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 18699813 filed 4/9/24.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 12/17/25 and 4/9/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 4/9/24 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 14, 20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 and all dependent claims recite the broad recitation (see respective claims), and the claim also recites the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The Examiner has taken the position that only one is present.
The terms “preferably” in claims 14 and 20, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “preferably” 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 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WARD ET AL. (EP3725865; 10/21/2020) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as WARD.
Regarding claims 1-18 and 20:
WARD teaches in Example 4 and para [0118] as depicted in Figure 9 , a process VII comprises a gas separation unit 260 added to the process V described in Example 2. The gas separation unit 260 can comprise a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit. The gas separation unit 260 is configured to purify the hydrogen- and methane-containing stream 244. As per Example 2 described hereinabove, stream 244 has a flowrate of 30.1 t/hr and comprises 48 weight % (88 mol %) hydrogen and 52 weight % (12 mol %) methane. The gas separation unit 260 (e.g., PSA gas separation unit 260) consumes 3 MW of electricity, and yields two product streams, a methane stream 247 consisting essentially of pure methane and a hydrogen stream 248 consisting essentially of pure hydrogen. Via this process VII, an amount of 14.3 t/hr of purified hydrogen produced in PSA 260 can be fed to a fuel cell 270, where the hydrogen is converted to water in water stream 249 and electricity E with an electrical efficiency of 45%, giving continuous production of 253 MW of electricity. The net electricity (250 MW) is used to supply 41% of the 603 MW of electricity required for the process (as described hereinabove for process V of Example 2; see Table 2.)
WARD teaches in Example 5 and para [0119] a process VII as described in Example 4 further comprises a hydrogen compression and storage apparatus 280 comprising at least one compressor and storage vessel and configured to compress and store the resulting 14.3 t/hr of purified hydrogen (which can be introduced thereto via line 248A) for use when the availability of renewable electricity is lower, or when it is more expensive. When needed, the compressed and stored hydrogen can be combined (e.g., via line 248B) with the hydrogen being produced at that time (e.g., the hydrogen in line 248) by the process VII, and both can be converted to electricity using the fuel cell 270. When to use the stored hydrogen for electricity production can be determined by one of skill in the art according to a variety of factors. As one possibility, if some renewable electricity is available on a diurnal basis, 172 tons hydrogen could be collected and stored over a twelve-hour period. When released over the next twelve hours and combined with the 14.3 t/hr hydrogen still being produced by the process, this would result in approximately 503 MW of electricity being available continuously for the twelve hours. This could supply 80% of the 630 MW of electricity required for the operation of the process.
WARD teaches in para [0106] Example 2 is a complete electrification as per an embodiment of this disclosure of the steam cracking process described in Comparative Example 1. In Example 2, the energy supplied by the natural gas-fired auxiliary boiler and cracking furnaces in Comparative Example 1 is replaced with renewable electricity, which powers all compressors and pumps, supplies the energy for cracking, and provides heat for the vaporization of the recycle and makeup water. Also, the TLE of Comparative Example 1 has been replaced by a heat exchanger system such that much of the heat recovered from cooling the hot product gases is used to preheat the feed gases. These changes allow for the elimination of the process steam system and complete avoidance of flue gas losses.
WARD teaches in para [0107] the key elements of this electrified plant V of Example 2 are shown in Figure 7 . An amount of 236 t/hr of ethane feed 205 are combined with recycle gases in ethane recycle stream 242 and diluent steam in dilution steam 211; the combined feed stream 215 is heated to 730°C by heat exchange with cooling product gases in a heat exchanger system HX2. This heat exchange can be achieved by a variety of methods, for example one feed/effluent heat exchanger per reactor, a series of feed/effluent heat exchangers, or one or more feed/effluent heat exchangers per reactor together with one or more product heat exchangers using steam to receive the heat coupled with feed heat exchangers in which the energy of the steam is transferred to the feed stream. For the purposes of this example, one feed/effluent heat exchanger per reactor has been employed; however the specific design of the heat exchanger system HX2 can vary, while being configured to extract as much of the heat as possible via cooling the product gases and return it to preheat the feed gases. The feed stream is then cracked at 840°C in the furnaces of pyrolysis reaction section 220 heated by renewable electricity. The product gases in cracked gas product stream 222 are cooled in a feed/effluent heat exchanger of heat exchanger system HX2 as described above, and further cooled by heat exchange in heat exchanger HX1 of the feed/effluent heat exchanged product in stream 225 with the recycle and makeup water in lines 212 and 226. Diluent water is then recovered by quenching in water quench 231; the recovered water in water line 226 is returned for use as diluent in the pyrolysis reaction section 220. In this embodiment, as indicated in Figure 7 , water quench 231 can involve a water quench tower and a water stripper configured for operation with electricity, rather than steam. The products in quenched cracked gas stream 232 are compressed in cracked gas compression 233, and the compressed cracked gas stream 234 is dried and acid gases are removed in acid gas removal/water removal 235/237 to produce dried cracked gas stream 238. In Example 1, in contrast to the conventional plant described in Comparative Example 1, the heat for the regeneration of the cracked gas drier absorbent material is provided electrically. Dried cracked gas stream 238 is subjected to product fractionation 240 via cryogenic fractionation 246 and associated cryogenic refrigeration 243, which is operated to separate the products and byproducts. Along with the recycle ethane in recycle ethane stream 242, the products and byproducts include 187.5 t/hr of ethylene in ethylene product stream 250, 30 t/hr comprising a mixture of hydrogen and methane in hydrogen- and methane-containing stream 244, and 13 t/hr of C3+ products in C3+ stream 261 comprising primarily propylene and butadiene.
WARD teaches in para [0057] feed pretreatment 10/110 may further comprise feed preheating 110' ( Figure 4 ). In embodiments, feed preheating is affected to the extent possible via heat transfer with (and cooling of) the pyrolysis product gases. As feed preheating 110' can be affected by heat exchange with the products of and/or within the pyrolysis reactor(s), it is indicated, in Figure 4 , with the pyrolysis reaction section 120. The heat transfer can be affected directly by one or more feed/effluent heat exchangers and/or indirectly by using a heat transfer agent (e.g., Dowtherm or steam). As steam ('dilution steam 111') is introduced into the hydrocarbon feed as a diluent, it may be desirable to produce steam via heat transfer with the pyrolysis product or by electric heating, and use the steam to preheat the feed by combining the relatively hotter steam with the relatively cooler feed, as such steam is not being produced solely for use as an intermediate heat or energy transfer medium in this case, but is being utilized as a diluent in the pyrolysis reactors. In embodiments, a heat exchanger utilized to preheat the feed comprises built-in heating elements. In embodiments, the feed may be preheated to a temperature higher than typically used in conventional steam cracking (e.g., for ethane to a temperature higher than 600 to 675°C) so that more of the heat available from cooling the products of the pyrolysis reactor(s) may be utilized. In embodiments, the feed is heated to a desired temperature by resistive heating (e.g., via electricity flowing through a wire in thermal but not necessarily electrical contact with a pipe carrying the feed). In embodiments, heat in a radiant section of a pyrolysis reactor is utilized to preheat the feed, and the heat therein is generated electrically via any suitable methods that convert electricity into thermal energy available to preheat the feed. In embodiments, the feed is preheated by superheating dilution steam 111 before injection, and the dilution steam is heated by any of various methods of electric heating, such as mentioned hereinabove and the like. In embodiments, the steam is electrically heated to above the temperature of a cooler feed stream at the mixing point to quickly increase the temperature of the combined stream. In embodiments, the steam is electrically heated to above the temperature of the pyrolysis reactor(s) and injected into the cooler feed immediately before it enters the pyrolysis reactor(s), so that the final heating of the feed to reaction temperature occurs quickly enough to prevent unwanted reactions. In embodiments, the hot steam is injected to initiate adiabatic cracking, partially or completely reducing the energy input in the pyrolysis reactor. In embodiments, the pressure of the steam or other diluent is raised to the required process pressure by devices powered by renewable energy. Such devices can include vapor compressors, pumps, or closed containers that are heated electrically or supplied by heat from a renewable energy source. In embodiments, the feed is preheated by impedance (e.g., where electricity flows through the conduit carrying the feed). In embodiments, the feed can be heated directly by ohmic heating, or a plasma, or an electric arc, or radio frequency (RF), or infrared (IR), or UV, and/or microwaves. In embodiments, the feed can be preheated by passage over a resistively heated element. In embodiments, the feed can be preheated by induction (e.g., an oscillating magnetic field). In embodiments, the feed can be heated by mechanical means driven by electricity. In embodiments, the feed can be preheated by a heat pump. In embodiments, the feed is preheated by passing hot inert gas or another medium over the tubes, and the hot inert gas or another medium is heated electrically (e.g., via any of the preceding methods, or the like.) In embodiments, the feed is preheated by means of radiative panels that are heated electrically (e.g., via any of the preceding methods, or the like.) In embodiments, heating to the desired temperature can be affected by a combination of the above.
WARD teaches in para [0062] the steam cracking plant can comprise a TLE 123 operable to provide a first step, rapid cooling (or 'primary quench) to stop the reaction (e.g., to rapidly reduce the temperature of the cracked gas product in cracked gas product stream 122 to about 350 to 600°C) and produce a TLE quenched cracked gas stream 125. In embodiments, the initial TLE quench lowers the temperature only to the maximum temperature required to stop unwanted reactions from occurring and the remaining heat is removed in subsequent heat exchangers. TLE quench may be affected via gas-gas heat exchange to return heat to and thus preheat the feed. In embodiments, TLE 123 may move heat indirectly using a heat transfer medium (e.g., Dowtherm or steam). In embodiments, a TLE may comprise more than one section, whereby heat transfer can be affected at more than one temperature, thus enabling the capture of more heat than a single section TLE. In embodiments, rather than via a TLE, the pyrolysis reaction is quenched via injection of a cold fluid. According to embodiments of this disclosure, such a cold fluid may be cooled/produced electrically. In embodiments, dilution steam 111 may be generated by heat-exchange with the TLE at TLE quench 123.
WARD teaches in para [0063] as noted hereinabove with reference to the embodiments of Figures 3 and 4 , a steam cracking plant of this disclosure comprises a primary fractionation and compression section 30/130. The primary fractionation and compression section 30/130 can be configured to provide further heat recovery from and quenching of the cooled cracked gas stream 25/125, remove one or more components (e.g., fuel oil, pyrolysis gasoline, pyrolysis oil, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, water, or a combination thereof) from the cracked gas stream 25/125, and/or compress the cracked gas stream 25/125, thus providing a compressed cracked gas stream 38/138. In embodiments, the primary fractionation and compression section 30/130 can comprise a cracked gas cooler, oil and/or water quench and/or oil and/or water separations 131 (also referred to herein as a 'quench and process water system' 131, for brevity), cracked gas compression 133, acid gas removal 135, water removal 137, or a combination thereof.
WARD teaches in para [0064] the herein-disclosed steam cracking plant can comprise a cracked gas cooler operable to extract additional heat from the TLE quenched cracked gas stream 125. Such a cracked gas cooler can operate via direct gas-gas heat exchange to preheat the feed stream 105, can be utilized to generate dilution steam, can be utilized to recover heat to be used for heat integration elsewhere in the plant (e.g., other than or in addition to preheating the feed stream 105), and/or can be utilized to generate electricity while cooling the gas (e.g., via a thermoelectric device).
WARD teaches in para [0065] the herein-disclosed steam cracking plant can comprise a quench (e.g., a secondary quench) and process water system, such as quench and water process system 131 of the embodiment of Figure 4 , operable to condense water and higher molecular weight hydrocarbons generated, or such a water quench system can be replaced as described below. The heat removed in quench and water process system 131 can be utilized for heat integration. In embodiments, the heat can be utilized to preheat the feed stream 105. In embodiments, a thermoelectric device may be utilized to cool the process stream directly or to cool a water quench stream 126, in some embodiments also to generate electricity. In embodiments, an absorption chiller is utilized to cool the process stream or the quench water stream 126 to a lower temperature than conventional using electric refrigeration. In embodiments, a heat pump is utilized. In embodiments, electricity is utilized to effect oil separation from quench water.
PNG
media_image1.png
1070
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WARD does not explicitly disclose the effluent temperature; however it is within the scope of WARD disclosing the energy values as provided in the Examples. Also see figures 1-9; para [0020] -[0092]; para [0094] - [0125]; EXAMPLES 1-5; TABLES 1-3.
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
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