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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18697735 filed 4/2/24.
Claims 1-17 are pending and have been fully considered.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 4/2/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 1-12 and all dependent claims are 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.
The terms “novel” in claims 1-2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “novel” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant is required to further bring clarification and/or correction to claims.
The terms “comprehensive utilization” in claims 3-12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “characterized” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant is required to further bring clarification and/or correction to claims
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIAN ET AL. (CN113354501A; 9/7/2021) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as LIAN.
Regarding claims 1-17:
LIAN teaches in the abstract a separation method for recovering C1, C2 and C3 in catalytic rich gas by a combined absorption method, which comprises the following steps: S1, the catalytic rich gas of a refinery is gradually compressed to 1-2 MPag by a gas compressor and cooled to 35-45 DEG C by a gas cooler, and enters a high-pressure depropanization tower, and a tower top gas phase containing C3 and components below C3 in the high-pressure depropanization tower is further compressed, cooled, subjected to impurity removal and dried and then enters an absorption tower; and S2, liquid-phase propylene or C3 fraction rich in propylene is adopted as an absorbent in the absorption tower. According to the invention, propylene is used as an absorbent, toluene is used as a re-absorbent, the recovery rates of propylene and propane and the recovery rates of ethane and ethylene are improved, the use of low-temperature energy, low-temperature equipment and low-temperature materials can be greatly reduced, and the problems of high energy consumption, large investment, low recovery rate, non-dry dry gas and the like in the existing refinery catalytic rich gas C1, C2 and C3 separation process are solved.
LIAN detailed teachings in para [0012] A combined absorption method for the separation of C1, C2, and C3 in catalytic rich gas includes the following steps:
Para [0013] - S1. The rich gas from the refinery's catalytic converter is compressed to 1-2 MPa in stages by a gas compressor, and then cooled to 35-45°C by a gas cooler before entering the high-pressure propane stripper. The top gas phase of the high-pressure propane stripper, containing C3 and lower components, is further compressed, cooled, impurity removed, and dried before entering the absorption tower. The bottom liquid phase of the high-pressure propane stripper enters the upper middle part of the low-pressure propane stripper. The top gas phase of the low-pressure propane stripper is condensed and returned to the high-pressure propane stripper. The bottom C4+ liquid phase of the low-pressure propane stripper is sent to the stabilization tower for further separation.
Para [0014] - S2. The absorption tower uses liquid propylene or propylene-rich C3 fraction as absorbent. The absorbent enters the absorption tower from the top and absorbs C2 and higher components in the catalytic rich gas. The bottom material of the absorption tower is sent to the de-ethanizer.
Para [0015] - S3. The gas phase at the top of the absorption tower enters the reabsorption tower. The reabsorption tower uses liquid toluene, benzene, xylene, and industrial hexane as reabsorbents to recover the C2 and C3 components carried out by the gas phase at the top of the absorption tower. The gas at the top of the reabsorption tower is used as dry gas and is incorporated into the refinery's fuel gas pipeline. The liquid phase at the bottom of the reabsorption tower is sent to the redesorption tower.
Para [0016] - S4. The vapor phase at the top of the re-desorption tower is condensed into a liquid phase rich in propylene, which is then pressurized by a pump and returned to the absorption tower. The liquid phase at the bottom of the re-desorption tower is recycled back to the top of the re-absorbent tower as a reabsorbent.
Para [0017] - S5. The bottom material of the absorption tower enters the de-ethanizer, and the ethane and ethylene mixture obtained from the top of the de-ethanizer enters the ethylene distillation tower for further separation.
Para [0018] - The C3 component at the bottom of the ethane stripper is partially returned to the top of the absorber after being pressurized as a circulating absorbent, and the other part enters the propylene distillation column for further separation.
Para [0019] - S6. Liquid-phase polymerization-grade ethylene is separated at the top of the ethylene distillation column, and high-purity ethane is obtained at the bottom of the column.
Para [0020] - S7. Liquid-phase polymer-grade propylene is obtained from the top or top side stream of the propylene distillation column, and high-purity propane is obtained from the bottom of the column.
Para [0021] - As a further aspect of the present invention: in step S1, the impurity removal includes amine washing, alkaline washing, and hydrogenation to remove oxygen, acetylene, propyne, and propadiene.
Para [0022] - As a further aspect of the present invention: in step S1, the refinery catalytic rich gas is compressed in 3 to 4 stages.
Para [0023] - As a further aspect of the present invention: the high-pressure propane stripper has 15 to 60 theoretical trays, 5 to 40 feed trays, a top pressure of 1 to 2 MPa, a top temperature of 5 to 40°C, and a bottom temperature of 60 to 95°C; the high-pressure propane stripper is equipped with multiple intermediate heat recovery and reflux sections.
Para [0024] - As a further aspect of the present invention: the low-pressure propane removal tower has 15 to 60 theoretical trays, a top pressure of 0.5 to 0.8 MPa, a top temperature of 5 to 45°C, and a bottom temperature of 70 to 95°C; the low-pressure propane removal tower is equipped with multiple intermediate heat recovery and reflux sections.
Para [0025] - As a further aspect of the present invention: the reabsorption tower has 15 to 70 theoretical trays, 5 to 50 feed trays, a top pressure of 3 to 4.5 MPa, and a top temperature of 10 to 35°C; the reabsorption tower is equipped with multiple intermediate heat recovery and reflux sections.
Para [0026] - As a further aspect of the present invention: the theoretical trays of the re-desorption tower are 15 to 60 layers, the feed position is 5 to 45 layers, the pressure at the top of the tower is 0.6 to 1 MPa, the temperature at the top of the tower is 10 to 25°C, and the temperature at the bottom of the tower is 200 to 230°C.
Para [0027] - As a further aspect of the present invention: the theoretical trays of the deethanizer are 20 to 80 layers, the feed position is 10 to 40 layers, the top pressure is 2.0 to 4.0 MPa, and the top temperature is -15 to 10°C; the top of the deethanizer uses propylene at 0°C, -7°C, or -24°C as a refrigerant, the bottom temperature is 60 to 85°C, and the deethanizer is equipped with multiple intermediate heat recovery and reflux sections.
Para [0028] - As a further aspect of the present invention: the theoretical trays of the ethylene distillation column are 40 to 100 layers, the feed position is 10 to 80 layers, the top pressure is 1.9 to 3 MPa, and the top temperature is -30 to 0°C; the top of the ethylene distillation column uses propylene at -24°C or -40°C as a refrigerant, and the bottom temperature is -5 to 15°C.
Para [0029] - As a further aspect of the present invention: the propylene distillation column has 100 to 280 theoretical trays, 60 to 180 feed trays, a top pressure of 0.8 to 2 MPa, a top temperature of 35 to 50°C, and a bottom temperature of 45 to 65°C.
Para [0030] - As a further aspect of the present invention: the top pressure of the absorption tower is 3-4.5 MPa, the top temperature is 10-35°C, the bottom temperature is 65-85°C, the theoretical tower has 20-80 layers, the feed position has 10-45 layers, and the absorption tower is equipped with multiple intermediate heat extraction and reflux sections.
From the teachings of the all the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
In addition, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable. Thereby meeting the limitations of claims 3-12 and 14-17.
Additionally, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Nevertheless, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771