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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 “hydrcoarbons” appears to be a typo of “hydrocarbons”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in step vii. “in collection tank” appears to be missing “in a collection tank”.
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 1-7 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.
Regarding claims 1-7, in claim 1, at the end of the paragraph “i.” there appears to be a period; however a claim may only conclude with one period, therefore this should be a comma or semi-colon.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Regarding claims 1-7, many of the limitations are written in the passive, examiner requests reciting the method steps in positive, assertive language that conforms with current U.S. practice, and will attempt to point out as many issues as possible.
Regarding claims 1-7, in claim 1, recitation “the extractive solvent” has insufficient antecedent basis.
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 1 recites the broad recitation “the pressure in the distillation column may vary from 1600 to 2600 Kpa”, and the claim also recites “distillation column operating at pressure of 1910 Kpa” which is 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.
In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “molar fraction of extractant to hydrocarbon mix to obtain the desired separation ranges from 0.1 to 0.9”, and the claim also recites “the molar fraction of propylene-propane to Acrylonitrile is 0.7” which is 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.
Regarding claims 1-7, in claim 1, the recitations regarding molar fractions are confusing because they are expressed in terms of “extractant” and “hydrocarbon” as well as “propylene-propane” and “Acrylonitrile”, however earlier the claim limits “extractant” and “hydrocarbon”, therefore they must be expressed in the terms of “propylene-propane” and “Acrylonitrile” to be consistent with the claim as a whole, because “propane, propylene, and acrylonitrile” are recited throughout the claim 1, the claim is examined as requiring these compounds.
Regarding claims 1-7, in claim 1, the recitation in ii. “at top” lack clarity as to the top of what? The claim must specify what top is being referred to.
Regarding claims 1-7, in claim 1, the recitation in iii. Of “the liquid” has insufficient antecedent basis; and “the pressure” lacks clarity as to what pressure, the claim must specify the pressure of what is being limited.
Regarding claims 1-7, in claim 1, the recitation “the first flash vessel” has insufficient antecedent basis, earlier recitation “flashing in a vessel” is suggested to be changed to “flashing in a first flash vessel” to provide antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 1-7, in claim 1, the recitation “the second flash vessel” has insufficient antecedent basis, earlier recitation “flashing in second vessel” is suggested to be changed to “flashing in a second flash vessel” to provide antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 1-7, in claim 1, the recitation in vi. Of “the hydrocarbon header” and viii. “the header” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, and must be recited consistently.
Regarding claims 1-7, in claim 1, the recitation “the contacting apparatus” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation “the reflux ratio in the extractive distillation column is substantially lower than that for conventional high -pressure distillation” uses a subject, comparative term “substantially lower” that has unclear metes and bounds of which PHOSITA cannot fairly ascertain what is “substantially lower”, nor does the specification provide amounts for determining the amount of “that for conventional high -pressure distillation”, and the range cannot be determined.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claims 2-3, the narrowing recitations of “said hydrocarbons are selected from, but not limited to alkanes and alkenes” (claim 2) and “said alkanes and alkenes are selected from, but not limited to propane and propylene” do not appear to narrow what claim 1 recites as “propylene and propane mix”, therefore these claims do not appear to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al (“New process for separating propylene and propane by extractive distillation with aqueous acetonitrile", Chemical Engineering Journal 84 (3), 15 December 2001, pp: 581-586) and McCall (US 4,419,188).
Regarding claim 1, Liao a process for extractive distillation [ED] for separating propylene from propane (title, abstract); Liao teaches performing the ED method in a system in with four columns and using aqueous acetonitrile (ACN) as a separating agent to achieve a process that requires a small number of trays, small column diameter, less energy consumption, and gives 99.3 mol % of propylene with a saving of 13.2 % load in the boiler, 79.1 % load in the condenser, and 25 % of theoretical stages compared with high-pressure distillation (see Introduction P.581-582; Conclusion, p.586); Liao teaches in the ED column (Column 1) propane and propylene are separated while operating at a pressure of 1910 Kpa (table 4), and propane can be obtained on the top of the column, in the stripping column (Column 2) the extractive solvent is recovered from the bottom and propylene with high concentration is produced at the top of the column, in the water scrubber (Column 3) trace ACN in propylene is washed down by water and the product propylene is recovered from the top, in the recovery tower (Column 4) the mixture of water and ACN is distillated for recovery of CAN (Fig 2, Table 4-5, section 3. Simulation of two processes, P582-583), the liquid and vapor loads of the columns are calculated with feed rates, overlapping substantially with claimed molar ratios (see Tables 5-9, Figs 3-4).
However Liao teaches the extraction solvent is acetonitrile, therefore does not teach the solvent is acrylonitrile, and does not teach flash vessels, but rather uses columns in downstream separations.
McCall teaches thermally coupled extractive distillation processes, the solvent can be selected as acetonitrile (title, abstract), McCall further teaches ‘(3) Propane and propylene with acrylonitrile’ was known application of extractive distillation (C1:L62-C2:L3), and various extractive distillation column configurations, including splitting distillation zones and including vapor withdrawing flash drum (see Fig 5, C18:L35-C21:L25), with modification wherein further modifications including flash drum 613 with overhead lines 623 and line 624 flashing hydrocarbons and returning (See Fig 7, C22:L36-C23:L31), the advantage being energy and apparatus efficiency (see C3:L31-51).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make routine modification to the method of Liao, in view of McCall to perform routine known extractive distillations such as Propane and propylene with acrylonitrile as taught by McCall with the expected result of extractive separation of propane and propylene, and to further modify the columns to be flash vessels was routine as taught by McCall when considering both energy and apparatus efficiency the skilled artisan would be motivated to modify Liao as needed through routine skill as taught by McCall to comprise two flash vessels which would still achieve the desired separation with improved efficiency.
Regarding claims 2-3, in modified Liao as set forth above propane and propylene are separated.
Regarding claims 4-6, in modified Liao as set forth above, Liao has substantially taught overlapping ranges with the ratios as claimed (see Tables 5-9, Figs 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, in modified Liao as set forth above Liao teaches lower energy consumption as claimed.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wayo (US 2,588,063, etc) teaches propane propene ED. Krishenbaum (US 2,901,404) teaches ED processes. Scofield (US 2,905,637) teaches ED processes. Koble (US 2,908,731) teaches ED processes. Cahn (US 3,059,037) teaches ED processes. Briggs (US 3,568,457) teaches ED processes. Yoneichi (US 3,694,322) teaches ED processes. Shenoy (US 4,556,404) teaches ED processes. Brown (US 5,085,741) teaches ED processes. .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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 (571) 272-5954. 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 MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772