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 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.
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.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biegel (US 2,419,528) (provided with IDS) as evidenced by Walker (US 3,230,154).
With respect to claims 1 and 11-13, Biegel discloses a process for distilling a mixture of products of dehydrogenation of normal butene to butadiene and recovering butadiene in a substantially pure form (Column 1, lines 45-50). It is to be noted that the feed mixture in Biegel is similar to a feed defined as a raffinate 2 stream (Applicant’s Specification, page 3, lines 27-34). Biegel further discloses that fractionator feed may be derived from any source (Column4, lines 47-49). Biegel also discloses a distillation column 9 (Fig. 1 and 2) wherein the distillation column comprises a top at an upper end of a column and a bottom at a lower end of the column (Fig. 1, 2).
Biegel further discloses a process comprising: obtaining a vapor stream at the top of the distillation column 24 and a bottom stream at the bottom of the column 25 (Column 3, lines 53-55).
Biegel discloses that when the upstream converter 1 is undergoing regeneration, a total reflux is used (column 4, lines 33-37). Biegel also discloses lower reflux than a conventional fractionator (Column 2, lines 45-55; column 3, lines 5-7). This clearly indicates that during normal operation of the converter, fractionator should be running at an optimum reflux ratio for proper separation (Column 3, lines 5-6).
Biegel discloses wherein the distillation column 9 has multiple inlets for the feed stream, and all the inlets viewed from the top of the distillation column are arranged one below another (Fig. 1, column 3, lines 46-49).
Biegel also discloses that the feed stream has continuous analyzing means 41 (Fig. 2, column 4, lines 50-55) for its composition analysis before being introduced to the distillation unit 9; and wherein one of the inlets for a supply of the feed stream is chosen depending on a composition of the feed stream (column 3, lines 15-17; column 4, lines 65-70).
Biegel does not appear to specifically disclose a set of two distillation columns, however, the disclosure clearly mentions a separation equipment 6 of any suitable type for the separation of any suitable fraction which contains the desired product and constitutes the fractionator feed (Fig. 1, column 3, lines 36-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use two distillation columns instead of only one, to produce butadiene in substantially pure form (Biegel, column 1, lines 46-50). This is evidenced by Walker.
Walker discloses feed flow control in a plural separation system (title). Walker also discloses composition control in the feed in a system of multiple distillation columns where overhead vapors are condensed with a part going to the next column and a part going back to the top of the first column as a reflux (Fig. 1, column 2, lines 17-60).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Biegel uses trays (Column 2, lines 45-50). It is known to those skilled in the art that the trays can only be arranged one below another in a cylindrical column. Multiple feed inlets 11-16 can be seen in fig, 1.
With respect to claim 4-8,10, Biegel discloses when the composition of feed changes, the feed is switched to a different inlet (Column 4, lines 51-70). Biegel further discloses, “The optimum feed entry is determined by means of a continuously analyzing device, such as a continuously analyzing spectrophotometer, which continuously analyzes the feed to the fractionator, means being provided for varying the point of feed entry to correspond with the composition of the feed” (Column 3, lines 15-22).
Biegel uses spectrophotometer, however, any suitable analyzer can be used as is known to those skilled in the art. It is evidenced by Walker.
Walker uses a continuous chromatographic analyzer for composition control of a feed (Walker, column 3, lines 39-44).
With respect to claim 9, Biegel discloses lower reflux than a conventional fractionator (Column 2, lines 45-55; column 3, lines 5-7). Biegel also discloses using total reflux while the converter is undergoing regeneration (Column 4, lines 33-37). This indicates that Biegel is using a reflux ratio in a wide range, including as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Process Control System, D. E. Berger, US Patent 3,002,818.
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 Moday-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