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
This is response to amendment filed 05/11/2026 for application 18/703674.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VERMA et al. (USPGPUB 2014/0275674A1) in view of O’REAR et al. (US 6441263) and EASTMAN et al. (USPGPUB 2008/0283411A1).
VERMA et al. teach methods and systems for separating olefins.
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, VERMA et al. teach producing a first mixture that can include methane, ethane, ethylene, and/or acetylene. At least a portion of the first mixture can be hydrogenated from acetylene to form a hydrogenated mixture comprising ethane and ethylene. At least a portion of the methane can be separated from the hydrogenated mixture to form a second mixture comprising ethane and ethylene.
The hydrogenated mixture may be considered a supplied hydrocarbon feed. VERMA teach in paragraphs 32-33 and 40 that the hydrogenated mixture can be supplied to a demethanizer. (feed separation unit)
O’REAR et al. teach a process for the production of ethylene.
O’REAR et al. teach in lines 8-17 of column 2 that a paraffin stream comprising ethane can be sent to an ethane cracker to form ethylene. (ethane cracking unit to produce an olefin product)
O’REAR et al. teach in lines 10-21 of column 1 that ethylene is a commonly used feedstock that can be used to produce a variety of products.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form treat ethane separated in VERMA et al. to further form ethylene.
The methane from VERMA et al. may also be converted to ethylene.
EASTMAN et al. teach methods and devices for production of hydrocarbons from carbon and hydrogen sources.
EASTMAN et al. teach in paragraph 2 that the production of hydrocarbons from plasma energy.
EASTMAN et al. teach in paragraph 374 that one source of plasma includes dielectric discharge barrier (DBD).
EASTMAN et al. teach in paragraph 384 dielectric barrier discharge may be performed with an electrode configuration with at least one dielectric barrier (insulator).
EASTMAN et al. further teach in paragraph 394 that one method combines plasma activation with selectivity of catalytic reactions.
EASTMAN et al. teach in paragraph 395 one reaction comprises the methane converted to higher hydrocarbons with a Ptγ-Al2O3 c catalyst. The higher hydrocarbons are taught to include C2H2, C2H4, C2H6, C3H8. (dielectric barrier reaction unit to generate a saturated hydrocarbon feed and unsaturated feed)
C2H2 is acetylene.
VERMA et al. teach in paragraph 27 that acetylene can be converted to ethane and ethylene by hydrogenation. Hydrogenation is taught in paragraph 78 to be performed by one or more hydrogenators. Another hydrogenator may be considered a hydrogenation unit. (hydrogenation unit to hydrogenate a portion of the unsaturated hydrocarbon feed to produce an olefin product)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ DBD to convert methane to C2H2, C2H4, C2H6, C3H8 and then further convert acetylene to ethylene.
EASTMAN et al. teach in paragraph 395 that methane activation is very effective because methyl radicals are easily formed.
O’REAR et al. teach in lines 10-21 of column 1 that ethylene is a commonly used feedstock that can be used to produce a variety of products.
VERMA et al. recognize that methane from the demethanzier may be separated and used to produce ethylene.
VERMA et al. teach hydrogenating a first mixture and at least a portion of the first mixture can be hydrogenated in hydrogenator and at least a portion of the methane can be separated from the hydrogenated mixture.
Although VERMA et al. do not explicitly teach mixing methane from demethanizer and the methane from the hydrogenator, EASTMAN et al. teach methane converted to higher hydrocarbons with a Ptγ-Al2O3 catalyst, combining the methane from the demethanizer and the hydrogenator prior to supplying the methane to be converted would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Combining the methane and mixing in a methane buffer prior to conversion to higher hydrocarbons with a Ptγ-Al2O3 catalyst would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, EASTMAN et al. teach in paragraph 395 one reaction comprises the methane converted to higher hydrocarbons with a Ptγ-Al2O3 c catalyst. EASTMAN further teaches in paragraph 395 that methane activation is very effective because methyl radicals are easily formed.
Regarding claim 4, although EASTMAN et al. do not explicitly teach that the electrode configuration with at least one dielectric barrier (insulator) may also further include a separation unit, it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to separate the products from DBD.
The combination of VERMA et al. and O’REAR et al. and EASTMAN et al. provide multiple pathways to from ethylene.
The products from DBD comprise acetylene, ethane and ethylene.
Ethane may be separated and supplied to a cracker to further form ethylene.
Regarding claim 5, VERMA et al. teach that methane may be separated from the hydrogenated mixture. Adding a separator for separating methane as a part of the hydrogenator or classifying a separator for separating methane from a hydrogenated mixture and a hydrogenator as the hydrogenation unit would be well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Feeding methane into DBD to further form ethylene would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, EASTMAN et al. teach in paragraph 384 dielectric barrier discharge may be performed with an electrode configuration with at least one dielectric barrier (insulator).
At least one dielectric barrier (insulator) would include 2 which is a pair.
Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 9, EASTMAN et al. teach DBD can be used to convert methane into a variety of products that include ethane and ethylene. The ethane as discussed above can be sent to ethane cracking to further produce ethylene.
Regarding claim 11, VERMA et al. teach that methane may be separated from the hydrogenated mixture. EASTMAN et al. teach DBD can be used to convert methane into a variety of products that include ethane and ethylene. The methane as discussed above can be sent to DBD to further produce ethylene.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VERMA et al. (USPGPUB 20140275674A1) in view of O’REAR et al. (US 6441263) and EASTMAN et al. (USPGPUB 20080283411A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-9 and 11 above, and further in view of MCGRADY (UPGPUB 2011/0000825).
The above discussion of VERMA et al. in view of O’REAR et al. and EASTMAN et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, EASTMAN et al. teach a catalyst for DBD that comprises Pt-yAl2O3.
MCGRADY teaches a catalyst and the motivation to regenerate a catalyst.
The catalyst taught in MCGRADY is taught in paragraph 111 of MCGRADY to include Pt as effective hydrogen transfer catalysts and includes impregnation on Al2O3.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a regenerator to regenerate the catalyst used in DBD of EASTMAN et al.
Regeneration of a catalyst is taught in paragraph 110 of MCGRADY to make a process economical.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the prior art references do not teach a methane buffer for mixing methane from both the hydrogenator and the separator. Applicant argues that such a process allows for a significant advantage of excellent yield.
This is not persuasive as VERMA et al. recognize that methane from the demethanzier may be separated and used to produce ethylene.
VERMA et al. also teach hydrogenating a first mixture and at least a portion of the first mixture can be hydrogenated in a hydrogenator to form a hydrogenated mixture and at least a portion of the methane can be separated from the hydrogenated mixture.
Applicant argues that VERMA et al. do not teach recycling the methane stream back into the system because VERMA et al. teach methane-rich overhead can be further processed or used as fuel.
VERMA et al. explicitly teach that methane-rich overhead “can be further processed.”
EASTMAN e al. teach what methane can be processed into. EASTMAN et al. teach methane converted to higher hydrocarbons with a Ptγ-Al2O3 catalyst.
Combining the methane from the demethanizer and the hydrogenator prior to supplying the methane to be converted would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to recirculate methane back into the apparatus that VERMA et al. teach.
Methane is not being reentered into the apparatus that VERMA et al. individually teach. Methane is employed in the modified apparatus that is taught by VERMA et al. (USPGPUB 2014/0275674A1) in view of O’REAR et al. (US 6441263) and EASTMAN et al. (USPGPUB 2008/0283411A1).
EASTMAN et al. teach what methane can be processed to other hydrocarbons by employing DBD.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights