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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 16 is/are objected to because it contains/they contain informalities.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the following steps" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-30 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the mixture obtained" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the aromatics-enriched solvent" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the aromatics-depleted solvent" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the extraction of further aromatics from the feedstock stream" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the purified solvent that remains" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “purifying at least a substream of the aromatics-depleted solvent for removal of the impurities, wherein the substream for the purifying is subjected to a thermal separation process, in which the impurities are at least partly discharged in a top product and the purified solvent that remains is recycled into the solvent circuit,” in lines 14-17.
In the interest of clarity, this limitation should be amended to recite --purifying at least a substream of the aromatics-depleted solvent for removal of the impurities, wherein the purifying comprises subjecting the substream to 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--.
Claims 17-23 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 16.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the recovery of solvent from the top product of the thermal separation process" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the removal of water by distillation" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the bottom product of the distillation" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-21 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 17.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the water removed by distillation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 17.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the distillation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: Because the claimed process includes multiple distillation steps, “the distillation” is not sufficient to clearly identify which distillation the claim is referring to.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the distillation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: Because the claimed process includes multiple distillation steps, “the distillation” is not sufficient to clearly identify which distillation the claim is referring to.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the aromatics-enriched solvent" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the aromatics-depleted solvent" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the removal of impurities comprising compounds having a lower boiling point compared to the solvent from the substream" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the thermal removal and discharge of the impurities in a top product" in lines 17 and 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the purified solvent that remains" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 25-30 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 24.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the addition of water" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the removal of the water by distillation" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 26-30 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 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, 23-26, 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]).
With regard to claim 17: Wherein the following further steps are carried out:
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, SCC, 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]).
and 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]).
With regard to claim 25: In Wu, 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.
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.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,201,633, US 9,221,729, and US 2016/0288014 are all highly relevant to the claimed invention, and could be relied upon in alternative prior art rejections of the claims. At least US 4,201,633 and 2016/0288014 anticipate at least the independent claims.
Conclusion
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