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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 171. It appears that reference number 171 is referring to carbon monoxide separated from the ethylene stream 154 in FIGURE (Spec., [0040]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 3 and 5: For clarity, Applicant is suggested to amend “combining said C2 olefin stream from the MTO unit with said first olefin stream from the dehydration unit to form a combined first olefin stream” in claim 3, lines 3-4, to state “combining said C2 olefin stream from the MTO unit, as the second olefin stream, with said first olefin stream from the dehydration unit to form a combined first olefin stream.” Additionally, Applicant is suggested to amend “separating said olefin stream to provide said second olefin stream and said C2 olefin stream” in claim 5, lines 5-6, to state “separating said olefin stream to provide
Appropriate correction is 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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 is indefinite for reciting “said hydrogen stream” and “the hydrogenation section” because they lack antecedent basis and it is unclear what these limitations are referring to. It is noted that claim 2 recites “reacting said oligomerized olefin stream with a hydrogen stream in the presence of a hydrogenation catalyst in a hydrogenation section.” For the purpose of examination, claim 13 is interpreted to be dependent of claim 2, instead of claim 3.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 14-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga et al. (US 2016/0194572 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lilga teaches a process comprising:
obtaining an ethylene feed from various sources, including an ethanol dehydration and a methanol-to-olefin (MTO) process ([0020], [0039]-[0041], [0047]); and
oligomerizing the ethylene feed with an oligomerization catalyst to produce an oligomerized olefin stream comprising fuel-range hydrocarbons ([0038], [0048]-[0054]).
Lilga does not explicitly disclose the ethylene feed comprises a first olefin stream produced from a dehydration unit and a second olefin stream produced from a MTO unit.
However, dehydration and MTO are recognized by Lilga as suitable sources of ethylene feedstock ([0020], [0040]-[0041], [0047]). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to employ as feedstock a first olefin stream produced from a dehydration unit and a second olefin stream produced from a MTO unit, because it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known of the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06, II.
Regarding claim 2, Lilga teaches reacting the oligomerized olefin stream with a hydrogen stream in the presence of a hydrogen catalyst in a hydrogenation section to saturate the olefins to paraffins to produce fuel ([0082]).
Regarding claim 3, Lilga teaches that suitable sources for the ethylene feed include ethanol dehydration and MTO ([0040], [0047]). It would have been obvious to combine an ethylene stream obtained from a MTO process with an ethylene stream from an ethanol dehydration process, thereby forming a combined ethylene stream, because it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known of the same purpose.
Regarding claim 4, Lilga does not explicitly teach that the ethylene feed comprises about 5% to about 95% of the first olefin stream obtained from the dehydration process. However, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of ethylene obtained from the dehydration process and arrive at the claimed limitation as a matter of routine optimization. It is well established that discovering optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not considered an inventive step when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. MPEP 21144.05 II.
Regarding claim 9, Lilga teaches that the oligomerization may be conducted in two catalytic stages in series ([0039], [0058], [0062]).
Regarding claim 14, Lilga teaches a process comprising:
obtaining an ethylene feed from various sources, including an ethanol dehydration and a methanol-to-olefin (MTO) process ([0020], [0039]-[0041], [0047]); and
oligomerizing the ethylene feed with an oligomerization catalyst to produce an oligomerized olefin stream comprising fuel-range hydrocarbons ([0038], [0048]-[0054]).
Lilga does not explicitly disclose the ethylene feed comprises a first olefin stream produced from a dehydration unit and a second olefin stream produced from a MTO unit.
However, dehydration and MTO are recognized by Lilga as suitable sources of ethylene feedstock ([0020], [0040]-[0041], [0047]). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to employ as feedstock a first olefin stream produced from a dehydration unit and a second olefin stream produced from a MTO unit, because it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known of the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06, II.
Lilga further teaches reacting the oligomerized olefin stream with a hydrogen stream in the presence of a hydrogen catalyst in a hydrogenation section to saturate the olefins to paraffins to produce fuel ([0082]).
Regarding claim 15, Lilga teaches that suitable sources for the ethylene feed include ethanol dehydration and MTO ([0040], [0047]). It would have been obvious to combine an ethylene stream obtained from a MTO process with an ethylene stream from an ethanol dehydration process, thereby forming a combined ethylene stream, because it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known of the same purpose.
Regarding claim 16, Lilga does not explicitly teach that the ethylene feed comprises about 5% to about 95% of the first olefin stream obtained from the dehydration process. However, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of ethylene obtained from the dehydration process and arrive at the claimed limitation as a matter of routine optimization. It is well established that discovering optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not considered an inventive step when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. MPEP 21144.05 II.
Regarding claim 19, Lilga teaches a process comprising:
obtaining an ethylene feed from various sources, including an ethanol dehydration and a methanol-to-olefin (MTO) process ([0020], [0039]-[0041], [0047]); and
oligomerizing the ethylene feed with an oligomerization catalyst to produce an oligomerized olefin stream comprising fuel-range hydrocarbons ([0038], [0048]-[0054]).
Lilga does not explicitly disclose the ethylene feed comprises a first olefin stream produced from a dehydrated alcohol stream and a second olefin stream produced from a MTO reactor effluent stream.
However, dehydration and MTO are recognized by Lilga as suitable sources of ethylene feedstock ([0020], [0040]-[0041], [0047]). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to employ as feedstock a first olefin stream produced from a dehydrated alcohol stream (dehydrated ethanol) and a second olefin stream produced from a MTO reactor effluent stream, because it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known of the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06, II.
Lilga further teaches reacting the oligomerized olefin stream with a hydrogen stream in the presence of a hydrogen catalyst in a hydrogenation section to saturate the olefins to paraffins to produce fuel ([0082]).
Regarding claim 20, Lilga teaches that suitable sources for the ethylene feed include ethanol dehydration and MTO ([0040], [0047]). It would have been obvious to combine an ethylene stream obtained from a MTO process with an ethylene stream from an ethanol dehydration process, thereby forming a combined ethylene stream, because it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known of the same purpose.
Claims 5-8, 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga et al. (US 2016/0194572 A1), as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Morschbacker (US 2010/0069691 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lilga teaches the process of claim 3, as discussed above.
Lilga does not teach that the second olefin stream obtained from the MTO process is obtained by: reacting a carbon dioxide stream and a hydrogen stream to produce a methanol stream; contacting said methanol stream with an MTO catalyst in a MTO reactor to produce an olefin stream; and separating said olefin stream to provide said second olefin stream and said C2 olefin stream.
However, Morschbacker, directed to an integrated process for producing ethylene and propylene via ethanol dehydration and methanol-to-olefin (MTO) reaction steps from renewable materials, teaches a step of obtaining methanol from synthesis gas and then converting the methanol to ethylene and propylene (0036], [0078]-[0081]). Morschbacker further teaches reacting a carbon dioxide stream and a hydrogen to produce carbon monoxide, which is further processed along with synthesis gas to produce methanol ([0078]-[0079]).
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 the Lilga by reacting a carbon dioxide stream with a hydrogen stream to prepare methanol and then converting methanol to ethylene, as taught by Morschbacker, because (i) Lilga teaches that suitable ethylene sources include ethanol dehydration and conversion of methanol to olefins (MTO) ([0040]-[0041], [0047]), (ii) Morschbacker teaches an integrated process for the ethanol dehydration and MTO, the process including a step of reacting a carbon dioxide stream with a hydrogen stream to produce methanol, and (iii) this involves application of a known process for producing materials that can be used as feedstock into another known process. Additionally, one would have been motivated to separate an ethylene stream from the MTO products, as Morschbacker teaches the hydrocarbons produced in the MTO are separated by distillation into various streams. ([0081]).
Regarding claim 6, Morschbacker teaches that the hydrogen stream may be obtained by a water electrolysis reaction ([0078]).
Regarding claim 7, Morschbacker suggests using water produced from the ethanol dehydration in the electrolysis step ([0070], [0083]).
Regarding claim 8, Morschbacker teaches producing ethanol and carbon dioxide from a biomass feedstock and employing the carbon dioxide in the preparation of methanol ([0046], [0062]-[0067], [0078]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 10, Morschbacker teaches fermenting from a biomass material to produce ethanol and carbon dioxide ([0062]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 12, Lilga teaches the process of claim 3, as discussed above.
Lilga does not teach that the MTO unit and/or the dehydration unit provide water to an electrolyzer via a water line.
However, Morschbacker, directed to an integrated process for producing ethylene and propylene via ethanol dehydration and methanol-to-olefin (MTO) reaction steps from renewable materials, teaches a step of obtaining methanol from synthesis gas and then converting the methanol to ethylene and propylene (0036], [0078]-[0081]). Morschbacker suggests using water produced from the ethanol dehydration and/or the MTO in an electrolysis ([0069]-[0070], [0083]).
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 the Lilga by using water produced from the ethanol dehydration and/or the MTO in an electrolysis, as taught by Morschbacker, because (i) Lilga teaches that suitable ethylene sources include ethanol dehydration and conversion of methanol to olefins (MTO) ([0040]-[0041], [0047]), (ii) Morschbacker teaches an integrated process for the ethanol dehydration and MTO, the process including a step of using water produced from the ethanol dehydration and/or the MTO in an electrolyzer, and (iii) this involves application of a known process for producing materials that can be used as feedstock into another known process.
Regarding claim 13, Lilga, in view of Morschbacker (Lilga/Morschbacker), does not explicitly teach that the hydrogen used in the hydrogenation section is taken from an electrolysis step. However, Morschbacker teaches operating a water electrolysis by using water by-product from the dehydration and/or MTO to provide internally-provided hydrogen that can be used in another step in the integrated process, i.e., the reduction of carbon dioxide ([0078], [0083]). Therefore, one would have been motivated to take hydrogen from the water electrolysis step and use it in the hydrogenation step for improved efficiency by recycling by-product.
Regarding claim 17, Lilga teaches the process of claim 3, as discussed above.
Lilga does not teach that the second olefin stream obtained from the MTO process is obtained by: reacting a carbon dioxide stream and a hydrogen stream to produce a methanol stream; contacting said methanol stream with an MTO catalyst in a MTO reactor to produce an olefin stream; and separating said olefin stream to provide said second olefin stream and said C2 olefin stream.
However, Morschbacker, directed to an integrated process for producing ethylene and propylene via ethanol dehydration and methanol-to-olefin (MTO) reaction steps from renewable materials, teaches a step of obtaining methanol from synthesis gas and then converting the methanol to ethylene and propylene (0036], [0078]-[0081]). Morschbacker further teaches reacting a carbon dioxide stream and a hydrogen to produce carbon monoxide, which is further processed along with synthesis gas to produce methanol ([0078]-[0079]).
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 the Lilga by reacting a carbon dioxide stream with a hydrogen stream to prepare methanol and then converting methanol to ethylene, as taught by Morschbacker, because (i) Lilga teaches that suitable ethylene sources include ethanol dehydration and conversion of methanol to olefins (MTO) ([0040]-[0041], [0047]), (ii) Morschbacker teaches an integrated process for the ethanol dehydration and MTO, the process including a step of reacting a carbon dioxide stream with a hydrogen stream to produce methanol, and (iii) this involves application of a known process for producing materials that can be used as feedstock into another known process. Additionally, one would have been motivated to separate an ethylene stream from the MTO products, as Morschbacker teaches the hydrocarbons produced in the MTO are separated by distillation into various streams. ([0081]).
Regarding claim 18, Morschbacker teaches producing ethanol and carbon dioxide from a biomass feedstock and employing the carbon dioxide in the preparation of methanol ([0046], [0062]-[0067], [0078]-[0079]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga et al. (US 2016/0194572 A1), in view of Morschbacker (US 2010/0069691 A1), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Mohsenzadeh et al. (“Bioethylene Production from Ethanol: A Review and Techno-economical Evaluation.” ChemBioEng Rev 2017, 4, No. 2, 75–91).
Regarding claim 11, Lilga, in view of Morschbacker (Lilga/Morschbacker), teaches the process of claim 10, as discussed above.
Morschbacker further teaches subjecting the ethanol stream obtained from the fermentation to dehydration to produce an ethylene stream ([0068]). Furthermore, Lilga discloses that a dehydration product may be purified to remove water, by-products, oxygen, and other impurities.
Lilga/Morschbacker does not explicitly disclose removing carbon monoxide from the ethylene stream produced from the dehydration ([0045]).
However, Mohsenzadeh teaches that ethanol dehydration produces by-products including carbon monoxide and that the ethylene product can be fractionated to eliminate light contaminants (pg. 81, “3.4.3 Potential By-products Formed in the Ethylene Process”).
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 the Lilga/Morschbacker process by removing, by fractionation, carbon monoxide from the ethylene stream obtained from the dehydration, as taught by Morschbacker, because (i) Lilga/Morschbacker suggests purifying an ethylene stream obtained from the dehydration (Lilga: [0045]), (ii) Mohsenzadeh recognizes that impurities generated in ethanol dehydration include carbon monoxide and suggests fractionating ethylene product to remove light contaminants, (iii) carbon monoxide is regarded as a catalyst poison in oligomerization processes, and (iv) this involves application of a known purification technique to yield predictable results.
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