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 .
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) anticipated by Vora is withdrawn by the examiner in view of the amendment filed on 4/24/2026.
The rejection of claims 1-11, 13, 14 and 16-18 under 35 USC § 112 is withdrawn by the examiner in view of the amendment filed on 4/24/2026.
A New Final Office Action is follows.
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 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Vora et al. (US 5,714,662) in view of John et al. (EP 0583828 B1).
Vora teaches a process for producing olefins from carbon oxide comprising producing synthesis gas from a hydrocarbon feedstream and water in a syngas production zone; converting the synthesis gas comprising carbon oxides to a crude methanol stream in a carbon oxide conversion zone; and charging at least a portion of the crude methanol stream directly to an oxygenate conversion reactor (MTO reactor) to convert methanol to olefins and produce an MTO effluent stream (col. 2, lines 1-67; col. 10, lines 1-68; Fig. 2). Vora further teaches that the crude methanol stream contains methanol, dimethyl ether, water, dissolved gases including hydrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide, together with heavier oxygenates/fusel oils (col. 7, lines 29-67; col. 8, lines 1-22). Vora additionally teaches that the oxygenate conversion effluent stream comprises light olefins and water and undergoes downstream separation and recovery operations (col. 11, lines 1-68; col. 12, lines 1-68; Fig. 2).
Accordingly, Vora teaches:
claim 1: providing a crude methanol stream comprising carbon oxide and oxygenates and charging the crude methanol stream to an MTO reactor to produce olefins;
claim 2: converting carbon oxide to the crude methanol stream in the upstream synthesis gas and carbon oxide conversion zones;
claims 3-6: separating olefin-containing product streams, recovering oxygenate-containing streams, and integrated treatment/recovery operations associated with the MTO process;
claim 9: separating oxygenate-containing aqueous streams associated with crude methanol handling and downstream MTO processing;
claims 10-11: quenching and separating MTO reactor effluent streams into hydrocarbon and aqueous streams and recovering oxygenate-containing streams;
claims 12-20: separating light gases from crude methanol streams, introducing methanol-containing streams into the MTO reactor, recovering olefin-containing product streams, and integrated downstream separation/recovery operations.
However, Vora does not expressly teach absorbing carbon dioxide from the MTO effluent stream into a solvent to provide a carbon dioxide-depleted olefin stream.
John teaches removing carbon dioxide from hydrocarbon-containing reactor effluent streams by contacting the stream with a carbon dioxide-selective absorbent solvent to absorb carbon dioxide and produce a treated hydrocarbon stream suitable for downstream olefin recovery and purification operations (page 3, lines 24-46; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the integrated crude methanol-to-olefins process of Vora by incorporating the solvent-based carbon dioxide absorption process of John in order to remove carbon dioxide from the MTO effluent stream, improve downstream olefin purification efficiency, reduce inert gas accumulation, and improve overall process operability and separation efficiency.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Vora et al. (US 5,714,662) in view of John et al. (EP 0583828B1) and further in view of Hogan et al. (US 4,493,715).
The processes of Vora and John are as discussed above.
Vora and John do not expressly teach subsequent polishing removal of residual carbon dioxide from the treated olefin stream using a caustic-containing absorbent system.
Hogan teaches removing carbon dioxide from olefin-containing gaseous streams including ethylene, propylene, and butylene streams by contacting the stream with carbon dioxide-removal absorbent systems and specifically discusses removal of low concentrations of carbon dioxide from C2-C4 olefin streams (col. 1, lines 5-34; col. 2, lines 1-33). Hogan further explains that caustic scrubbers and bulk caustic scrubbers were conventionally used for carbon dioxide absorption from olefin-containing gas streams (col. 1, lines 20-28).
Accordingly:
claim 7: the combined references teach absorbing carbon dioxide from the light olefin stream into a bulk solvent to provide a lean light olefin stream; and
claim 8: Hogan teaches further removal of residual carbon dioxide from olefin-containing streams using known caustic absorption systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further treat the carbon dioxide-depleted olefin stream resulting from the Vora/John combination using the known carbon dioxide polishing operations discussed by Hogan in order to further reduce residual carbon dioxide levels and improve downstream olefin purity and process operability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Vora does not disclose absorbing carbon dioxide from the MTO effluent stream into a solvent and therefore does not anticipate amended claim 1. The argument is persuasive with respect to anticipation. Accordingly, the prior rejection based solely on Vora has been withdrawn. However, John expressly teaches removing carbon dioxide from hydrocarbon-containing reactor effluent streams using carbon dioxide-selective absorbent/solvent systems (page 3, lines 24-46). Vora expressly teaches that carbon dioxide is present in the integrated crude methanol-to-olefin process and further teaches generation of hydrocarbon-containing MTO effluent streams requiring downstream separation and purification operations (col. 7, lines 29-67; col. 11, lines 1-68). It would have been obvious to incorporate the known carbon dioxide solvent absorption operations of John into the Vora process in order to improve downstream olefin purification efficiency and reduce carbon dioxide accumulation within the process.
Applicant further argues that the cited references fail to disclose the presently claimed downstream separation and recovery operations. The argument is not persuasive because Vora itself expressly teaches integrated crude methanol-to-olefins processing including crude methanol production, direct introduction of crude methanol into an oxygenate conversion reactor, production of olefin-containing reactor effluent streams, downstream hydrocarbon/water separation operations, recycle water handling, and downstream hydrocarbon fractionation and recovery operations (col. 10, lines 1-68; col. 11, lines 1-68; col. 12, lines 1-68; Figs. 2-3).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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