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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 12-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1396174 (appears on the PTO-892).
GB teaches fractionation systems wherein styrene is present and, specifically, in the fractionation of a styrene-containing mixture obtained from the effluent from an ethylbenzene dehydrogenation unit. In a typical styrene recovery system, the normally liquid hydrocarbon portion of an ethylbenzene dehydrogenation unit effluent comprising benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, styrene, styrene polymers (C9+) and tars is separated in a three column fractionation sequence in the presence of sulfur. In the first column, a C7־ fraction (i.e., predominantly benzene and toluene and free of C8+ hydrocarbons) is removed overhead and a C8+ fraction predominantly ethylbenzene and styrene (i.e., 90+ weight %) is removed as bottoms. This C8+ bottoms is fractionated in a 20 second fractionation column to produce an ethylbenzene overhead predominantly ethylbenzene (i.e., less than 4% styrene) and an impure styrene bottoms comprising styrene, polymers, tars and sulfur. This impure styrene bottoms stream is further fractionated in a third fractionation column to provide a pure styrene product overhead and a residue stream comprising polymers, tars, sulfur, etc. (see page 2, line 109 through page 3, lines 1-8).
Typically, a bottoms temperature is 200 F - 235 F (93.3C - 112.8 C) or 250 F - 300 F (121.1 C - 148.9 C) (see page 3, lines 74-92). The overhead temperature is about 130 F (54.4 C) (see page 4, lines 122-124). This temperature is close enough to the claimed 55 C that one would expect this operation temperature to function the same as the claimed temperature of 55 C, absent evidence to the contrary. GB meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
GB does not specifically teach that the products that are received by fractionation columns are those set forth in present claim 12. However, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claims 13-14 and 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have theoretical stages because in separation processes like distillation or fractionation, a theoretical stage represents a hypothetical zone where the liquid and vapor phases would reach equilibrium.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1396174 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Beadle (US 20180230070-appears on the PTO-892).
GB has been discussed above. GB does not specifically teach that the first fractionation column is a trayed column or that each of the second and third fractionation columns is a packed column. However, Beadle meets these limitations.
Beadle teaches fractionation zone 250 may include a stripper column 252 and a splitter column 254. The stripper column 252 may be a trayed column or a packed column, or a combination of the two types of columns (see abstract; para 0044-0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a fractionation column with a trayed column or a packed column because Beadle teaches that these are conventional columns used in fractionation zones.
Claims 1-11 allowed. The prior art does not teach or suggest all of the claimed compounds that are in the feed stream and the method steps as set forth in the claims.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18993883/20260729
Prosecution Insights