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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is based on the 19/113179 application originally filed March 19, 2025.
Amended claims 1-9 and 13-22, filed March 19, 2025, are pending and have been fully considered.
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 2, 4 and 13-17 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the phrase “a system boundary of a system used in the process” is unclear to what defines “a system boundary of a system” making the claim indefinite. Applicants have not clearly defined in the claim and/or specification what “system” defines “a system boundary of a system” (see paragraphs 0020, 0023, 0024 and 0027 of the current specification). Further clarification and/or amending of the claim is required.
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.
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(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitkidis et al. (US 2019/0194091) hereinafter “Mitkidis” in view of Stegemann et al. (EP 4310160 A1) hereinafter cited under English Translation “Stegemann”.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 18 and 19
Mitkidis discloses in paragraph 0001, a process for the production of ethylene from ethane, and to a chemical complex which is suitable for performing such ethylene production process.
Mitkidis discloses in paragraph 0007, feeding an effluent from an oxidative dehydrogenation (ODH) configuration to the steam cracker configuration, in which ODH configuration ethane is oxidatively dehydrogenated into ethylene and water, and wherein the effluent coming from the ODH configuration that is fed to the steam cracker configuration comprises unconverted ethane and ethylene.
Mitkidis discloses in paragraphs 0008-0016, a process for the production of ethylene from ethane, comprising: subjecting a stream comprising ethane to steam cracking conditions in a steam cracker unit which is part of a steam cracker configuration, resulting in a stream comprising unconverted ethane, ethylene and hydrogen; feeding a stream comprising unconverted ethane, ethylene and hydrogen to a separation unit which is part of the steam cracker configuration, and separating said stream in said separation unit into a stream comprising hydrogen and a stream comprising unconverted ethane and ethylene; feeding a stream comprising unconverted ethane and ethylene to a C2 separation unit which is part of the steam cracker configuration, and separating said stream in the C2 separation unit into a stream comprising ethylene and a stream comprising unconverted ethane; optionally recycling unconverted ethane from the stream comprising unconverted ethane coming from the C2 separation unit to the steam cracker unit; subjecting a stream comprising ethane to oxidative dehydrogenation (ODH) conditions in an ODH unit which is part of an ODH configuration, resulting in a stream comprising unconverted ethane, ethylene and water; feeding a stream comprising unconverted ethane, ethylene and water to a water condensation unit which is part of the ODH configuration, and removing water from said stream by condensation in the water condensation unit, resulting in a stream comprising unconverted ethane and ethylene; feeding an effluent coming from the ODH configuration, which effluent comprises unconverted ethane and ethylene, to the steam cracker configuration; and optionally recycling unconverted ethane from the stream comprising unconverted ethane coming from the C2 separation unit to the ODH unit.
Mitkidis discloses in paragraphs 0017-0018, a chemical complex which comprises a steam cracker configuration and an oxidative dehydrogenation (ODH) configuration, wherein: the steam cracker configuration comprises a steam cracker unit, a carbon dioxide removal unit, an optional drying unit, a 1st separation unit, a 2nd separation unit, an optional acetylene hydrogenation unit and a C2 separation unit, wherein each unit comprises one or more feed lines and one or more effluent lines.
Mitkidis discloses in paragraph 0054, “C2 separation unit” means a unit wherein ethylene is separated from ethane. In respect of the complex of the present invention, “C2 separation unit” means a unit which is suitable for separating ethylene from ethane. Ethylene may be separated from ethane in any way, for example by means of distillation, absorption or adsorption.
Mitkidis discloses in paragraph 0092, in the above-mentioned ODH step, subjecting a stream comprising ethane to ODH conditions may comprise contacting the stream comprising ethane with oxygen (O2). Said oxygen is the oxidizing agent in the ODH reaction. In the ODH step, oxygen (O2) and a stream comprising ethane may be fed to the ODH unit. The ODH unit may comprise a reactor, which reactor may contain an ODH catalyst, in particular a mixed metal oxide catalyst containing molybdenum, vanadium, niobium and optionally tellurium. Oxygen and ethane are then contacted with said catalyst in the ODH reactor, resulting in oxidative dehydrogenation of the ethane.
Mitkidis discloses in paragraph 0097, in addition to oxygen and ethane, an inert gas may also be fed to the ODH reactor. Said inert gas may be selected from the group consisting of the noble gases and nitrogen (N2). Preferably, the inert gas is nitrogen or argon, more preferably nitrogen. Said oxygen is an oxidizing agent, thereby resulting in oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane. Said oxygen may originate from any source, such as for example air. Ranges for the molar ratio of oxygen to ethane which are suitable, are of from 0.01 to 1, more suitably 0.05 to 0.5. Said ratio of oxygen to ethane is the ratio before oxygen and ethane are contacted with the catalyst. In other words, said ratio of oxygen to ethane is the ratio of oxygen as fed to ethane as fed. Obviously, after contact with the catalyst, at least part of the oxygen and ethane gets consumed.
It is to be noted, Mitkidis discloses a carbon dioxide removal unit but fails to specifically teach the production of flue gas comprising carbon dioxide and tail gas through combustion.
However, it is known in the art for flue gas comprising carbon dioxide and tail gas to be formed through combustion, as taught by Stegemann.
Stegemann discloses in the abstract, a method for steam splitting using a cracking furnace (10) which has cracking tubes (16) which are heated using a combustion process, the combustion process using a fuel gas (2), an oxidizer gas (3) and a recirculation portion ( 4) a flue gas (4, 5) formed in the combustion process is carried out, wherein the oxidizer gas (3) has a superatmospheric oxygen content and a subatmospheric nitrogen content, and wherein the recirculation portion (4) of the flue gas (4, 5) is at least partially on a Temperature level of 160 to 800 ° C and / or with a temperature difference of 120 to 800 K above an ambient temperature of the cracking furnace (10) is provided for the combustion process.
Stegemann discloses on page 4, methods and systems for steam cracking hydrocarbons. Steam cracking is primarily used to obtain short-chain olefins such as ethylene and propylene, diolefins such as butadiene or aromatics, but is not limited to the extraction of such compounds.
Stegemann discloses on page 5, to use features of known so-called oxyfuel processes in steam cracking. This is achieved by using an appropriate oxygen-rich oxidizer gas. Oxyfuel processes are combustion processes that can achieve very high flame temperatures. These can be used for gaseous, liquid and solid fuels. In contrast to conventional combustion with air, the fuel is typically burned with almost pure oxygen (i.e. with no or only a small proportion of nitrogen and argon). It is a technically very advantageous approach because it reduces both the production of carbon dioxide (by increasing the efficiency of the furnace) reduced, as well as subsequent carbon dioxide capture (due to the smaller amount of carbon dioxide and its higher concentration) can be made considerably easier. The two advantages reinforce each other. The more carbon dioxide production is reduced, the easier subsequent carbon dioxide capture becomes. An advantageous objective is to reduce carbon dioxide production in the course of an oxyfuel process to a minimum.
Stegemann discloses on page 5, in addition to the radiation zone, the process ovens have a convection zone. The convection zone is usually arranged offset above the radiation zone and includes several tube bundles that traverse the flue gas duct. Its function is to recover as much energy as possible from the hot flue gas that leaves the radiation zone. In fact, in the radiation zone only 35 to 50% of the total firing power is usually transferred to the process gas flowing through the cans. The convection zone therefore plays a central role in energy management, as it is responsible for the use of approximately 40 to 60% of the heat input into a cracking furnace (ie the combustion output).
Stegemann discloses on page 6, in order to ultimately reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases generated to a minimum, various carbon capture technologies are used. The oxyfuel processes mentioned and used in aspects of the present invention, in which an oxidizing agent that is (highly) enriched in oxygen or highly depleted in nitrogen compared to atmospheric air is preferably supplied to the combustion process, result in the exhaust gas stream being highly enriched in carbon dioxide or .is heavily depleted in nitrogen, which enables significantly simplified carbon capture downstream of the process furnace. In addition, similar to air preheating by means of indirect heat exchange, increasing oxygen concentrations lead to an increase in the adiabatic flame temperature, which... Radiation zone efficiency can be improved and thus the production of greenhouse gases from a process furnace can be significantly reduced. The oxyfuel processes therefore pursue a functionally integrated approach that both reduces the production of carbon dioxide and significantly simplifies its subsequent capture.
Stegemann discloses on page 8, the external dilution of the oxidizing agent or oxidizer gases with the recycled portion of the flue gas (before this mixture then comes into contact with the fuel gas on the burner). However, any other configurations are also possible, as mentioned, provided that corresponding advantages can be achieved. The resulting oxygen concentration in the oxidizing agent diluted with flue gas recycle can be, for example, 31.5 mol% (required slightly over-stoichiometric oxygen content for combustion). Assuming that a similar efficiency is achieved as in the second alternative not according to the invention, a total heat of, for example, 78 MW is also required. In this case, however, due to the lack of combustion air, the total heat must be provided primarily by underfired power (for example 76 MW), only reduced by the small effect of direct preheating using cold flue gas recycling (for example 2 MW). Finally, the loss to the atmosphere is minimized (for example 1 MW) due to the very small amount of flue gas to the atmosphere, although in the example shown the flue gas temperature is even higher than in the second alternative not according to the invention (for example 140 ° C).
Stegemann discloses on page 11, due to the possibly extremely high efficiency of the oxyfuel process, not all of the so-called tail gas of the cracking furnace (i.e. the mentioned fraction containing at least predominantly hydrogen and methane), which is typically composed predominantly of methane and hydrogen, and is used to under fire the furnaces needed. There may therefore be a partial export of the tail gas. It would also be conceivable here that the oxyfuel process could be combined with measures in the separating part that provide a separate hydrogen-rich phase and a methane-rich phase. In this sense, part of the hydrogen-rich phase can be viewed as an additional value-added product. Depending on the need for the delivery pressure of the hydrogen-rich phase, this modified separating part can be designed differently. The design can include, for example, membrane processes, pressure swing absorption or cold separation processes.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat of combustion during the steam cracking of Stegemann to the process of producing olefins of Mitkidis in order to form carbon dioxide and tail gas that may be exported and/or recycled throughout the furnace.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitkidis et al. (US 2019/0194091) hereinafter “Mitkidis” in view of Stegemann et al. (EP 4310160 A1) hereinafter cited under English Translation “Stegemann” and further in view of Van Der Ploeg (WO 2020/002326 A1) hereinafter cited under US 2021/0113980 “Van”.
Regarding Claim 8
Mitkidis modified by Stegemann has met the limitations of producing olefins through a process comprising a furnace but fails to further teach applying heat through an electrical furnace.
However, it is known in the art to apply heat through an electrical heated furnace that can be used in gas conversion, as taught by Van.
Van discloses in paragraph 0001, a reactor configuration comprising at least one electrically heated furnace and to a method of performing a gas conversion process at high temperatures, comprising introducing at least one gaseous reactant into said reactor configuration. The reactor and method are useful in many industrial scale high temperature gas conversion and heating technologies.
Van discloses in paragraphs 0009-0011, a reactor configuration comprising at least one electrically heated furnace which defines a space, with at least one reactor tube placed within the furnace space and said reactor tube having an exit and entrance outside of the reactor furnace, and wherein said furnace is further provided with at least one electrical radiative heating element suitable for heating (the heating element) to high temperatures in the range of 400 to 1400° C., said heating element being located inside said furnace in such a way that the heating element is in no direct contact with the at least one reactor tube; and; and a number of inspection ports in the furnace wall such to be able to visually inspect the condition of the at least one reactor tube on all sides of said reactor tube during operation, the total number of inspection ports being sufficient to inspect all reactor tubes present in the furnace at their full length and circumference; and wherein the heating duty of the furnace is at least 3 MW.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the electrical heat furnace of Van as the furnace of Mitkidis. The motivation to do so is to use an electrical heat furnace to aid in gas conversion under high temperatures.
Claim(s) 6 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitkidis et al. (US 2019/0194091) hereinafter “Mitkidis” in view of Stegemann et al. (EP 4310160 A1) hereinafter cited under English Translation “Stegemann” and further in view of Burns et al. (US 2005/0020868) hereinafter “Burns”.
Regarding Claims 6 and 20-22
Mitkidis modified by Stegemann has met the limitations of producing olefins through a process comprising carbon dioxide but fails to further teach carbon dioxide capture carried out through absorption liquids.
However, it is known in the art to apply absorption liquids to capture carbon dioxide in steam cracking to produce hydrocarbons including olefins, as taught by Burns.
Burns discloses in paragraph 0001, a process for the production of olefins from hydrocarbons, more particularly to an energy-efficient process in which the hydrocarbons are treated to autothermal cracking.
Burns discloses in paragraph 0065, wherein carbon dioxide is removed from the product stream of step (a) the carbon dioxide may be removed by a range of conventional carbon dioxide removal systems such as liquid absorbents, solid adsorbents, and polymer membranes. The carbon dioxide may be removed using an amine-based absorption system such as MEA or TEA (or mixtures of both), or any other commercially available carbon dioxide removal process. Typically, the carbon dioxide can be reduced to below 50 ppmv by the use of an amine removal system consisting of a high-pressure absorber column which contacts the product stream with an amine solution.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to capture the carbon dioxide of Mitkidis through the absorption system of Burns. The motivation to do so is to apply absorption liquids to capture carbon dioxide and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in steam cracking in order to aid in the production of hydrocarbons including olefins.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4 and 13-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art references made of record, the references cited in the submitted Information Statement Disclosure and references listed on PTO-892 fails to teach and/or suggest a process for producing one or more olefins, comprising: reacting one or more paraffins to obtain a product mixture in one or more reaction steps wherein: the reaction step(s) are carried out using heat of combustion provided using a fuel gas, wherein a flue gas containing carbon dioxide is formed during the provision of the heat of combustion; and the product mixture contains the one or more olefins, hydrogen and methane forming a tail gas using the product mixture or a part thereof in one or more separation steps wherein the tail gas is substantially free of the one or more olefins and contains the hydrogen and the methane from the product mixture or a part thereof; subjecting the flue gas to carbon dioxide capture; subjecting the tail gas or a part thereof to one or more tail gas separation steps to obtain a first tail gas fraction enriched in hydrogen and depleted in methane compared to the tail gas and a second tail gas fraction depleted in hydrogen and enriched in methane compared to the tail gas; permanently discharging the first tail gas fraction from the process at a system boundary of a system used in the process or using the first tail gas fraction to provide further heat of combustion; wherein: a mole ratio of hydrogen to methane in the tail gas is at least as high as in the product mixture and in the fuel gas is lower than in the tail gas; and the fuel gas comprises the second tail gas fraction or a part thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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 571-272-6381. 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
