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 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 (lines 1-2): “the steam cracker quench oil” should be “the pyrolysis quench oil” to make the claim consistent with claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by Singh et al (WO 2021/016306 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20-22, 24, 25,29, 31 Singh et al disclose in Fig. 1 and 2 a process and a primary fractionator130 for fractionating a pyrolysis effluent 112 coming from a pyrolysis furnace 105 and taken into a flash zone 117, also called a tar knockout drum (Paragraph 0027), separating the pyrolysis tar 118 and a first vapor phase fraction 119. Singh et al also disclose, “The primary fractionator can include the flash zone section located toward a bottom of the primary fractionator, a bottom pump-around section located above the flash zone, a mid-fractionation section located above the bottom pump-around section, a top pump-around section located above the mid-fractionation section, and a top-fractionation section located above the top pump-around section. One or more first trays can be disposed within the bottom pump-around section, one or more second trays can be disposed within the mid-fractionation section, one or more third trays can be disposed within the top pump-around section, and one or more fourth trays can be disposed in the top-fractionation section. A steam cracker quench oil can be separated from the flash zone section. A steam cracker gas oil can be separated from the mid-fractionation section. An overhead product that can include steam cracker naphtha and a process gas that can include ethylene can be separated from the top-fractionation section”. (Paragraph 0009).
Singh et al disclose, “In some examples, the second cooled steam cracker quench oil via line 166, the cooled steam cracker gas oil via line 171, and the cooled steam cracker naphtha via line 185 can be introduced into the bottom pump-around section 210, the top pump-around section 220, and the top fractionation section 225 of the primary fractionator 130 above the upper most internal structure 211, 221, and 226, respectively, disposed therein”. (Paragraph 0046).
Singh et al also disclose indirectly transferring heat from pyrolysis quench oil 113 to heat the heat transfer medium 122 in a heat exchanger125 (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0025, 0028).
With respect to claims 3, 4 and 15, Singh et al disclose heat transfer medium comprising water, steam or a mixture thereof and heated heat transfer medium comprising a low-pressure steam at <827 kPa or medium pressure steam at 827 to 1720 kPa (Paragraph 0009, 0028; Claim 2).
With respect to claim 5, Singh et al disclose the viscosity of steam cracker quench oil in line 141 to be about 250 cP at about 60oC (Paragraph 0031). Thus, the viscosity of quench oil in line 166 (Paragraph 0046) should inherently be in the claimed range.
With respect to claim 6, Singh et al disclose that the quench fluid to steam cracker effluent weight ratio is typically in the range of 0.1:1 to about 10:1 (Paragraph 0025), and Tar is 6.8 wt % of the furnace effluent (Paragraph 0056, Table 1). Thus, the ratio of quench oil to pyrolysis tar can be calculated.
With respect to claims 7-9, Singh et al do not appear to specifically disclose coke content in the pyrolysis quench oil and flash zone and insoluble polymer formation when heat-soaked, it should inherently have similar coke amounts and polymer formation because Singh et al and the claimed invention are drawn to similar system, feed, operating conditions and product distribution.
With respect to claims 10, 11, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30 Singh et al disclose, “Illustrative vapor distribution devices can include, but are not limited to, one or more chimney trays, one or more vapor horns, V-baffles, annular baffles, annular rings, vane inlet devices, half-pipe distributors, perforated pipe distributors, or any combination thereof” (Paragraph 0043).
Singh et al further disclose, “The internal structure(s) can facilitate vapor/liquid separation. Illustrative internal structures can include, but are not limited to, trays, grids, packing, or any combination thereof. Illustrative trays can include, but are not limited to, fixed valve trays, jet tab trays, sieve trays, dual flow trays, baffle trays, angle iron trays, or any combination thereof” (Paragraph 0044).
With respect to claims 12, 17 and 19, Singh et al disclose, “Specifically, the primary fractionator tower designs set the temperature of the effluent introduced into the primary fractionator at a temperature of 300°C (C1) and a temperature of 225°C (inventive examples Ex. 1-6), and a bottom pump-around return temperature of 155°C for all examples” (Paragraph 0056). Singh et al also disclose 3 vapor sections and quench streams, as discussed under claim 1.
Singh et al further disclose, “The steam cracker effluent can be at a temperature of ≥ 400°C when initially contacted with the quench fluid. A tar product and a light product can be separated from the cooled steam cracker effluent. The light product can be substantially in a vapor phase and at a temperature of ≥ 155°C to ≤ 315°C. The light product can be cooled by indirect heat exchange with water, steam, or a mixture of water and steam to produce a cooled light product and a first medium pressure steam. The cooled light product can be at a temperature of ≥ 150°C to ≤ 300°C. The cooled light product can be at a temperature of ≥ 150°C to ≤ 280°C when introduced into the primary fractionator” (Paragraph 0009).
Singh et al also disclose, “In some examples, the first heat exchange stage can cool the pyrolysis effluent to a temperature of ≤ 300°C, e.g., about 160°C to about 250°C. The second heat exchange stage and the third heat exchange stage can cool the product or portion thereof separated from the cooled pyrolysis effluent to a temperature of ≤ 200°C, e.g., about 155°C to about 180°C.” (Paragraph 0015).
Singh et al disclose that cooled light product in line 126 can be at a temperature of about 150 to 300oC and light product in line 119 can be at a temperature of about 200 to 315o C (Paragraph 0029).
Singh et al further disclose the quench oil in line 163 is at a temperature of less than 200oC (Paragraph 0035). Singh et al also disclose gas oil quench via line 171 is at a temperature <140oC (Paragraph 0036). Singh et al disclose details of temperature distribution in the primary fractionator 130 and the products recovered from the fractionator (Paragraph 0056, Tables 1 and 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent 7718049-B2 Strack et al., Method for Processing Hydrocarbon Pyrolysis Effluent.
WO-202016342, Lawrence et al., Primary Fractionator with Reduced Fouling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREM C SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00 AM to 3:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights