Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the Supplemental Preliminary Amendment filed 1/9/2025.
Claims 1-10 and 14-18 are pending. Claims 11-13 are canceled.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitkidis (US 2019/0194091); alternatively, as evidenced by or in view of Fritz (WO2020/187571).
With respect to claims 1 and 10, Mitkidis discloses a method and system for producing ethylene using both steam cracking and oxidative dehydrogenation using common separation. Abstract; [0042]; [0066]. Using common separation, especially to add ethylene production capacity with an oxidative dehydrogenation unit to an existing steam cracking unit, is “technically advantageous, efficient and affordable”. [0042] The effluent from ODH is chemically compatible with steam cracked effluent. [0043] The effluent is subject to a number of downstream sections for removal of carbon dioxide, acetylene, and separation of component may include multiple units. [0004]
The process includes a first step of steam cracking an ethane comprising feed [0057]-[0058] or a naphtha feed [0141] in a steam cracking unit 2. In addition to valuable ethylene, the steam cracked effluent 3 may contain acetylene, unconverted ethane, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, and methane. [0002] Where the feed to the steam cracker is naphtha, the effluent is subject to an initial separation step between units 2 and 4 to remove heavy effluent to obtain a lighter fraction which continues to the disclosed treatment and separation and a heavier fraction. [0041]
A separate feed steam 28 is subjected to oxidative dehydrogenation 31 to produce a second effluent 32 and removing 33 water 34 to produce an effluent 35 comprising ethylene. [0062]-[0063]
The steam cracked effluent or lighter fraction 3 and the oxidative dehydrogenation product stream 35 are combined. Figures 1-3. The combined stream is subject to downstream removal of carbon dioxide 4 and water 8, acetylene removal 22 (i.e. oxygen removal comprises acetylene removal), and separation of components 11 15 19 24. [0080]-[0082] Each downstream unit may include multiple units. [0004] Acetylene hydrogenation [shown as unit 22] may occur downstream of de-methanizatoin 19, or upstream of de-methanization 19 after drying 8 or after separation 11 of C3+ (not shown in figure). [0086]
The effluent 10 after water removal and acetylene hydrogenation [0086] is subject to distillation 19 to remove methane, i.e. demethanization. [0081]
Mitkidis teaches that when the feed comprises naphtha, heavier components are removed prior to treating lighter with oxidative dehydrogenation C2 effluent. Mitkidis also teaches downstream deethanizaton and demethanization. Mitkidis does not explicitly state the lighter feed is separated by deethanization or depropanization. However, where the naphtha feed is subject to separation to remove heavier components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize known depropanization/ethanization to achieve the taught separation of the lighter components treating in the process and corresponding to the oxidative dehydrogenation effluent. Such would have merely applied known steps/apparatus to known process to achieve predictable results.
With respect to at least partial oxygen removal carried out during the formation of the demethnization feed stream, downstream of the combining step, and comprising acetylene removal, this is satisfied by acetylene hydrogenation. Mitkidis teaches subjecting the combined stream to acetylene hydrogenation either before separation of C3 or subjecting the C2- stream to acetylene hydrogenation before removal of methane and lighter gases (i.e. demethanization). [0130]. Acetylene hydrogenation is claimed in instant claim 1 as an oxygen removal step (claim 1 “the oxygen removal comprises an acetylene removal”). Further, in par. [0064] of the instant specification, oxygen removal is defined by reference to the oxygen removal step of WO 2020/187572, which includes a step of catalytic hydrogenation to remove oxygen and acetylene. (WO 2020/187572 translation (“the at least partial removal (4) of the oxygen and the acetylenes occurs simultaneously and via a catalytic reaction using a catalyst containing copper oxide or ruthenium, and wherein the catalytic reaction occurs at least partially in the form of a hydrogenation” ). Thus, the acetylene hydrogenation step of Mitkidis satisfies the instant claim limitation for partial oxygen removal.
Alternatively, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mitkidis by adding the hydrogenation step for oxygen and acetylene removal of WO2020/187572 in place of or in addition to the acetylene hydrogenation step of Mitkidis because both are directed to processes of producing ethylene by oxidative dehydrogenation and because WO2020/187572 teaches hydrogenation step which is beneficial for removing any remaining oxygen and converting acetylene, and such would do no more than combine such step to the known process to achieve the predictable results of removal of remaining oxygen and hydrogenation of undesired acetylene.
With respect to claim 2, the streams are combined without prior separation of gaseous hydrocarbons. Figure 1. The collective stream may be sent to carbon dioxide removal. [0082] The demethanization feed stream 18 is formed using at least a portion of a withdrawal stream taken from the carbon dioxide removal 7. Figure 1.
With respect to claims 3, 14, 15 and 16, condensate is separated from the oxidative dehydrogenation product stream in a condensation unit and optionally subject to compression prior to combining with the steam cracked effluent. [0115] The mixed effluent is subject to carbon dioxide removal, drying, and hydrocarbon fractionation is or are carried out downstream of the oxygen removal and upstream of the demethanization. [0139]; [0126]
With respect to claim 4, the demethanization 19 includes separation of methane and gases 20 from a C2 stream which is subject to ethane separation 24 to recover ethylene 25 and ethane 26. [0131] The acetylene hydrogenation may occur before the demethanization and/or after. [0139]
With respect to claim 5, an ODH catalyst used is a mixed metal oxide catalyst containing molybdenum, vanadium, niobium and optionally tellurium. [0092]
With respect to claim 6, carbon dioxide removal includes washing with a solution of sodium hydroxide or amine. [0108] Regeneration of spent solution is well known in the art. Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to regenerate the spent hydroxide or amine solution to minimize waste and fresh reagent needs.
With respect to claim 8, Mitkidis teaches removal of oxygen in view of safety consideration. [0079] Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain oxygen below the level that explosive mixture results in the downstream processing.
With respect to claim 17, the ODH catalyst may contain the metal tellurium. [0092]
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitkidis (US 20190194091) as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 14-17 above, and further in view of Fritz (WO2020187571).
With respect to claim 7, the acetylene hydrogenation unit in Mitkidis may contain a catalyst. [0054] However, Mitkidis is silent regarding the specific catalyst used.
In analogous art of ethylene production, Fritz teaches subjecting the effluent from an oxidative dehydrogenation unit to catalytic hydrogenation for the removal of oxygen and acetylene. The catalyst uses includes copper oxide or ruthenium (abstract). Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select as the acetylene hydrogenation catalyst in Mitkidis the catalyst disclosed in Fritz because both are directed to acetylene hydrogenation in ethylene containing gas streams from ODH, Mitkidis teaches catalytic hydrogenation but is silent regarding the specific catalyst and Fritz teaches acetylene and oxygen hydrogenation including the catalyst composition, thus such would allow selection of a known catalyst in an known process to achieve the intended and predictable results of acetylene and oxygen conversion.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitkidis (US 20190194091), alternatively in view of Fritz (WO2020187571), as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 14-17 above, and further in view of Kumar (US 20160237005).
With respect to claims 9 and 18, Mitkidis teaches oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane to produce ethylene which may also produce acetic acid (0096). Mitkidis is silent regarding further hydrogenation of acetic acid formed in the oxidative dehydrogenation and dehydration of ethanol formed in particular in the dehydrogenation of the acetic acid.
Kumar, directed to the design of oxidative dehydrogenation effluent treatment, teaches subjecting ethane to oxidative dehydrogenation to produce an effluent containing ethylene, water, and acetic acid. Kumar teaches a known problem with oxidative dehydrogenation is that a great amount of acetic acid may be produced, resulting in less ethylene production. [0003] Kumar teaches separating the acetic acid and water from the ethylene rich stream, hydrogenation of acetic acid to produce ethanol, and dehydration of ethanol to produce additional ethylene, the desired product. Abstract; Figure 1; [0006]-[0012].
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mitkidis by subjecting the acetic acid biproduct to hydrogenation and ethanol hydration as taught in Kumar for the benefit of producing additional ethylene product. It would have been obvious to combine the acetic acid hydrogenation and ethanol hydration given all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have added the acetic acid treatment steps to the existing process by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; see MPEP § 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 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 at (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 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights