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 has amended claims 16, 18-21, 24, and 26-30 and canceled claims 17 and 25. Claims 16, 18-25, and 26-30 are pending.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new prior art rejections over the prior art previously relied upon. Note: Said rejections are only “new” in that the rejections of claims 16 and 24 now incorporate rejections previously applied to canceled claims 17 and 25. See 102 and 103 rejections below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s comments, see Remarks, filed 4/6/2025, with respect to claims 21, 29, and 30 containing allowable subject matter are acknowledged.
Examiner agrees that said claims contain allowable subject matter. However, the fact that said claims are dependent upon rejected claims necessitates objections to claims 21, 29, and 30.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/6/2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record. Therefore, the claim objections of record have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/6/2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/6/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Wu does not teach or suggest the thermal separation process as presently recited in independent claim 16. More specifically, Applicant has argued that the process carried out in the solvent clean-up column (SCC) of Wu is not a thermal separation process, but instead an extraction process. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Examiner agrees that the process carried out in the SCC is an extraction process. However, Examiner disagrees with the notion that an extraction process does not amount to a thermal separation process as claimed.
As is well established, a claim limitation must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (MPEP 2111). Claim 16 merely recites a “a thermal separation process, in which the impurities are at least partly discharged in a top product and purified solvent is recycled into the solvent circuit”. Claim 16 does nothing to further limit the scope of the thermal separation process. There is no special definition of the term “thermal separation process” in Applicant’s specification. Indeed, Applicant’s specification does not appear to contain any specific examples of thermal separation processes (though mere examples recited in the specification would not limit the claims in any case). Thus, the scope of the thermal separation process as claimed is broad. Said thermal separation process can be reasonably satisfied by any separation process which involves heat (including removal of heat) in some capacity.
The SCC of Wu carries out a separation process (extraction) in which the impurities are at least partly discharged in a top product 68 and purified solvent that remains 67 is recycled into the solvent circuit (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]). Said separation process involves cooling the feed stream thereto 65 in a cooler C1 (paragraph [0050]). Furthermore, said separation process is taught to have a preferred temperature range, i.e. 25-80 °C (paragraph [0050]). Therefore, it is understood that the separation process carried out in the SCC is a process which involves heat in at least some capacity. Accordingly, said process can be fairly considered to be a “thermal separation process”.
Applicant has argued that Wu fails to teach or suggest removing compounds having a lower boiling point compared to the solvent as impurities discharged in a top product of the thermal separation process, as is required by claim 16. To support this position, Applicant further argues that Wu’s SCC allegedly serves the opposite purpose in that, “a portion of the raffinate collected from the overhead of the EDC is introduced into the lower portion the SCC, to contact the lean solvent phase counter- currently as the displacement agent to squeeze out the heavy hydrocarbons and polymeric materials from the solvent phase,” (Wu, para. [0049]). Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Examiner agrees that Wu teaches using the SCC to remove heavy hydrocarbons and polymers from the solvent. However, Wu also makes it clear that said heavy impurities include heavy materials that have boiling points below the solvent's boiling point (paragraph [0049], especially first sentence thereof). Accordingly, Examiner maintains that Wu does teach removing compounds having a lower boiling point compared to the solvent as impurities discharged in a top product of the thermal separation process, i.e. the SCC.
Applicant has argued that independent claim 24 is allowable for the same alleged reasons as independent claim 1. This argument is unpersuasive for substantially the same reasons discussed above in response to Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 16.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment and made over the prior art previously relied upon. Note: Said rejections are only “new” in that the rejections of claims 16 and 24 now incorporate rejections previously applied to canceled claims 17 and 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16, 18, 23, 24, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 2012/0037542), hereafter referred to as Wu.
With regard to claims 16 and 23: Wu teaches a process for separating a hydrocarbon-containing feedstock stream 41 by extractive distillation into at least one aliphatics (non-aromatic) product stream 42 and one aromatics product stream 50 (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]), the process comprising steps of:
Contacting, in extractive distillation column EDC, the feedstock stream 41 with a water-soluble solvent, e.g. N-formylmorpholine, for aromatics in countercurrent (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
Distillatively removing, in in extractive distillation column EDC, an aliphatics fraction from the mixture obtained to leave behind an aromatics-enriched solvent 46 and discharging the aliphatics fraction in the aliphatics product stream 42 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
Stripping, in distillation column (solvent recovery column) SRC, the aromatics from the aromatics-enriched solvent 46 and discharging the aromatics in the aromatics product stream 50 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
Recycling an aromatics-depleted solvent (lean solvent) in a solvent circuit 55, 57, 59 and 71 for the extraction of further aromatics from the feedstock stream, with compounds having a lower boiling point compared to the solvent accumulating in the solvent circuit as impurities (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
Purifying at least a substream 64 of the aromatics-depleted solvent for removal of the impurities, wherein the substream 64 is subjected to a thermal separation process in solvent clean-up column SCC, in which the impurities are at least partly discharged in a top product 68 and purified solvent that remains 67 is recycled into the solvent circuit (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
Adding, in water washing column WWC, water to the top product 68 of the thermal separation process to form an aqueous solvent-containing phase and a hydrophobic phase (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
Separating, in water washing column WWC, the aqueous phase from the hydrophobic phase (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
Distilling, in SRG and/or SRC, the aqueous phase for the removal of water by distillation, with the bottom product of the distillation being recycled into the solvent circuit (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
With regard to claim 18: Water removed by distillation in SRC is recycled in a water circuit 54 and added again, in WWC, to the top product 68 of the thermal separation process (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
With regard to claim 24: Wu teaches an apparatus for separating a hydrocarbon-containing feedstock stream 41 by extractive distillation into at least one aliphatics product stream 42 and one aromatics product stream 50 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]), the apparatus comprising:
A device, i.e. extractive distillation column EDC, for contacting in countercurrent the feedstock stream with a water-soluble solvent for aromatics (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
A device, i.e. the extractive distillation column EDC, for distillatively removing an aliphatics fraction from a mixture obtained to leave behind an aromatics-enriched solvent, with a discharge for the aliphatics fraction as aliphatics product stream (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
A device, i.e. solvent recovery column SRC, for stripping the aromatics from the aromatics-enriched solvent with a discharge for the aromatics as aromatics product stream (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
A recycle line/solvent circuit 55, 57, 59 and 71 for the aromatics-depleted solvent to the device EDC for contacting in countercurrent the feedstock stream with solvent (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
A purification device for the solvent, solvent clean-up column SCC, which is arranged in the solvent circuit and through which at least temporarily at least a substream of the aromatics-depleted solvent passes during operation, for the removal of impurities comprising compounds having a lower boiling point compared to the solvent from the substream, wherein the purification device comprises a thermal separation apparatus, i.e. the solvent clean-up column SCC, with a discharge for the thermal removal and discharge of the impurities in a top product, and the purification device includes a recycle line 67 for the purified solvent that remains into the solvent circuit (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
And wherein the discharge for the top product of the thermal separation apparatus SCC is connected to a solvent recovery device in which at least one mixing apparatus, i.e. water washing column WWC, for the addition of water to form an aqueous phase and a hydrophobic phase and at least one separating apparatus, i.e. the water washing column WWC, for separating the aqueous phase from the hydrophobic phase are arranged, wherein the solvent recovery device includes a discharge, i.e. line 69, for the aqueous phase which is connected to a distillation column, i.e. the solvent recovery column SRC, for the removal of the water by distillation and the distillation column SRC includes a discharge for a bottom product of the distillation column, via which the bottom product is recyclable into the solvent circuit 55, 57, 59 and 71 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
With regard to claim 26: The distillation column SRC includes a top discharge for the water removed by distillation, which is connected to the mixing apparatus WWC for the addition of water to form a water circuit (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
With regard to claim 28: The distillation column SCR is connected to a vacuum generation device (“vacuum source”) via overhead receiver D2 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]). Said vacuum generation device, being a “vacuum source” is necessarily capable of generating a negative pressure of less than 200 mbar in a top region of the distillation column SCR.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment and made over the prior art previously relied upon. Note: Said rejections are only “new” in that the rejections of claims 16 and 24 now incorporate rejections previously applied to canceled claims 17 and 25.
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) 19, 20, 22, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu.
With regard to claim 19: Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 as described in the 102 rejections above.
The substream is cooled in a heat exchanger C1 prior to carrying out the thermal separation process (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
The distillation process in SRC is heated using a reboiler R2 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
Wu is silent to the reboiler R2 using heat energy from the heat exchanger C1.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would well understand that it is advantageous to integrate process heaters and process coolers where possible, as doing so reduces or eliminates the need for externally supplied heating and cooling, thereby increasing the efficiency of the process. It is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to integrate process heaters and coolers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu by integrating the heat exchanger C1 and the reboiler R2, such that the reboiler uses heat energy from the heat exchanger, in order to increase the efficiency of the process. Integration of other heaters and coolers in the process of Wu would also be obvious for the same reason.
With regard to claim 20: Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Wu is silent to a distillation being carried out at a top pressure of less than 100 mbar.
However, it is notoriously well-known that pressure, including top pressure is a result effective variable in distillation. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu by optimizing a top pressure of a distillation, such that said top pressure is less than 100 mbar, in order to obtain a predictably functional process.
With regard to claim 22: Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Wu is silent to the solvent in the solvent circuit having a water content of less than 1000 ppm.
However, it would be evident to one of ordinary skill in the art that the purity of the solvent in the solvent circuit, and thus the water content thereof, is a result effective variable in Wu. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu by optimizing the water content of the solvent in the solvent circuit, such that said water content is less than 1000 ppm, in order to obtain a method wherein the water content in the solvent circuit has a desirably high purity.
With regard to claim 27: Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 25 as described in the 102 rejections above.
The substream is cooled in a heat exchanger C1 prior to carrying out the thermal separation process (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
The distillation process in SRC is heated using a reboiler R2 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0045]-[0050]).
Wu is silent to the reboiler R2 using heat energy from the heat exchanger C1.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would well understand that it is advantageous to integrate process heaters and process coolers where possible, as doing so reduces or eliminates the need for externally supplied heating and cooling, thereby increasing the efficiency of the process. It is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to integrate process heaters and coolers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu by integrating the heat exchanger C1 and the reboiler R2, such that the reboiler uses heat energy from the heat exchanger, in order to increase the efficiency of the process. Integration of other heaters and coolers in the process of Wu would also be obvious for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 29, and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Wu et al. (US 2012/0037542) as applied to claims 16 and 24 above.
Wu does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations of claims 21, 29, and 30. There is insufficient teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Wu so as to arrive at the limitations of claims 21, 29, and 30. Therefore, said claims are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
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 JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights