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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are discussed in detail below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “first plant part” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “plant part” coupled with functional language “reacting ethylene with chlorine to 1,2-dichloroethane” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 15-18 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claims 19 and 20 implicitly limit the “first plant part” to a system comprising a reactor. Said reactor amounts to sufficient structure to achieve the claimed function. Claims 21 and 22 are dependents of claims 20. Therefore, the “first plant part” is not interpreted under 112(f) in the context of claims 19-22.
Claim 24 expressly limits the “first plant part” to a system comprising a reactor. Said reactor amounts to sufficient structure to achieve the claimed function. Claims 25-27 are dependents of claims 20. Therefore, the “first plant part” is not interpreted under 112(f) in the context of claims 24-27.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “In yet a further aspect, the present invention relates to an integrated plant for production of 1,2- dichloroethane and for water desalination, wherein the integrated plant comprises a first plant part with a reactor for reaction of chlorine with ethylene to 1,2-dichloroethane, a second plant part for water desalination, and an apparatus for transfer of heat energy between the two plant parts.” (Page 7 Line 27-Page 8 Line 1 of the specification as filed 8/30/2024).
Accordingly, the claimed “first plant part” has been interpreted as a system comprising a reactor, as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “second plant part” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “plant part” coupled with functional language “performing a water desalination” and “wherein the water desalination is performed as multistage flash evaporation or as multieffect distillation” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 15-27 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification has failed to uncover any explicit disclosure of the corresponding structure for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. However, the specification implicitly discloses a multistage flash evaporation system and/or a multi-effect distillation system as the second plant part by disclosing that the water desalination may be “a multistage flash evaporation (MFS) or a multieffect distillation (MED)” (page 5 of the specification as filed 8/30/2024)/
Note: While the specification and claims recite multistage flash evaporation multi-effect distillation as different processes, it is that mutli-effect distillation often takes the form of multistage flash evaporation.
Accordingly, the claimed “second plant part” has been interpreted as a multistage flash evaporation (MFS) system and/or a multieffect distillation (MED), as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “third plant part” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “plant part” coupled with functional language “in which a chloralkali process is performed and where desalinated water gen- erated in the second plant part is utilized at least fractionally for the chloralkali process” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 18 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification has failed to reveal any corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Accordingly, the claimed “third plant part” has been rejected under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
Claim limitation “transfer apparatus” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “apparatus” coupled with functional language “heat is transferred from the 1,2-dichloroethane by the water by means of” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 23 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “The thermal energy/heat from the 1,2-dichloroethane reaction can be routed directly into the water desalination, by bringing the hot product from the reaction into thermal contact with water to be desalinated, in a heat exchanger (heat transfer without heat transfer medium), or a heat transfer medium can be used, which absorbs the heat energy from the reaction products from 1,2-dichloroethane production (e.g., in a first heat exchanger) and from which the heat energy subsequently transfers to the water to be desalinated (e.g., in a second heat exchanger, which is usually a constituent of the plant part for water desalination),” (page 7 of the specification as filed 8/30/2024.
Accordingly, the claimed “transfer apparatus” has been interpreted as a heat exchanger as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “apparatus for transfer of heat energy” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “apparatus” coupled with functional language “transfer of heat energy” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 24-27 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “The thermal energy/heat from the 1,2-dichloroethane reaction can be routed directly into the water desalination, by bringing the hot product from the reaction into thermal contact with water to be desalinated, in a heat exchanger (heat transfer without heat transfer medium), or a heat transfer medium can be used, which absorbs the heat energy from the reaction products from 1,2-dichloroethane production (e.g., in a first heat exchanger) and from which the heat energy subsequently transfers to the water to be desalinated (e.g., in a second heat exchanger, which is usually a constituent of the plant part for water desalination),” (page 7 of the specification as filed 8/30/2024.
Accordingly, the claimed “apparatus for transfer of heat energy” has been interpreted as a heat exchanger as well as equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “plant part for a chloralkali process” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “plant part” coupled with functional language “for a chloralkali process” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 25 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification has failed to reveal any corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Accordingly, the claimed “plant part for a chloralkali process” has been rejected under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
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 15-23 and 25 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 15 recites the limitation "the heat produced in the reaction of ethylene with chlorine" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the water for cooling of the 1,2-dichloroethane" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “wherein water is utilized as a heat transfer medium for transfer of the heat from the first to the second plant part, wherein the water for cooling of the 1,2-dichloroethane is heated to not more than 95°C.”
It is unclear if the water used as the heat transfer medium is the same as the water for cooling of the 1,2-dichloroethane.
Claims 16-22 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 15.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the water produced in the reaction of ethylene with chlorine" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “a third plant part, in which a chloralkali process is performed and where desalinated water generated in the second plant part is utilized at least fractionally for the chloralkali process.”
Claim limitation “third plant part” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See 112(f) interpretations above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the heat of a 1,2-dichloroethane stream utilized for reaction of ethylene with chlorine…" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites “a heat transfer medium” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same heat transfer medium recited in claim 15.
Claim 22 recites “a heat transfer medium” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same heat transfer medium recited in claim 15.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the heat produced in the reaction of ethylene with chlorine" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the water for cooling of the 1,2-dichloroethane" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites “wherein water is utilized as heat transfer medium for transfer of the heat from the 1,2- dichloroethane to the water, wherein the water for cooling of the 1,2-dichloroethane is heated to not more than 95°C.”
It is unclear if the water used as the heat transfer medium is the same as the water for cooling of the 1,2-dichloroethane.
Claim 25 recites “a plant part for a chloralkali process.”
Claim limitation “plant part for a chloralkali process” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See 112(f) interpretations above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 15, 16, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz et al. (US 3,941,568), hereafter referred to as Kurtz, in combination with Wulfson (US 3,344,041).
With regard to claim 15: Kurtz teaches a method for generating 1,2-dichloroethane from ethylene and chlorine (abstract, Figure 1, Column 2 Lines 39-53, columns 5-7), the method comprising:
Reacting ethylene with chlorine to form 1,2-dichloroethane in a first plant part comprising reactor 1 (Figure 1, columns 5-7).
Wherein heat produced in the reaction of ethylene with chlorine is extracted from dichloroethane in the reactor 1 using a heat exchanger 3 (Figure 1, columns 5-7).
And wherein water is utilized as a heat transfer medium in the heat exchanger 3 for extracting the heat from the first plant part (Figure 1, columns 5-7, especially Column 5 Line 52-Column 6 Line 16).
Kurtz does not explicitly teach that the water heat transfer medium is heated to not more than 95 °C when cooling the 1,2-dichloroethane. However, Kurtz does teach that the cooling water cools the dichloroethane as it circulates through the heat exchanger 3 which cools the reaction medium circulated from reactor 1 (Figure 1, columns 5-7, especially Column 5 Line 52-Column 6 Line 16). Kurtz also teaches that the temperature at which the reaction is conducted will be the boiling point of the circulating reaction medium, which ranges from 83.3 °C to higher temperatures, with reaction temperatures of 83-90 °C being “typical” and preferable (Column 2 Lines 4-20, Column 4 lines 39-50). It is understood that the reaction temperature is the same as, or at least no higher than, the temperature of the reaction medium. Thus, it is further understood that when the reaction temperature in the reactor is within the typical and preferred temperature range of 83-90°C, the reaction medium will have a temperature of 83-90 °C (at most) as it enters the heat exchanger 3. It is understood heat exchange between a hotter fluid and a colder fluid cannot heat the colder fluid to a temperature that is any higher than the initial temperature of the hotter fluid. Accordingly, when the temperature of the reaction medium entering the heat exchanger 3 is 83-90 °C, as is typical and preferred in Kurtz, the cooling water heat transfer medium which cools said heat exchanger will be heated to a temperature not more than 90 °C.
In view of the forgoing, Kurtz implicitly discloses heating the cooling water heat transfer medium to a temperature not higher than 90 °C when cooling the 1,2-dichloroethane in heat exchanger 3. In the unlikely alternative, heating said cooling water heat transfer medium to a temperature not more than 90 °C would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the reasoning articulated above.
Kurtz is silent to desalinating water in a second plant part, wherein the second plant part is a multistage flash evaporation system and/or a multi-effect distillation system, and wherein the water heat transfer medium is used to heat water in second plant part with the heat extracted from the dichloroethane.
However, it is well-known in the art to heat water in multistage flash evaporation systems and/or a multi-effect distillation systems using waste heat from other processes. For example, Wulfson teaches a multistage flash distillation system for desalinating water (Figure 1, Column 1 Lines 10-30, Column 2 Line 3-Column 3 Line 35). While Wulfson does not make use of the term “muti-effect distillation”, it is nevertheless understood that the multistage flash distillation system of Wulfson is a multiple effect evaporation system, i.e. based on the fact that the operating pressure decreases with each subsequent stage (Column Lines 3-18, Column 3 Lines 10-25).
Wulfson teaches heating water, i.e. the sea water in component stream 11, using a heat exchanger 20, wherein the heat exchanger 20 is heated with, and in turn cools, a stream of cooling water 21, which may be used in the cooling of a separate installation (Figure 1, Column 2 Lines 24-52, especially Lines 35-39 and 44-46). From this teaching, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the heat transfer medium (cooling water) from Kurtz’s system (i.e. from the heat exchanger 3 thereof) could be advantageously cooled by system of Wulfson, i.e. so as to be suitable for reuse in cooling the heat exchanger 3 of Kurtz, while also supplying heat to the system of Wulfson (i.e. to the heat exchanger 20 thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the methods of Kurtz and Wulfson into a single method for the coproduction of dichloroethane and desalinated water, wherein the system of Wulfson serves as a second plant part that is a multistage flash evaporation system and/or a multi-effect distillation system, and wherein the water heat transfer medium, i.e. the cooling water from the heat exchanger 3 of Kurtz, is used to heat water in the heat exchanger 20 of Wulfson with the heat extracted from the dichloroethane.
With regard to claim 16: In combined Kurtz and Wulfson, the water to be desalinated is sea water (Wulfson: Column 2 Line 3-Column 3 Line 35).
With regard to claim 19: The reaction of ethylene and chlorine to 1,2-dichloroethane is performed in a loop reactor, i.e. a reactor 1 wherein the reaction medium is circulated in a loop to heat exchanger 3 (Kurtz: Figure 1, columns 5-7, especially Column 5 Line 52-Column 6 Line 16).
With regard to claim 20: In combined Kurtz and Wulfson, The heat of a 1,2-dichloroethane stream utilized for reaction of ethylene with chorine is utilized for heating of water in the desalination. See rejection of claim 15 above for details.
With regard to claim 21: In combined Kurtz and Wulfson, at least part of the 1,2-dichloroethane is cooled by heat transfer to the cooling water heat transfer medium in heat exchanger 3 (Kurtz: Figure 1, columns 5-7, especially Column 5 Line 52-Column 6 Line 16).
Kurtz does note explicitly teach that said at least part of the 1,2-dichloroethane is cooled to a temperature of 40-90 °C.
However, it would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the degree of cooling will impact the temperature in the reactor. As discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above, Kurtz indicates that it is desirable to maintain the temperature in the reactor within a particular range (Column 2 Lines 4-20, Column 4 lines 39-50). Furthermore, Kurtz indicates that the degree to which the heat exchanger cools the reaction medium (and thus the dichloroethane therein) will influence other process variables, e.g. reflux ratio (Column 6 Line 60-Column 7 Line 5). Thus, Kurtz’s disclosure indicates that the degree of cooling carried out in heat exchanger 3, and implicitly the temperature to which the reaction medium is cooled by the heat exchanger, are result effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modified combined Kurtz and Wulfson by optimizing the temperature to which cooling water heat transfer medium cools the 1,2-dichloroethane within the heat exchanger 3, i.e. such that said 1,2-dichloroethane is cooled to a temperature of 40-90 °C, in order to obtain a predictably functional process wherein the heat exchanger 3 maintains a desired temperature within the reactor 1.
With regard to claim 22: In combined Kurtz and Wulfson, at least part of the 1,2-dichloroethane is cooled by heat transfer to the cooling water heat transfer medium in heat exchanger 3 (Kurtz: Figure 1, columns 5-7, especially Column 5 Line 52-Column 6 Line 16).
Kurtz does note explicitly teach that said at least part of the 1,2-dichloroethane is cooled to a temperature of 40-90 °C.
However, it would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the degree of cooling will impact the temperature in the reactor. As discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above, Kurtz indicates that it is desirable to maintain the temperature in the reactor within a particular range (Column 2 Lines 4-20, Column 4 lines 39-50). Furthermore, Kurtz indicates that the degree to which the heat exchanger cools the reaction medium (and thus the dichloroethane therein) will influence other process variables, e.g. reflux ratio (Column 6 Line 60-Column 7 Line 5). Thus, Kurtz’s disclosure indicates that the degree of cooling carried out in heat exchanger 3, and implicitly the temperature to which the reaction medium is cooled by the heat exchanger, are result effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modified combined Kurtz and Wulfson by optimizing the temperature to which cooling water heat transfer medium cools the 1,2-dichloroethane within the heat exchanger 3, i.e. such that said 1,2-dichloroethane is cooled to a temperature of 40-90 °C, in order to obtain a predictably functional process wherein the heat exchanger 3 maintains a desired temperature within the reactor 1.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz in combination with Wulfson as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Rahimi et al. (US 10,457,568), hereafter referred to as Rahimi.
With regard to claim 17: In combined Kurtz and Wulfson, hot water, i.e. the cooling water from heat exchanger 3 in Kurtz, which is produced, i.e. heated by, the reaction of ethylene and chlorine in reactor 1, is utilized for heating the multi-effect distillation water desalination of Wulfson, i.e. via the heat exchanger 20 of Wulfson (see rejection of claim 15 above for details).
Wulfson is silent to the water desalination being boosted multi-effect distillation or flash-boosted muti-effect distillation.
However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above, it is understood that the multistage flash distillation system of Wulfson is a multiple effect evaporation system.
Rahimi teaches both boosted and flash boosted multi-effect desalination system and the use thereof for desalinating water (abstract, Figures 2, 3, and 3a, Column 3 Lines 30-36). Rahimi unambiguously identifies boosted multi-effect distillation systems as an improvement over traditional MED systems when a low grade heat source is used for heating (Column 1 Lines 57-67, Figure 8, Table 2), and that flash boosted MED systems are an improvement over both conventional and boosted MED systems (Column 9 Lines 45-58, Figure 8, Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the multi-effect distillation system of Wulfson in view of Rahimi by reconfiguring the multi-effect distillation system of Wulfson as a boosted MED system or a flash boosted MED system in order to obtain improved desalination performance.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz in combination with Wulfson as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Benje et al. (US 2014/0158518), hereafter referred to as Benje.
With regard to claim 18: Combined Kurtz and Wulfson are silent to a third plant part, in which a chloralkali process is performed and where desalinated water generated in the second plant part is utilized at least fractionally for the chloralkali process.
However, the use of chloralkali process to form chlorine for the production of dichloroethane is known in the art. For example, Benje teaches using a plant part (chloralkali electrolysis plant) for forming chlorine for the manufacture of chlorine for the production of dichloroethane (abstract, paragraphs [0003]-[0004]). Said chloralkali process requires an aqueous alkali solution (abstract, paragraph [0003]), and thus, is understood to consume water. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, by providing desalinated water from an onsite desalination system to form the required aqueous alkali solution, the need for an external water supply can be reduced or eliminated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify combined Kurtz and Wulfson in view of Benje by:
1) adding a third plant part in which a chloralkali process is performed for forming the chlorine required for the production dichloroethane; and
2) supplying at least a portion of the desalinated water produced in the second plant part to form the aqueous alkali solution required for the chloralkali process, thereby reducing the need for an external water supply.
Claim(s) 23, 24, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz in combination with Wulfson and further in view of Rahimi.
With regard to claim 23: Kurtz teaches a method for generating 1,2-dichloroethane from ethylene and chlorine (abstract, Figure 1, Column 2 Lines 39-53, columns 5-7), the method comprising:
Reacting ethylene with chlorine to form 1,2-dichloroethane in a first plant part comprising reactor 1 (Figure 1, columns 5-7).
Wherein heat produced in the reaction of ethylene with chlorine is extracted from dichloroethane in the reactor 1 using a heat exchanger 3 (Figure 1, columns 5-7).
And wherein water is utilized as a heat transfer medium in the heat exchanger 3 for extracting the heat from the first plant part (Figure 1, columns 5-7, especially Column 5 Line 52-Column 6 Line 16).
Kurtz does not explicitly teach that the water heat transfer medium is heated to not more than 95 °C when cooling the 1,2-dichloroethane. However, Kurtz does teach that the cooling water cools the dichloroethane as it circulates through the heat exchanger 3 which cools the reaction medium circulated from reactor 1 (Figure 1, columns 5-7, especially Column 5 Line 52-Column 6 Line 16). Kurtz also teaches that the temperature at which the reaction is conducted will be the boiling point of the circulating reaction medium, which ranges from 83.3 °C to higher temperatures, with reaction temperatures of 83-90 °C being “typical” and preferable (Column 2 Lines 4-20, Column 4 lines 39-50). It is understood that the reaction temperature is the same as, or at least no higher than, the temperature of the reaction medium. Thus, it is further understood that when the reaction temperature in the reactor is within the typical and preferred temperature range of 83-90°C, the reaction medium will have a temperature of 83-90 °C (at most) as it enters the heat exchanger 3. It is understood heat exchange between a hotter fluid and a colder fluid cannot heat the colder fluid to a temperature that is any higher than the initial temperature of the hotter fluid. Accordingly, when the temperature of the reaction medium entering the heat exchanger 3 is 83-90 °C, as is typical and preferred in Kurtz, the cooling water heat transfer medium which cools said heat exchanger will be heated to a temperature not more than 90 °C.
In view of the forgoing, Kurtz implicitly discloses heating the cooling water heat transfer medium to a temperature not higher than 90 °C when cooling the 1,2-dichloroethane in heat exchanger 3. In the unlikely alternative, heating said cooling water heat transfer medium to a temperature not more than 90 °C would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the reasoning articulated above.
Kurtz is silent to desalinating water in a second plant part, wherein the second plant part is a multistage flash evaporation system and/or a multi-effect distillation system, and wherein the water heat transfer medium is used to heat water in second plant part with the heat extracted from the dichloroethane.
However, it is well-known in the art to heat water in multistage flash evaporation systems and/or a multi-effect distillation systems using waste heat from other processes. For example, Wulfson teaches a multistage flash distillation system for desalinating water (Figure 1, Column 1 Lines 10-30, Column 2 Line 3-Column 3 Line 35). While Wulfson does not make use of the term “muti-effect distillation”, it is nevertheless understood that the multistage flash distillation system of Wulfson is a multiple effect evaporation system, i.e. based on the fact that the operating pressure decreases with each subsequent stage (Column Lines 3-18, Column 3 Lines 10-25).
Wulfson teaches heating water, i.e. the sea water in component stream 11, using a heat exchanger 20, wherein the heat exchanger 20 is heated with, and in turn cools, a stream of cooling water 21, which may be used in the cooling of a separate installation (Figure 1, Column 2 Lines 24-52, especially Lines 35-39 and 44-46). From this teaching, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the heat transfer medium (cooling water) from Kurtz’s system (i.e. from the heat exchanger 3 thereof) could be advantageously cooled by system of Wulfson, i.e. so as to be suitable for reuse in cooling the heat exchanger 3 of Kurtz, while also supplying heat to the system of Wulfson (i.e. to the heat exchanger 20 thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the methods of Kurtz and Wulfson into a single method for the coproduction of dichloroethane and desalinated water, wherein the system of Wulfson serves as a second plant part that is a multistage flash evaporation system and/or a multi-effect distillation system, and wherein the water heat transfer medium, i.e. the cooling water from the heat exchanger 3 of Kurtz, is used to heat water in the heat exchanger 20 of Wulfson with the heat extracted from the dichloroethane.
In combined Kurtz and Wulfson, hot water, i.e. the cooling water from heat exchanger 3 in Kurtz, which is produced, i.e. heated by, the reaction of ethylene and chlorine in reactor 1, is utilized for heating the multi-effect distillation water desalination of Wulfson, i.e. via the heat exchanger 20 of Wulfson (see rejection of claim 15 above for details).
Wulfson is silent to the water desalination being boosted multi-effect distillation or flash-boosted muti-effect distillation.
However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above, it is understood that the multistage flash distillation system of Wulfson is a multiple effect evaporation system.
Rahimi teaches both boosted and flash boosted multi-effect desalination system and the use thereof for desalinating water (abstract, Figures 2, 3, and 3a, Column 3 Lines 30-36). Rahimi unambiguously identifies boosted multi-effect distillation systems as an improvement over traditional MED systems when a low grade heat source is used for heating (Column 1 Lines 57-67, Figure 8, Table 2), and that flash boosted MED systems are an improvement over both conventional and boosted MED systems (Column 9 Lines 45-58, Figure 8, Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the multi-effect distillation system of Wulfson in view of Rahimi by reconfiguring the multi-effect distillation system of Wulfson as a boosted MED system or a flash boosted MED system in order to obtain improved desalination performance.
With regard to claims 24 and 26: The method of combined Kurtz and Wulfson, modified in view of Rahimi, as described in the 103 rejection of claim 23 above makes use of an apparatus satisfying the limitations of claims 24 and 26. See 103 rejection of claim 23 above for details.
With regard to claim 27: The reactor 1 is a loop reactor, i.e. a reactor wherein the reaction medium is circulated in a loop to heat exchanger 3 (Kurtz: Figure 1, columns 5-7, especially Column 5 Line 52-Column 6 Line 16).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz in combination with Wulfson as applied to claims 23 and 24 above, and further in view of Benje.
With regard to claim 25: Combined Kurtz and Wulfson are silent to a plant part for a chloralkali process, and wherein the plant part for water desalination is fluidly connected to the plant part for the chloralkali process, to allow desalinated water from the water desalination to be supplied to the chloralkali process.
However, the use of chloralkali process to form chlorine for the production of dichloroethane is known in the art. For example, Benje teaches using a plant part (chloralkali electrolysis plant) for forming chlorine for the manufacture of chlorine for the production of dichloroethane (abstract, paragraphs [0003]-[0004]). Said chloralkali process requires an aqueous alkali solution (abstract, paragraph [0003]), and thus, is understood to consume water. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, by providing desalinated water from an onsite desalination system to form the required aqueous alkali solution, the need for an external water supply can be reduced or eliminated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify combined Kurtz and Wulfson in view of Benje by:
1) adding a third plant part in which a chloralkali process is performed for forming the chlorine required for the production dichloroethane; and
2) fluidly connected to the plant part for the chloralkali process, to allow desalinated water from the water desalination to be supplied to the chloralkali process, so as to supply at least a portion of the desalinated water produced in the second plant part to form the aqueous alkali solution required for the chloralkali process, thereby reducing the need for an external water supply.
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
Prosecution Insights