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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. This is the first office action on the merits.
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 1-15 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 1 is considered indefinite for reciting “producing aromatic hydrocarbons” in the preamble, because none of the process steps in the claim body involves producing aromatics and it is unclear as to how such aromatic hydrocarbons are produced. The specification discloses that the fractionator bottoms stream may comprise aromatics hydrocarbons (Spec., [0042]). For the purpose of examination, claim 1 is interpreted such that the fractionator bottoms stream comprises aromatic hydrocarbons.
Claims 2-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 1.
Claim 9 is indefinite for reciting “a fractionated overhead stream” because it is unclear what the limitation is referring to in relation to the process of claim 1, upon which claim 9 depends. The instant specification discloses that a fractionated overhead stream is combined with a stabilizer column overhead stream to provide a combined overhead stream, which is condensed to provide a condensed overhead liquid, a portion of which becomes “the fractionator overhead stream” as in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, claim 9 is interpreted such that “a fractionated overhead stream” is obtained from the fractionation column.
Claims 10 and 11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 9.
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, 3-5, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uitti (US 4,009,218).
Regarding claim 1, Uitti discloses a process comprising:
contacting a hydrocarbonaceous feed stream (Fig. 1, 6; “a stream of ethylbenzene”) with a dehydrogenation catalyst (“dehydrogenation zone 8”) to produce a dehydrogenated effluent stream (9) (col. 2, lines 5-21);
separating said dehydrogenated effluent stream into a vapor stream comprising hydrogen (13) and a liquid stream (15) (col. 2, lines 21-30; col. 7, lines 58-61);
fractionating said liquid stream in a fractionation column (20) to provide a fractionator overhead stream (22) and a fractionator bottoms stream (17) comprising aromatic hydrocarbons (“styrene, ethylbenzene”) (col. 2, lines 27-31 and 49-57); and
passing said fractionator overhead stream to a stabilizer (24; “overhead receiver”) to provide an offgas stream (25; “uncondensed portions of the overhead vapor stream”) (col. 2, lines 57-61).
Regarding claim 3, Uitti discloses that the hydrocarbonaceous feed stream comprises aromatic hydrocarbon (“ethylbenzene”) (col. 2, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 4, Uitti discloses that the stabilizer (Fig. 1, 24; “overhead receiver”) provides a bottoms stream comprising C7- hydrocarbons (“benzene, toluene”) (col. 2, line 49 – col. 3, line 2; col. 9, lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 5, Uitti discloses that the bottom stream may be fractionated to provide pure benzene from toluene (col. 9, lines 33-35), wherein the fractionated toluene corresponds to the claimed limitation “a heavy stream.”
Regarding claim 13, Uitti discloses that the dehydrogenation catalyst may comprise alumina, a VIII metal (which include noble metals), and an alkali promoter (col. 6, lines 20-47).
Regarding claim 16, Uitti discloses a process comprising:
contacting a hydrocarbonaceous feed stream (Fig. 1, 6; “a stream of ethylbenzene”) with a dehydrogenation catalyst (“dehydrogenation zone 8”) to produce a dehydrogenated effluent stream (9) (col. 2, lines 5-21);
separating said dehydrogenated effluent stream into a vapor stream comprising hydrogen (13) and a liquid stream (15) (col. 2, lines 21-30; col. 7, lines 58-61);
fractionating said liquid stream in a fractionation column (20) to provide a fractionator overhead stream (22) and a fractionator bottoms stream (17) comprising aromatic hydrocarbons (“styrene, ethylbenzene”) (col. 2, lines 27-31 and 49-57); and
passing said fractionator overhead stream to a stabilizer (24; “overhead receiver”) to provide an offgas stream (25; “uncondensed portions of the overhead vapor stream”) (col. 2, lines 57-61).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uitti (US 4,009,218).
Regarding claim 17, Uitti does not explicitly teach that the fractionator bottom stream comprises toluene. However, Uitti suggests that the fractionator (Fig. 1, 20) is a distillation column (col. 2, lines 49-57; col. 5, lines 1-14). Furthermore, Uitti teaches that a stream comprising toluene is introduced into the fractionator for separation (col. 2, lines 49-57). Although the fractionator bottom stream mainly produces ethylbenzene and styrene, said stream is reasonably expected to contain at least a small amount of toluene since distillation works by vapor-liquid equilibrium.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uitti (US 4,009,218), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nielsen et al (US 2017/0247302 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Uitti teaches the process of claim 1, as discussed above.
Uitti does not teach separating the vapor stream into a recycle hydrogen stream and a product stream.
However, Nielsen, drawn to a process for dehydrogenation of ethylbenzene to styrene, teaches separating a dehydrogenation effluent (Fig. 5, 5) to obtain an off-gas stream (8) comprising hydrogen and further separating the off-gas stream into a recycle hydrogen stream (14) and a hydrogen stream (9), wherein the recycle hydrogen stream is recycled to a dehydrogenation reactor (20) as diluent and heat carrier ([0001], [0027], [0060]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Uitti by separating the vapor stream comprising hydrogen into a recycle hydrogen stream and a product hydrogen stream, as taught by Nielsen, because (i) Uitti and Nielsen both teach producing a vapor stream comprising hydrogen separated from a dehydrogenation effluent, (ii) Nielsen teaches recycling a recycle hydrogen stream to a dehydrogenation reactor so as to dilute the reactant to favor the thermodynamic equilibrium of the dehydrogenation reaction, to suppress carbon formation on the catalyst, and to provide heat ([0027], [0060]), and (iii) this involves application of a known recycling technique to improve a known conversion process to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are allowable over the prior art.
Claims 2, 6-12, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. No prior art of record, individually or in combination, teaches or suggests the claimed sequence of process steps, including: dehydrogenation of a hydrocarbonaceous feed stream; separating the dehydrogenated effluent into a vapor stream comprising hydrogen and a liquid stream; fractionation of the liquid stream into an overhead stream and a bottom stream; and separation of the overhead stream to provide an offgas stream, wherein the hydrocarbonaceous feed stream comprises methylcyclohexane, as recited in claims 2, 18, and 19. Furthermore, the prior art of record fails to teach: the treatment of the fractionator bottoms stream, as recited in claim 6; the treatment of a fractionated overhead stream, as recited in claim 9; and the method of obtaining the hydrocarbonaceous feed stream as recited in claim 15.
Uitti (US 4,009,218), applied in the above rejection, fails to teach or suggest the subject matter of the claims indicated allowable above. Uitti is directed to dehydrogenating ethylbenzene to styrene and does not teach or suggest using methylcyclohexane as a reactant to be dehydrogenated, as required in claims 2, 18, and 19. The reference also fails to teach or suggest the process steps of claims 6, 9, or 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Y Chong whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights