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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 06 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-24 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining an amount of acetic acid that will be present in a steam cracker effluent. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the determination is either a mental step or a mathematical calculation. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not require further steps performed in the process beyond just the mental step/calculation.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynal (US 2004/0200756) in view of Strack (US 2007/0007171).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, 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].
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynal (US 2004/0200756) in view of Strack (US 2007/0007171) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buchanan (US 2007/0066860).
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) 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.
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]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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 C 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights