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
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 21 August 2026 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-17 and 19-25 are pending, with claims 10-17 and 19-24 withdrawn from the consideration.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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 1-5, 9, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynal (US 2004/0200756) in view of Strack (US 2007/0007171) and Buchanan (US 2007/0066860).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 25, Haynal teaches a steam cracking process to produce olefins [0002-0017]. The pyrolysis products contain undesirable acetic acid which produces fouling [0011-0014]. The acetic acid is neutralized by addition of an amine additive – ethylene diamine [0018-0025]. Haynal teaches adding the additive to the water phase, since it is where the acid collects [0021]. Haynal teaches that acids including acetic acid are present in amounts of 1-5000 ppm [0028]. Examiner considers this to be indicative of “determining” the acetic acid content.
Haynal teaches that the amine additive can be added at essentially any location in an olefin production plant where in one or more processing streams (aqueous, organic or a mixture thereof) [0026].
Examiner notes that the claims indicate "the acetic acid that will be present in a steam cracker effluent". Examiner noted that Haynal teaches that the dosage of the amine is selected to neutralize the acids, and 1-5000 ppm of acids including acetic acid [0028]. Haynal teaches 1 mole of ethylene diamine will react with and remove the corrosive capacity of 4 moles of acetic acid [00031]. In this regard, Examiner considers Haynal to select the neutralizing agent dosage based on the amount of acetic acid.
Further, Buchanan teaches that the amount of acetic acid is dependent on the TAN of the feed [0022]. In this regard, Examiner notes that it is suggested by the prior art that depending on the TAN of the feedstock fed to the steam cracker, differing acetic acid content would be present in the steam cracker effluent.
Haynal does not explicitly disclose the claimed separation steps.
However, Strack teaches that steam cracker effluents can be separated using one or more knock out drums in addition to distillation steps to recover gaseous products, liquid products, and water streams [0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate and conventional separation steps following the steam cracking, in order to recover desired fractions. Examiner additionally notes that since Haynal teaches treating water streams to be neutralized, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have injected the neutralizing agent into the water stream separated by Strack.
Regarding claims 2-5, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose separating the raw feed or the TAN of the feed.
However, Buchanan teaches a similar process for steam cracking hydrocarbon feeds that results in acetic acid by products which are neutralized with amines [0015-0018].
Buchanan teaches steam cracking a hydrocarbon feed having a TAN greater than or equal to about 0.5 by flashing the feed to produce an overhead and heavy bottoms, and sending the overhead to the cracking steps [0028-0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the neutralization steps of the previous combination to the products from the Buchanan feed, since Buchanan also teaches steam cracking and production of acetic acid byproducts that need to be neutralized.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynal (US 2004/0200756) in view of Strack (US 2007/0007171) and Buchanan (US 2007/0066860) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arnts (US 2017/0029301).
Regarding claims 6-8, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose following neutralization with stripping and recovery of dilution steam recycled.
However, Arnst teaches a similar process for neutralization of acetic acid in steam cracker effluents. Arnst teaches that the neutralizing agent can be added at various locations, including prior to steam stripper, and recycle of dilution steam [0018-0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Arnst location, stripping, and recirculation step, in the process of the previous combination, for the benefit of neutralizing the effluent and creating dilution steam for the process. Further, it is expected that it is expected that the same products having the same compositions as claimed would result, since the same process steps are applied to the same feeds at the same conditions, as applied to the claims above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments to be:
The acetic acid content is determined upstream of the steam cracker.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Examiner notes that the claims indicate "the acetic acid that will be present in a steam cracker effluent". Examiner noted that Haynal teaches that the dosage of the amine is selected to neutralize the acids, and 1-5000 ppm of acids including acetic acid [0028]. Haynal teaches 1 mole of ethylene diamine will react with and remove the corrosive capacity of 4 moles of acetic acid [00031]. In this regard, Examiner considers Haynal to select the neutralizing agent dosage based on the amount of acetic acid. Further, Buchanan teaches that the amount of acetic acid is dependent on the TAN of the feed [0022]. In this regard, Examiner notes that it is suggested by the prior art that depending on the feedstock fed to the steam cracker, differing acetic acid content would be present in the steam cracker effluent. Potential amendments to the claims were suggested to specify which properties of the feedstock are measured and how the acetic acid content is determined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McGlamery (US 2008/0188700) – teaches amine as antifoulant in hydrocarbon conversions
McCoy (US 2009/0280042) – teaches steam cracking and effluent separation
Arnst (US 2017/0029301) – cited in ISR for related WO application
Van Egmond (US 2004/0019246) – teaches neutralization of process gas with caustic or amine [0131]
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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
