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 .
This communication is in response to the application filed 4/29/26.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Egmond (US 2004/0127759) in view of Kuechler (US 6,482,998).
With respect to claim 1, Van Egmond teaches an integrated process for the production of light olefins in an integrated methanol synthesis/MTO reaction system (abstract). Methanol synthesis is a process producing methanol form a synthesis gas (). MTO, or methanol to olefin, is an oxygenate conversion process. Van Egmond teaches:
passing a syngas stream 305 to a methanol synthesis reactor 308 to provide a reactor effluent comprising methanol (0137; Figure 3; see also Figure 1 and 0102);
separating unreacted syngas 317 (i.e. a vapor stream) from a crude methanol stream 309 (i.e. a liquid stream comprising methanol) (0137; Figure 3; see also Figure 1 and 0102);
passing the crude methanol to a separation zone 319 (i.e. a methanol purification section) comprising a series of distillation columns 310 346 producing a refined methanol stream 347 (0138-0139; Figure 3; see also Figure 1 and 0103);
passing at least a portion of the refined methanol stream 347 to an oxygenate conversion unit 323 to provide an effluent comprising olefins (0141; Figure 3; see also Figure 2);
quenching 325 and further cooling the effluent from said oxygenate conversion unit (0143; Figure 3); and
separating light olefins from said effluent comprising olefins in a separation section of said oxygenate conversion unit (0143-0144; Figure 3).
Van Egmond is silent regarding wherein heat to said first distillation column is provided from the separation section of said oxygenate conversion unit.
Kuechler, directed to the design of oxygenate to olefins process with increased heat recovery and integration (col. 3), teaches forming methanol or oxygenates from a syngas (col. 5, lines 22-35), reacting the methanol or other oxygenate in a catalytic oxygenate conversion process to produce a product comprising olefins (col. 3; col. 10, lines 50+; Figure 1), and cooling, quenching and separating the effluent stream (col. 11, lines 23+; Figure 1). The effluent from oxygenate conversion contains significant heat and is preferably integrated with streams from the conversion process (including heating the feed) or in the synthesis process (col. 12, line 17-39; col. 9, lines 6-60) to “effectively utilize[] the heat of reaction contained in the products exiting the oxygenate conversion reactor, optimize[] heat recovery, and reduce[] overall utility consumption in the conversion of oxygenates to olefins. Such a process is environmentally, economically, and commercially more attractive” (col. , line 54-60).
Specifically, the effluent is cooled in a heat exchanger 8 and quenched in a tower 13 with a portion of the towers bottom which is cooled in a heat exchanger 19 (col. 11-12; Figure 1). The water stream 15 is split into a quench stream 18 which is cooled and recycled back to the quench tower, and a product stream 21 which is passed to downstream separation such as a fractionation column 24 (col. 12; Figure 1). The water both cooled from quench and from the bottom of the fractionation column is cooled by e.g. heat exchange 2, 4, and/or 6 with the feedstream and/or at different locations of the conversion and recovery process (col. 12; Figure 1).
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplying heat from the conversion reaction effluent in the process of Egmond to different locations of the process where heat is needed as taught in Kuechler because both are directed to processes for producing olefins from methanol conversion with the methanol from a syngas production process, Kuechler teaches excess heat is present in the oxygenate conversion effluent/water and may be recovered at different locations throughout the process for the benefit of optimizing heat use and minimizing utility comnsumption, and combining the elements of heat integration as in Kuechler uses known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Egmond (US 2004/0127759) in view of Kuechler (US 6,482,998) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Alamro (WO 2020/157566).
With respect to claim 2, Van Egmond is silent regarding wherein the methanol synthesis section comprises a first methanol converter and a second methanol converter.
Alamro, directed to the design of a methanol synthesis system and method, teaches a multi-stage methanol synthesis system and method are designed to achieve higher per pass conversion (0009). Alamro teaches in each reaction stage a reactor feed comprising synthesis gas is introduced to a methanol synthesis reactor (0009). The effluent is cooled and separated in a flash drum or other gas-liquid separator to shift the equilibrium conversion toward favoring higher methanol conversion in the methanol synthesis reactor of the following stage, the liquid methanol product is removed, and the vapor is passed to the next reactor stage (0009). The crude liquid methanol product removed in each stage can be sent either directly to a crude methanol tank or to a gas-liquid separator (e.g., a flash drum) of the final stage in the methanol synthesis loop (0009).
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reactor of Van Egmond by utilizing a multireactor system of Alamro because both are directed to methanol synthesis system and methods, Alamor teaches a multistage or multireactor system achieves the benefit of higher conversion to methanol, and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (here a multistage reactor process of Alamor as the step for producing methanol in the integrated process of Van Egmond to produce methanol for use downstream).
With respect to claim 3, Alamor teaches passing the syngas stream to a first methanol reactor RX; separating FDX the first reactor effluent into a first vapor stream and a first liquid stream; passing the first vapor stream to the second methanol converter RN to provide a second reactor effluent comprising methanol; separating FDN the second reactor effluent into a second vapor stream and a second liquid stream (0009; Figure 1). The method may further include separating the liquid methanol streams in the first two or from the upstream reactors-separators in a final downstream vapor liquid separator to recover additional vapor (0009; 0046). The final crude methanol to a distillation unit (0047), i.e. said methanol purification unit.
Claim(s) 4-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Egmond (US 2004/0127759) in view of Kuechler (US 6,482,998) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Filippi (US 2015/0008116).
With respect to claims 4 and 10, Van Egmond teaches passing the crude methanol to a separation zone 319 (i.e. a methanol purification section) comprising a series of distillation columns 310 346 producing a refined methanol stream 347 (0138-0139; Figure 3; see also Figure 1 and 0103). Van Egmond is silent regarding the specific distillation details including the two distillation columns containing reboilers, heating of the first and second reboiling streams in a reboiler of the first and second distillation columns, respectively, using a product water stream taken from the MTO separation section
Filippi teaches a process for separating crude methanol stream using distillation (abstract). Filippi teaches passing the crude methanol product stream to the system (ref Figure 1):
Optionally separating the crude methanol in a topping column 100 to remove gases (0053);
separating the first liquid in a first distillation column 200 to provide a first distillation column overhead stream and a first distillation column bottoms stream 205 (0055);
splitting the first distillation column bottoms stream in to a product and a reboil stream, heating and passing said reboil stream to said first distillation column 200 (0055-0056);
separating the first bottoms product in a second distillation column 300 to provide a second overhead stream and a second bottoms stream 305 (0052; 0055);
splitting the second distillation column bottoms stream in to a second bottoms product and a second reboil stream, heating and passing said reboil stream to said second column (0057-0058); and
separating the second bottoms in a third distillation column 400 to provide a third overhead stream and a final bottoms 420 (0052).
Filippi teaches distillation columns with reboilers requiring heat for distillation of the methanol. Kuechler teaches using heat of the reaction recovered from one or more of the reactor effluent, quench recycle, and fractionator bottoms for providing heat to feedstream and at other locations throughout the process where heat is required and may increase heat recovery (col. 12).
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use as the distillation/separation of Van Egmond the specific distillation steps of Filippi which includes the use of reboilers to provide heat to the column because both are directed to methanol separation in a methanol synthesis process using distillation and Filippi merely provides more specific details to the process step outlined in Van Egmond, and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With respect to the heat integration in the reboilers, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide heat from the oxygenate conversion reactor effluent, quench stream or final product stream to the reboilers in the process of Van Egmond and Filippi in view of the teaching of Keuchler because each are in related art, Filippi teaches the need for reboiler heat in the distillation step, Keuchler teaches a desire to send heat from the product effluent or fraction thereof to other portions of the process where heat is used for the benefit of optimized heat use and utility consumption, and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results
With respect to claim 5, Filippi teaches that stream 204 is at least partially condensed in the hot side of the reboiler 301 obtaining a flow of condensed methanol 209; a part of said condensate 209 is recirculated in the column 200 (line 210) and the remaining part (line 211) represents distilled methanol that is exported by the process (0058; Figure 1).
With respect to claim 6, Filippi teaches fractionation with reboiling, thus the cooled product water is stripped in the stripping section of the fractionation section.
With respect to claim 7, Filippi teaches heating said liquid stream comprising methanol before passing to the first distillation column with downstream heat available in a process stream (e.g. Figure 2). In the integrated process, before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide heat from the oxygenate conversion reactor effluent, quench stream or final product stream to heat the syngas feed to the methanol synthesis reactor in the process of Van Egmond and Filippi in view of the teaching of Keuchler because Keuchler teaches a desire to send heat from the product effluent or fraction thereof to other portions of the process where heat is used for the benefit of optimized heat use and utility consumption and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results
With respect to claim 8, Filippi teaches using a topping column and three distillation columns which includes four distillation columns total (figure 1; throughout).
With respect to claim 9, Filippi teaches wherein the methanol purification unit comprises three distillation columns, all of which include stripping columns on the lower portion.
With respect to claim 11, Kuechler teaches streams having compositions similar to or compatible with the oxygenate conversion water stream they may be combined with the product and the combined stream sent to a fractionator (col. 10, lines 2+; col. 12, lines 40+), which uses stripping in the lower portion of the column.
With respect to claims 12-13, Kuechler teaches intermediate water streams 22, overhead condensate pumped back to the column (col. 12, lines 40; col. 13, lines 16). Van Egmond also teaches collecting intermediate condensate or compressed water streams e.g. a quench bottoms stream 239 (0126), compression condensate stream(s) 240 (0128), and methanol-containing stream 245 includes a majority of the methanol and water that was present in the C4+ bottoms stream 241 (0130).
With respect to claim 14, Filippi teaches using a topping column and three distillation columns which includes four distillation columns total (figure 1; throughout).
With respect to claim 15, Filippi teaches fractionating a second distillation column effluent stream in the third distillation column to provide a third distillation column overhead stream comprising methanol; and separating the third distillation column overhead stream to provide a third reflux stream and a methanol stream; heating a third reboiling stream in a reboiler of the third distillation column with a second distillation column overhead stream to provide a third reboiled stream; and passing the third reboiled stream to the third distillation column (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 16, Van Egmond in view Kuechler and Filippi teaches the process as described above in claims 1-15 and applied here in the same manner. The specific limitations of claim 16 have already been addressed but are recited here with reference only, motivation to combine is presented above. The cited art teaches:
passing a syngas stream to a methanol synthesis reactor to provide a reactor effluent comprising methanol (Van Egmond, 0137);
separating the reactor effluent into a vapor stream and a liquid stream comprising methanol (Egmond, 0137; Filippi, 0053);
passing the liquid stream comprising methanol to a methanol purification section comprising a first distillation column and a second distillation column to provide a methanol product stream (Egmond, 0137-0138; Filippi, 0055-0058); and
passing at least a portion of the methanol product stream to an oxygenate conversion unit comprising a separation section for separating light olefins to provide an effluent comprising olefins (Egmond, 0141, Kuechler),
wherein heat to said first distillation column and the second distillation column is provided from a water stream taken from the separation section (Kuechler).
With respect to claim 17-20, Filippi teaches a process for separating crude methanol stream using distillation (abstract). Filippi teaches passing the crude methanol product stream to the system (ref Figure 1):
Optionally separating the crude methanol in a topping column 100 to remove gases (0053);
separating the first liquid in a first distillation column 200 to provide a first distillation column overhead stream and a first distillation column bottoms stream 205 (0055);
splitting the first distillation column bottoms stream in to a product and a reboil stream, heating and passing said reboil stream to said first distillation column 200 (0055-0056);
separating the first bottoms product in a second distillation column 300 to provide a second overhead stream and a second bottoms stream 305 (0052; 0055);
splitting the second distillation column bottoms stream in to a second bottoms product and a second reboil stream, heating and passing said reboil stream to said second column (0057-0058); and
separating the second bottoms in a third distillation column 400 to provide a third overhead stream and a final bottoms 420 (0052).
As discussed above, Philippi is silent regarding heating the respective reboiling streams with a product water stream the separation section and stripped water stream taken from cooled product water stream.
Again, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use as the distillation/separation of Van Egmond the specific distillation steps of Filippi where both disclose the use of distillation columns for separation of the crude methanol and such results in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. With respect to the heat integration in the reboilers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide heat from the oxygenate conversion reactor effluent, quench stream or final product stream (stripped cooled product water) to the reboilers in the process of Van Egmond and Filippi in view of the teaching of Keuchler because each are in related art, Filippi teaches the need for reboiler heat in the distillation step, Keuchler teaches a desire to send heat from the product effluent or fraction thereof to other portions of the process where heat is used for the benefit of optimized heat use and utility consumption, and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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 Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights