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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to method of separating alpha olefins, classified in C07C7/04.
II. Claims 15-20, drawn to a device for separation, classified in B01D3/141.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the method as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as an apparatus comprising flash separation of ethylene.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Kisuk Lee on 25 June 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claims 1 and 6, in lines 7 and 8, respectively, the claims each recite “the first side”. This should be “a first side” for antecedent basis purposes.
With regard to claim 6, the claim recites in line 4 “the resulting reaction mixture” and in line 6 “the resulting mixture after removal”. In each case, the phrase should be “a resulting reaction mixture” and “a resulting mixture after removal” for antecedent basis purposes.
Appropriate corrections are 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 1-14 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.
With regard to claims 1 and 6, the claims each recite in the last line “a lower side than the first side of the dividing wall column”. It is unclear what is meant by a “lower side”, as “side” when discussing a distillation column usually refers to the vertical part of the column between the top and bottom of the column, and there is no “lower” side, the whole thing is the side. Thus, the phrase is unclear and indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification recites “intermediate stream(s) is(are) discharged through one or more sides disposed on the wall surface of the dividing wall column” (paragraph [0051]). This appears to imply that “side” really means “point” on the wall. Thus the Examiner will consider that the claim can include the C8+ stream being discharged at a second point lower on the wall than the “first side” which is a first point on the wall. Appropriate clarification and amendment are respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 14, the claim recites “The method of claim 13, wherein heat is transferred from the fractional distillation product of C8 or higher linear alpha olefin to the fractional distillation product of C6 or lower linear alpha olefin.” The phrases “the fractional distillation product of C8 or higher” and “the fractional distillation product of C6 or lower” lack antecedent basis. Further, there is not necessarily a single distillation product produced in claim 13, which recites that the “C6 or lower” and “C8 or higher” are “distilled additionally”. As the recitation is open to multiple olefins being present in each stream and there could be more than 1 distillation column used, the claim is open to multiple product streams, and does not specify which product stream is used for the heat transfer or heat receiving. As such the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider the broadest reasonable interpretation that any products from any additional distillation of the C6 and C8 which exchange heat meet the limitation. Appropriate clarification and amendment are respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 2-5 and 7-13, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 and 7 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.
With regard to claims 2 and 7, these claims and claims 1 and 6 upon which they depend each recite that the solvent has “a boiling point higher than C6 linear alpha olefin and lower than C8 linear alpha olefin” and then each of claims 2 and 6 provides a list of solvents to select from. However, the solvents xylene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and pentane listed in the claim do not meet the requirement of a boiling point between C6 alpha olefin and C8 alpha olefin, as xylene, chlorobenzene, and dichlorobenzene have a higher boiling point and pentane has a lower boiling point. Thus, the list of solvents does not further limit claims 1 and 6.
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 § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamilton et al. (US 2022/0002215).
With regard to claim 1, Hamilton teaches a method for separation of the product of ethylene oligomerization (Abstract) comprising providing a feed comprising C6+ linear alpha olefins and solvent to a dividing wall column and distilling the feed to obtain (claimed discharge) an overhead C6 stream (claimed C6 or lower), a side solvent stream, and a C8+ bottoms stream (claimed C8 or higher) (paragraph [0055] and Figure 3), where the solvent has a boiling point residing between that of 1-hexene (C6) and 1-octene (C8) (paragraph [0056]).
With regard to claim 2, Hamilton teaches that the solvent is toluene, methylcyclohexane, or cyclohexane (paragraph [0058]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 2021/0009486) in view of Hamilton et al. (US 2022/0002215).
With regard to claims 1 and 6, Allen teaches a method for producing and separating linear alpha olefins (Abstract) comprising:
a) performing an LAO process in a solvent (paragraph [0035]), wherein the LAO process is ethylene oligomerization (paragraph [0022]), and wherein the solvent can have a boiling point between 1-hexene (C6) and 1-octene (C8) (paragraph [0035]).
b) passing the product of the LAO process to a deethanizer tower to remove unreacted ethylene (paragraph [0034]).
c) in an embodiment, providing the remaining product including C4+ alpha olefins to a fractional distillation tower comprising a dividing wall, where the tower distills light alpha olefins including C4 and C6 (claimed C6 or lower alpha olefins) overhead, heavier C10+ alpha olefins (claimed C8 or higher alpha olefins) at the bottom, and a solvent which can be xylenes as the side stream (paragraphs [0048]-[0049] and Figure 5).
Allen does not teach that the dividing wall column in the embodiment can instead separate the solvent which boils between C6 and C8 alpha olefins as the side draw, as claimed.
Hamilton teaches operating a distillation column for separating the product of an ethylene oligomerization process, where the column separates C6 overhead, a solvent stream boiling between C6 and C8 from the side draw, and C8+ from the bottom (Figure 3 and paragraphs [0055]-[0056]). Hamilton further teaches that solvents operating in the boiling range between C6 and C8 alpha olefins also have a low affinity for water, which provides further advantages of limiting the water in the solvent recycle stream (paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the solvent boiling between C6 and C8 alpha olefins as explicitly recited by Allen and also to operate the column of Allen to obtain a side draw containing the solvent boiling between C6 and C8 alpha olefins, as claimed in claims 1 and 6, because Allen teaches the embodiment of obtaining the solvent as a side draw from a dividing wall column and explicitly teaches the option of using a solvent boiling between C6 and C8 alpha olefins, Hamilton teaches that operating the dividing wall column such that the side draw contains the solvent boiling between C6 and C8 is known for ethylene oligomerization processes, and Hamilton further teaches that choosing the solvent boiling in the claimed range provides advantages associated with the low affinity to water of the solvents (paragraph [0058]).
With regard to claims 2 and 7, Allen teaches that the solvent is cyclohexane or toluene (paragraph [0035]) and Hamilton also teaches cyclohexane and toluene as options for the low water solvent (paragraph [0058]).
With regard to claims 3 and 10, Allen in view of Hamilton teaches the process above.
Allen fails to teach the amount of solvent, C6- alpha olefins, and C8+ alpha olefins in the feed to the dividing wall column. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related art to determine suitable values.
Hamilton teaches ethylene oligomerization and distillation in a dividing wall column. Hamilton further teaches that an exemplary feed to the dividing wall column comprises 26.4 wt% C6- alpha olefins and 63.6 wt% C8+ alpha olefins (paragraph [0184], Table 2) and that the feed is mixed with a solvent that boils between the C6 and C8 alpha olefins before distillation (paragraph [0186]). Hamilton fails to specifically teach how much feed and solvent are included in the mixture of feed and solvent sent to the distillation column. However, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that there must be some solvent and some feed, so the potential range is about 1 wt% to about 99 wt% feed and about 1 wt% to about 99 wt% solvent. Using the amounts of Table 2, this is a range of about 0.36 to about 36.4 wt% C6- components, about 0.63 to about 63.4 wt% C8+ components, and about 1 to about 99 wt% solvent. These overlap the ranges of 50 to 95 wt% solvent, 0.5 to 10 wt% C6-, and 4 to 40 wt% C8+ of instant claim 3 and 10, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a feed similar to the feed of Hamilton in the process of Allen, because Allen and Hamilton each teach ethylene oligomerization followed by distillation in a dividing wall column, Allen is silent regarding the amounts in the feed to the dividing wall column, and Hamilton exemplifies suitable olefin amounts and renders obvious the solvent, C6- and C8+ alpha olefin composition claimed.
With regard to claims 4 and 11, Allen teaches the distillation is conducted in the range of 130-280°C (paragraph [0059]), which overlaps the range of 50-250°C of instant claims 4 and 11, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
Allen is silent regarding the pressure. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to similar processes to determine a suitable pressure.
Hamilton teaches that it is known and suitable to use atmospheric pressure for the distillation (paragraph [0059]), which is a pressure of 1.03 bar, which is within the range of 0.2 to 15 bar of instant claims 4 and 11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use atmospheric pressure in the column of Allen, because each of Allen and Hamilton teaches operating a dividing wall distillation column to separate alpha olefins and a solvent having a boiling point between C6 and C8 alpha olefins, Allen is silent regarding the pressure, and Hamilton teaches atmospheric pressure is suitable for the desired separation.
With regard to claims 5 and 13, Allen teaches further distillation of the light alpha olefins including C4 and C6 in the overhead and further distillation of the C10+ alpha olefins in the bottoms stream (paragraph [0035]).
With regard to claim 8, Allen teaches recycling unreacted ethylene to the reactor (paragraph [0034]).
With regard to claim 9, Allen teaches that the deethanizer T1 comprises a reboiler (paragraph [0066] and Figure 6. The reboiler heats an effluent (claimed resulting mixture after the removal of unreacted ethylene) from the deethanization tower and recycles it to provide heat to the feed (claimed resulting mixture of step 1) in the distillation column. Therefore, Allen teaches transferring heat from the resulting mixture after the removal of unreacted ethylene to the resulting reaction mixture of step 1, as claimed.
With regard to claim 12, Allen teaches recycling the solvent to the oligomerization reactor (paragraphs [0035] and [0049]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 2021/0009486) in view of Hamilton et al. (US 2022/0002215) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20200065404, machine translation with paragraphs provided herein).
With regard to claim 14, Allen in view of Hamilton teaches the method above, where there is further distillation of the C6- and C10+ components (paragraph [0035]).
Allen in view of Hamilton fails to teach transferring heat from the C10+ distillation product to the C6- distillation product.
Kim teaches a method for distillation of ethylene oligomerization product including at least C6 and C8 alpha olefins, where the heat from the upper fraction of the C8 distillation column is transferred to the reboiler of the C6 distillation column (paragraph [0015]). Kim further teaches that the method provides energy efficiency (paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide heat from the C8 distillation column to the C6 distillation column of Allen as taught by Kim, because each of Allen and Kim teaches distillation of ethylene oligomerization including a C6 distillation column and a C8 distillation column, and Kim teaches that providing heat from the C8 column to the C6 column provides energy efficiency to the process (paragraph [0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights