which methanol-derived olefin streams are subjected to hydro-oligomerization under the presence of hydrogen to produce jet-fuel-range hydrocarbons. See Beato, e.g., Summary and Detailed Description discussing Hydro/OLI section 300 receiving hydrogen stream 108 and converting olefin streams to jet-fuel-range hydrocarbons. Beato therefore teaches the claimed MTJ process environment utilizing hydrogen-consuming reactors/vessels.
Stewart expressly teaches that hydrogen supplied to selective hydrogenation reactors is not fully consumed and that hydrogen-containing effluent streams are recycled within the process. In particular, Stewart teaches that hydrogenation effluent exiting hydrogenation reactor 26 through line 42 “is split between the hydrogenation effluent recycle in the line 24 and olefin cracking feed in a line 44.” Stewart, col. 9, lines 14-18. Stewart further teaches that hydrogen is supplied to the hydrogenation reactor through line 36 and that the hydrogenation feed is admixed with hydrogen prior to entering the reactor. Stewart, col. 8, lines 58-67. Stewart additionally teaches that “the effluent of the hydrogenation reactor may be passed into a hydrogen recovery facility for the removal of residual hydrogen before proceeding further in the process.” Stewart, col. 8, lines 35-39. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Stewart expressly recognizes the presence of residual/unconsumed hydrogen in hydrogenation effluent and teaches recovery and recycle thereof.
Applicant argues that Stewart’s recycle is “limited to the LORP section” and not used for methanol synthesis or the MTJ process. However, the rejection does not require Stewart itself to disclose methanol synthesis integration. Rather, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Stewart’s known hydrogen recovery/recycle technique into the integrated MTJ process of Beato in order to reduce fresh hydrogen demand and improve overall hydrogen utilization efficiency, since hydrogen is a valuable process utility and both references concern hydrocarbon conversion systems employing hydrogenation and recycle streams. The combination merely applies a known hydrogen recycle technique (Stewart) to a known MTJ hydrogen-consuming process (Beato) to obtain the predictable result of reduced hydrogen consumption.
Applicant additionally argues that claim 1 requires “a deliberate integration” in which recovered hydrogen supplements a first hydrogen supply from a hydrogen production unit. However, supplementing a primary hydrogen source with recovered hydrogen recycle streams constitutes no more than the predictable use of prior art recycle hydrogen streams to reduce make-up hydrogen requirements in an integrated chemical plant. Neither claim 1 nor the Specification defines any particular unconventional recycle architecture beyond recovering unconsumed hydrogen and reusing it within the process.
Applicant argues that Bowman allegedly teaches purge gas removal for disposal or fuel use rather than reuse as supplemental hydrogen, and further argues that Bowman does not disclose purified hydrogen supplementing a hydrogen production unit or supplying other MTJ process sections. The arguments are not persuasive. Bowman expressly teaches recovering hydrogen-containing purge streams, subjecting the streams to hydrogen enrichment/purification, and reusing the resulting hydrogen-enriched stream in methanol synthesis operations rather than merely burning the purge gas. Bowman states that the invention is directed to “the utilization of the methanol reactant values and energy of the purge gas while minimizing the effects of inerts contained therein.” Bowman, col. 2, lines 52-55. Bowman further teaches feeding purge streams to hydrogen enricher 14, removing inert gases therefrom, and producing a “hydrogen-enriched gas stream” which is then compressed and combined with carbon oxides for downstream methanol synthesis. Bowman, col. 4, lines 1-67. Bowman additionally states that prior purge streams that had previously been burned are instead used “to produce additional methanol.” Bowman, col. 8, lines 49-56. Thus, Bowman clearly teaches reuse of purified/recovered hydrogen-containing streams rather than mere disposal.
Applicant’s argument that Bowman does not explicitly disclose “supplementing a hydrogen production unit” is not persuasive because the rejection relies on Bowman for purification/recovery and reuse of hydrogen-containing streams, while Beato provides the MTJ process context having hydrogen-consuming sections. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Bowman’s hydrogen purification and recycle arrangement within the MTJ process of Beato to supplement hydrogen requirements in the process, motivated by the recognized benefit of reducing fresh hydrogen demand and improving process efficiency.
Applicant further argues that Bowman does not disclose electrolyzers. However, claims 16 and 19 merely recite that the hydrogen production unit is selected from an electrolyzer, steam reformer, or autothermal reformer. Steam reforming and autothermal reforming were well-known conventional hydrogen generation technologies at the time of the invention, and selecting among known hydrogen generation units for supplying hydrogen to an MTJ process would have been an obvious matter of routine engineering choice.
Applicant’s allegation that the cited references “uniformly treat hydrogen as a consumable reactant” is also inconsistent with the teachings of Bowman and Stewart, both of which expressly disclose recovery and recycle/reuse of hydrogen-containing streams. Bowman teaches hydrogen enrichment and recycle of purge-derived hydrogen streams, while Stewart teaches recycle of hydrogenation effluent streams and optional hydrogen recovery facilities.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights