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 § 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 1-11, 13, 14, and 16-18 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.
Claim 1 requires “providing a crude methanol stream comprising at least 100 ppmw of carbon oxide or at least 100 ppmw C₂⁺ oxygenates” and “charging said crude methanol stream to an MTO reactor.” Claim 9 further recites “separating aqueous oxygenates from said crude methanol stream … before charging said crude methanol stream to said MTO reactor,” and claim 10 recites stripping oxygenates from “said product water stream and said aqueous oxygenate stream,” implying removal of oxygenates prior to charging the MTO reactor. These recitations render it unclear whether the crude methanol stream as charged to the MTO reactor must still comprise the recited oxygenates/carbon oxide, or whether such components are removed upstream. Accordingly, the scope of the claims is not reasonably certain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vora et al. (US 5,714,662).
Vora teaches converting a carbon-oxide-containing synthesis gas to produce a crude oxygenate (crude methanol) stream comprising methanol together with water and oxygenated impurities (Vora, col. 6, l. 33–67; col. 7, l. 1–23; col. 10, l. 33–58; col. 11, l. 1–22). Vora further teaches charging at least a portion of the crude oxygenate stream to an oxygenate-to-olefin (MTO) conversion zone to produce a light olefin effluent (Vora, col. 12, l. 3–55; Figs. 2–3). Vora also expressly teaches converting carbon oxide to the crude methanol stream upstream of the MTO reactor (Vora, col. 6, l. 33–67; col. 7, l. 1–23).
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 3, 7-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vora et al. (US 5,714,662) in view of EP 0088494 A1 and CN 101903311 A.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 15
Vora teaches producing an MTO effluent comprising olefins and water (Vora, col. 12, l. 26–55).
EP ’494 teaches cooling/condensing the MTO effluent to form three phases: an aqueous phase containing unreacted methanol, a liquid hydrocarbon phase containing C₅⁺ hydrocarbons, and a gaseous phase containing light olefins and unreacted DME (EP ’494, ¶[0035], ¶[0040], ¶[0045]; Figs. 1 and 7).
CN ’311 similarly teaches quenching conversion effluents to form vapor and aqueous streams containing oxygenates (CN ’311: first conversion effluent 30 → separator 32 → streams 34/36; second conversion effluent 42 → separator 44 → streams 46/48).
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 Vora by separating the MTO effluent into a product olefin stream and an aqueous/product water stream and to strip oxygenates from product water and aqueous stream as suggested by EP’949 and CN’311 to produce desirable products.
Regarding claims 7-9, 11, and 16
EP ’494 teaches treating the aqueous phase obtained after condensation by steam stripping/evaporation/distillation to recover methanol/DME and to produce a substantially clean water stream (EP ’494, ¶[0046], ¶[0073]). EP ’494 further teaches absorbing DME from the gaseous phase using water or methanol followed by desorption (EP ’494, ¶[0040]–¶[0041], ¶[0047], ¶[0075]–¶[0076]).
CN ’311 teaches combining multiple aqueous oxygenate streams and stripping them in a stripping tower to recover oxygenates overhead and clean water bottoms (CN ’311, stripping tower 62, streams 60/64/68).
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 Vora by separating aqueous oxygenates prior to MTO charging and the stripping of oxygenates from product water and aqueous streams to improve operability and by-product management of Vora’s integrated MTO process.
Regarding claims 12-14 and 19-20,
Vora teaches light-ends removal/topping of crude methanol to separate light gases from oxygenated methanol streams (Vora, col. 10, l. 33–58; col. 11, l. 1–22; Fig. 1).
EP ’494 teaches charging methanol (optionally vaporized) to dehydration and MTO conversion with recovery and recycle of unreacted oxygenates (EP ’494, ¶[0014], ¶[0016], ¶[0022]–¶[0023], ¶[0035], ¶[0045]–¶[0047]; Figs. 1 and 7).
CN ’311 teaches separating methanol from syngas-derived oxygenates (separator 22, streams 24/26), vaporizing methanol, and charging it to conversion reactors (CN ’311).
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 Vora by separating light gases, forming oxygenated methanol streams, and charging methanol/vaporous methanol to an MTO reactor as suggested by CN’311 and EP’494 to produce desirable products.
Claims 4-6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claims 1-3, 7-11 and 14 above, and further in view of Rosen et al. (US 7,470,412 B2).
The references applied to claims 1-3, 7-11 and 14 teach forming an oxygenate-containing by-product stream in an MTO process.
Rosen teaches combusting an auxiliary fuel in a CO combustor/CO boiler that receives regenerator flue gas, wherein combustion air and a combustible fuel are supplied to burners to form a flame zone through which the flue gas passes (Rosen, col. 1, l. 33–43; col. 3, l. 7–13; col. 4, l. 3–8). Rosen further teaches that the auxiliary fuel may be any suitable combustible fluid, including liquid fuels (Rosen, col. 4, l. 40–47).
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 Vora by combusting the oxygenate-containing stream as the auxiliary fuel in the CO boiler as suggested by Rosen to recover heating value and reduce external fuel demand.
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