DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-12, 14, 16-22 and 24 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 11/21/2025.
Applicants filed a Request for Continued Examination, and amended claims 1, 6-8, 11 and 14, and added claims 25-28 on 02/20/2026.
Claims 1-12 and 14-28 are pending, claim 15 is rejoined and claim 2 is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 21, 24-25, and 27-28 are rejected.
Claims 8, 14-20, 22-23 and 26 are objected to.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6, line 2, recites a range “about 1.2 weight percent”. The examiner interprets that the range refers to 1.2±0.1 weight percent, i.e., 1.1-1.3 weight percent.
Claim 7, line 3, recites a range “about 1.3 weight percent”. The examiner interprets that the range refers to 1.3±0.1 weight percent, i.e., 1.2-1.4 weight percent.
Claim Objections
Claims 26 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26, line 1, it is suggested to amend “a halogen-“ to “the halogen-“ for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 28, line 1, it is suggested to amend “a halogen-“ to “the halogen-“ for proper antecedent basis.
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 28 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 28, line 2, recites a phrase “providing an excess amount of the halogen-containing gas”. However, the term “excess” in claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “excess” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to providing any amount of the halogen-containing gas. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyekan et al., US 8,778,823 B1 (Oyekan), and further in view of Doolin, et al., Catalyst Regeneration and Continuous Reforming Issues, Catalytic Naphtha Reforming, 2004 (Doolin).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5 and 28, Oyekan teaches a continuous catalyst regeneration (CCR) reformer system (Oyekan, column 1, lines 10-15);
the accumulation of coke deposits causes the deactivation. reconditioning of the catalyst to remove coke deposits is necessary to restore the activity of the catalyst. Coke is normally removed from catalyst by contact of the coke containing catalyst at high temperature with an oxygen-containing gas to combust and convert coke to essentially carbon dioxide and water in a regeneration process. Equipment and technology for continuously removing catalyst particles from a reaction zone and for coke removal in a regeneration zone are well known (Oyekan, column 1, lines 15-35);
in order to combust coke in a typical regeneration zone, a regeneration gas is continuously circulated to the burn zone of a regeneration section (Oyekan, column 1, lines 34-36); the metals on catalyst particles are agglomerated due to the hydrothermal conditions in the burn zone of the regenerators (Oyekan, column, 2, bottom paragraph).
After the burn zone, the metal-containing catalyst particles drop to a halogenation zone. Chlorine or other halogen-containing gas circulates through the halogenation zone in a halogenation loop. Contacting the catalyst with the haolgenation gas redisperses platinum group metals on the catalyst particles. In addition, some of the added halogen replaces lost halogen from the catalyst during naphtha processing (reading upon provide a chloride concentration on a surface thereof) (Oyekan, column 1, lines 49-55);
From the halogenation zone catalyst particles descend into a drying zone. A heated gas contacts the catalyst particles and drives moisture from the catalyst. Typically, air or an oxygen-containing gas enters the drying zone as the drying medium (Oyekan, column 1, lines 62-66).
Oyekan further teaches wherein the burn zone, halogenation zone, and drying zone are in a stacked arrangement with the burn zone on top and the catalyst progresses through said beds under gravity flow (Oyekan, claim 4).
Oyekan further teaches wherein said platinum group metal comprises platinum (Oyekan, claim 3).
Oykan teaches some of the added halogen replaces lost halogen from the catalyst during naphta processing (Oykan, column 1, lines 54-55), i.e., activated catalyst comprises halogen when used for naptha processing; the halogen is for example chloride (Oykan, column 1, line 50-52; column 2, bottom paragraph).
Given that Oykan teaches an identical or essentially identical process with identical or essentially identical material, i.e., continuous catalyst regeneration reformer system for platinum containing naphtha catalyst with chloride, with those of the present invention (claim 1), therefore, it is clear that Oykan would necessarily or inherently meet the claimed limitation of transferring catalyst particles comprising a chloride content to the burn zone. Alternatively, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to removing catalyst particles with a chloride content, from a reaction zone and for coke removal in a regeneration zone, with reasonable expectation of success.
Given that Oykan teaches an identical or essentially identical process with identical or essentially identical material, i.e., reconditioning of naphtha processing catalyst comprising coke removal in a burn zone of a regeneration section, at high temperature with an oxygen-containing gas, with those of the present invention (claim 1; specification, [0006]), therefore, it is clear that Oykan would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed limitation of to reduce the chloride content.
Further regarding claim 1, Oyekan does not explicitly disclose the chloride concentration greater than 1.1 weight percent based on a weight of the catalyst particles.
With respect to the difference, Doolin teaches catalytic reforming technologies (Doolin, page 433, Introduction). Doolin specifically teaches catalyst chloride is restored (Doolin, page 440, 2nd paragraph); industrial reforming catalyst typically maintain chloride content between 1.0 and 1.1 wt.% depending on the catalyst and unit, an excessive amount of chloride is detrimental as it leads to undesirable cracking reactions and increased coke formation (Doolin, page 453, 3rd paragraph).
As Doolin expressly teaches, chloride ions are not only required for redispersing the platinum atoms, but they also help maintain a high platinum dispersion during process; in addition, chloride ions interact with the alumina support to create acidity needed for the reforming reactions (Doolin, page 453, 3rd paragraph).
Doolin is analogous art as Doolin is drawn to catalytic reforming technologies.
In light of the motivation of controlling and restoring chloride amount on reforming catalyst, as taught by Doolin, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace the lost halogen from the catalyst and maintain a halogen concentration on a surface of the catalyst particles of 1.0 and 1.1 wt.% based on a weight of the catalyst particles, in order to redisperse platinum atoms, maintain a high platinum dispersion and provide acidity needed for the reforming reactions.
The only deficiency of Oyekan in view of Doolin is that Oyekan in view of Doolin teaches the use of a halogen concentration on a surface of the catalyst particles of 1.0 and 1.1 wt.% based on a weight of the catalyst particles, while the present claims require the chloride concentration greater than 1.1 weight percent.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of chloride concentration and that taught by Oyekan in view of Doolin are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of chloride taught by Oyekan in view of Doolin and the amount disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the amount of chloride, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of chloride disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts taught by Oyekan in view of Doolin, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Alternatively, Doolin teaches chloride ions are not only required for redispersing the platinum atoms, but they also help maintain a high platinum dispersion during process; in addition, chloride ions interact with the alumina support to create acidity needed for the reforming reactions (Doolin, page 453, 3rd paragraph); however, an excessive amount of chloride is detrimental as it leads to undesirable cracking reactions and increased coke formation (Doolin, page 453, 3rd paragraph).
Although there are no explicit disclosures on the amounts of above about 1.2 weight percent of halogen concentration on the surface of the catalyst particles, as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of halogen content on the surface of the catalyst particles in Oyekan in view of Doolin, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to maintain high platinum dispersion, achieve desirable cracking reactions and coke formation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, given that Oyekan in view of Doolin teaches a halogen concentration on a surface of the catalyst particles of 1.0 and 1.1 wt.% based on a weight of the catalyst particles, which is in close proximity to the claimed range above about 1.2 weight percent based on a weight of the catalyst particles. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Alternatively, Doolin teaches chloride ions are not only required for redispersing the platinum atoms, but they also help maintain a high platinum dispersion during process; in addition, chloride ions interact with the alumina support to create acidity needed for the reforming reactions (Doolin, page 453, 3rd paragraph); however, an excessive amount of chloride is detrimental as it leads to undesirable cracking reactions and increased coke formation (Doolin, page 453, 3rd paragraph).
Although there are no explicit disclosures on the amounts of above about 1.2 weight percent of halogen concentration on the surface of the catalyst particles, as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of halogen content on the surface of the catalyst particles in Oyekan in view of Doolin, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to maintain high platinum dispersion, achieve desirable cracking reactions and coke formation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Oyekan in view of Doolin further teaches chloride ions are not only required for redispersing the platinum atoms, but they also help maintain a high platinum dispersion during process; in addition, chloride ions interact with the alumina support to create acidity needed for the reforming reactions (Doolin, page 453, 3rd paragraph); however, an excessive amount of chloride is detrimental as it leads to undesirable cracking reactions and increased coke formation (Doolin, page 453, 3rd paragraph).
Although there are no explicit disclosures on the amounts of above about 1.3 weight percent of halogen concentration on the surface of the catalyst particles, as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of halogen content on the surface of the catalyst particles in Oyekan in view of Doolin, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to maintain high platinum dispersion, achieve desirable cracking reactions and coke formation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Oyekan in view of Doolin does not explicitly disclose that wherein the regeneration reformer system comprises one or more regeneration tower.
With respect to the difference, Doolin specifically teaches a major feature of the continuous catalytic reformer platformer is a dedicated regeneration tower that permits effective carbon burn of the catalysts, redispersion of the active metals, chloride addition, catalyst drying (Doolin, page 436, 3rd paragraph).
In light of the disclosure of Doolin, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to comprise one or more regeneration towers, that permits effective carbon burn of the catalysts, redispersion of the active metals, chloride addition, catalyst drying, and yield expected results, and therefore arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1, Oyekan in view of Doolin further teaches continuously removing catalyst particles from a reaction zone (Oyekan, column 1, lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 10, Oyekan in view of Doolin does not explicitly disclose wherein the catalyst particles are recycled into the reaction section following step (c).
With respect to the difference, Doolin teaches the continuous regeneration is accomplished by removing small quantities of catalyst from the bottom of the reactor and transporting the catalyst to a separate regeneration unit; the rejuvenated catalyst is returned to the top of the reactor (Doolin, page 440, 1st paragraph).
In light of the disclosure of Doolin, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to return the regenerated catalyst to the top of the reaction zone, and yield expected results, and therefore arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 10, Oyekan in view of Doolin further teaches wherein said platinum group metal comprises platinum (Oyekan, claim 3); Typically, air or an oxygen-containing gas enters the drying zone as the drying medium (Oyekan, column 1, lines 62-66).
Regarding claim 24, as applied to claim 1, Oyekan in view of Doolin further teaches the catalyst comprises a platinum group metal on an alumina support (Oyekan, claim 2).
Regarding claim 27, as applied to claim 1, Oyekan in view of Doolin further teaches continuously circulating the halogen-containing gas from a halogenation gas outlet to a halogenation gas inlet in a halogenation loop and adding a halogen to said halogenation gas loop in an amount determined to maintain a halogen concentration in the halogenation loop (Oyekan, claim 1); typically, air or an oxygen-containing gas enters the drying zone as the drying medium and passes upward through the halogenation zone to the burn zone to provide combustion gas (Oyekan, column 1, bottom paragraph), i.e., the halogen gas added in the halogenation zone could also pass upward to the burn zone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to also circulate the halogen-containing gas from the gas outlet of the burn zone, to the halogenation loop (reading upon to a halogen recovery system, and from the halogen recovery system to the halogenation zone), in order to optimize process efficiency.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyekan and Doolin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hung et al., Oxychlorination redispersion of Pt catalysts: Surface species and Pt-supported interactions characterized by X-ray absorption and FT-IR spectroscopy, Catalysts, 9, 362, 2019 (Hung).
Regarding claim 21, as applied to claim 1, Oyekan in view of Doolin further teaches the halogen gas added to the halogenation loop sometimes enters the loop in admixture with air or other oxygen-containing gas (Oyekan, column 1, lines 55-57).
Oyekan in view of Doolin does not explicitly disclose to maintain an oxygen content of at least about 5% by volume to about 50% by volume in the halogenation zone.
With respect to the difference, Hung teaches oxychlorination redispersion of Pt catalyst (Hung, Abstract). Hung specifically teaches the redispersion process was carried out at an air/EDC (i.e., ethylene dichloride) mole ratio of 30 (Hung, page 11, 3rd paragraph).
As Hung expressly teaches, a higher O2 content in the redispersion process could result in increased redispersion efficacy (Hung, page 8, 3rd paragraph).
Hung is analogous art as Hung is drawn to oxychlorination redispersion of Pt catalyst.
In light of the motivation of conducting redispersion in a higher O2 content, as taught by Hung, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to conduct the halogenation of Oyekan with a higher O2 content, e.g., at an air/halogen-containing gas of molar ratio of 30, in order to achieve increased redispersion efficacy.
Given the volume percentage of O2 in air is 21%, it can be derived that at an air/halogen-containing gas of molar ratio of 30, the oxygen content is: 20.3% by volume (i.e., 21%*30/31=20.3%), which is within the claimed range.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyekan and Doolin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu, CA 2865755 (Wu).
Regarding claim 25, as applied to claim 1, Oyekan in view of Doolin does not explicitly disclose wherein the halogen-containing gas comprises perchloroethane.
With respect to the difference, Wu teaches methods for rejuvenating a spent catalyst comprising hydrogenation (Wu, Abstract). Wu specifically teaches suitable fluorine-containing compounds (i.e., for hydrogenation of spent catalyst) can include chlorine gas and alternatively tetrachloroethylene (i.e., perchloroethane ) (Wu, page 11, 2nd paragraph).
Wu is analogous art as Wu is drawn to methods for rejuvenating a spent catalyst comprising hydrogenation.
In light of the disclosure of Wu of the equivalence and interchangeability of using chlorine gas as disclosed in Oyekan (Oyekan, column 1, 2nd paragraph from bottom), with tetrachloroethylene (i.e., perchloroethane ) as presently claimed, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use tetrachloroethylene (i.e., perchloroethane ) as the halogen-containing gas in Oyekan in view of Doolin, and yield expected results, and thereby arrive claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 14-20, 22-23 and 26 are 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.
Regarding claim 8, none of Oyekan, Doolin, or Hung teaches or suggests wherein the halogen-containing gas is provided to the halogenation zone in a first line and a second line, wherein the first line is configured to provide the halogen-containing gas to any of the burn zone, the halogenation zone, and the drying zone. On the contrary, Oyekan teaches chlorine or other halogen-containing gas circulates through the halogenation zone (Oyekan, column 1), i.e., chlorine or other halogen-containing gas is added to the halogenation zone, which is above the drying zone.
Regarding claims 14-20 and 22-23, none of Oyekan, Doolin, or Hung teaches or suggests further comprising passing the catalyst particles through the regeneration section in less than four hours. On the contrary, Doolin teaches the time required for catalyst regeneration may vary from 6 to 8 h (Doolin, page 4, bottom paragraph), which is outside the range of the presently claimed.
Regarding claim 26, none of Oyekan, Doolin, or Hung teaches or suggests wherein contacting the catalyst particles with a halogen- containing gas comprises providing the halogen-containing gas to each of the burn zone, the halogenation zone, and the drying zone. On the contrary, Oyekan teaches chlorine or other halogen-containing gas circulates through the halogenation zone (Oyekan, column 1), i.e., chlorine or other halogen-containing gas is added to the halogenation zone, which is above the drying zone.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amended claims, the previous claim objections. However, the amended necessitates a new set of claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) as set forth above.
Applicant primarily argues:
“Okeyan appears to teach that the use of chlorination zones can only occur when air and organic chloride are introduced into the chlorination zones during white burn. Id., col. 2, lines 61-66. The C11 to C16 hydrocarbons appear to maintain sufficient catalyst coke for use of steady state white burn regeneration operations. Id., col. 3, lines 34-41.”
Remarks, p. 10
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
The fact remains that Oyekan teaches a continuous catalyst regeneration reforming system.
Applicant further argues:
“However, Okeyan does not appear to teach or suggest "[a] method of operating a continuous catalyst regeneration reformer system, the system having a regeneration section, the regeneration section including a burn zone, a halogenation zone, and a drying zone, the method comprising: (a) transferring catalyst particles comprising a platinum group metal and a chloride concentration and having coke deposited thereon to the burn zone to contact the catalyst particles with an oxygen-containing regeneration gas to remove the coke and reduce the chloride concentration from the catalyst particles, and to provide an agglomeration of the platinum group metal; (b) passing the catalyst particles from the burn zone to the halogenation zone to contact the catalyst particles with a halogen-containing gas to replenish the chloride concentration of the catalyst particles and provide a chloride concentration on a surface thereof, and to disperse the agglomeration of the platinum group metal, the chloride concentration greater than 1.1 weight percent based on a weight of the catalyst particles; and (c) passing the catalyst particles from the halogenation zone to a drying zone to contact the catalyst particles with a drying gas in the drying zone," as recited in claim 1, as currently amended.
For example, Okeyan appears to be completely silent regarding the chloride concentration on the surface of the catalyst.”
Remarks, p. 10-11
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant primarily argues that Okeyan does not expressly teach the claimed chloride concentration greater than about 1.1 weight percent based on a weight of the catalyst particles. This argument merely agrees with the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, which admits that Okeyan does not disclose the entire claimed invention. Rather, Doolin is relied upon to teach claimed elements missing from Okeyan, with proper motivation to combine, namely, chloride ions are not only required for redispersing the platinum atoms, but they also help maintain a high platinum dispersion during process; in addition, chloride ions interact with the alumina support to create acidity needed for the reforming reactions (Doolin, page 453, 3rd paragraph). See pages 9 of the Office Action as set forth above.
Applicant further argues:
“The Examiner acknowledges that "Okeyan does not explicitly disclose the chloride concentration greater than about 1.1 weight percent based on a weight of the catalyst particles; wherein the halogen concentration on the surface of the catalyst particles is maintained at a concentration above about 1.2 weight percent." Final Office Action of November 21, 2025, page 7. However, the Examiner asserts that:
With respect to the difference, Doolin teaches catalytic reforming technologies (Doolin, page 433, Introduction). Doolin specifically teaches catalyst chloride is restored (Doolin, page 440, 2nd paragraph); industrial reforming catalyst typically maintain chloride content between 1.0 and 1.1 wt.% depending on the catalyst and unit, an excessive amount of chloride is detrimental as it leads to undesirable cracking reactions and increased coke formation (Doolin, page 454, 3rd paragraph).
As Doolin expressly teaches, chloride ions are not only required for redispersing the platinum atoms, but they also help maintain a high platinum dispersion during process; in addition, chloride ions interact with the alumina support to create acidity needed for the reforming reactions (Doolin, page 453,3rd paragraph).
Final Office Action of November 21, 2025, page 8. Applicant submits however, the Doolin does not teach or suggest that the chloride concentration is greater than 1.1 weight percent based on a weight of the catalyst particles, as recited in claim 1. Doolin appears to teach that a feature of a CCR platformer is a dedicated regenerator tower that permits effective carbon burn of the catalysts, redispersion of the active metals, chloride addition, catalyst drying, and catalyst environment adjustment before transporting regenerated catalyst to the catalyst reduction zone and lead reactor. Doolin, page 436. Continuous regeneration is accomplished by removing small quantities of catalyst from the bottom of the reactor and transporting the catalyst to a separate regeneration unit. Id., page 440. The catalyst undergoes sequential coke removal, metal redispersion, and support chlorination followed by reduction of the platinum to the metallic state. Id., page 440. The catalyst includes a metal site for dehydrogenation and hydrogenation functionality; and an alumina support and chloride for acid-catalyzed isomerization functionality. Id., page 440.
While Doolin appears to teach that the "[c]hloride ions are not only required for redispersing the platinum atoms, but they also help maintain a high platinum dispersion during processing. In addition, chloride ions interact with the alumina support to create acidity needed for the reforming reactions" (Doolin, page 453), Doolin does not teach or suggest that the chloride concentration is greater than 1.1 weight percent. In particular, Doolin teaches that "[i]ndustrial reforming catalysts typically maintain chloride content between 1.0 and 1.1 wt % depending on the catalyst and unit." Id., page 453, 3rd paragraph. However, Doolin teaches that "[r]eforming catalysts are bifunctional, requiring both acidic and metallic sites. The acid function of the catalyst must be balanced with the metal activity for good reforming activity." Id., page 453,3rd paragraph (emphasis added). In other words, Doolin appears to teach that blindly increasing the chloride concentration would affect the acidity of the catalyst. Doolin teaches, in fact, that "[a]n excessive amount of chloride is detrimental as it leads to undesirable cracking reactions and increased coke formation." Id., page 453,3rd paragraph (emphasis added). Thus, Doolin appears to teach that "[i]ndustrial reforming catalysts typically maintain chloride content between 1.0 and 1.1 wt % depending on the catalyst and unit" and also teaches that "chloride ions interact with the alumina support to create acidity needed for the reforming reactions. Reforming catalysts are bifunctional, requiring both acidic and metallic sites. The acid function of the catalyst must be balanced with the metal activity for good reforming activity." Id., page 453. Thus, Applicant submits that based on the teachings of Doolin, one of ordinary skill in the art would not simply increase the chloride content of the catalyst, but would balance the chloride content to balance the acid function of the catalyst with the metal activity of the catalyst. As taught by Doolin, "[a]n excessive amount of chloride is detrimental as it leads to undesirable cracking reactions and increased coke formation" and, therefore, "[t]he acid function of the catalyst must be balanced with the metal activity for good reforming activity. Id., page 453 (emphasis added).
With the above in mind, Applicant notes the Examiner's assertion that "the interpretation of 'an excessive amount of chloride is detrimental' of Doolin is taken out of context. Doolin's disclosure of 'excessive' appears to refer to an amount that is more than necessary, or more than normal, depending on the catalyst, instead of more than the exemplary amount of 'between 1.0 and 1.1 wt %." Final Office Action of November 21, 2025, page 19. Applicant respectfully disagrees. In particular, and as discussed above, Doolin appears to teach that the chloride concentration of the catalyst must be balanced to prevent undesirable cracking reactions and increased coke formation. Doolin further teaches that industrial reforming catalysts typically maintain chloride content between 1.0 and 1.1 weight percent depending on the catalyst and unit (as opposite to more than 1.1 weight percent).”
Remarks, p. 11-13
Remarks, p. 15
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, the only deficiency of Oyekan in view of Doolin is that Oyekan in view of Doolin teaches the use of a halogen concentration on a surface of the catalyst particles of 1.0 and 1.1 wt.% based on a weight of the catalyst particles, while the present claims require the chloride concentration greater than 1.1 weight percent.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of chloride concentration and that taught by Oyekan in view of Doolin are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of chloride taught by Oyekan in view of Doolin and the amount disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the amount of chloride, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of chloride disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts taught by Oyekan in view of Doolin, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Alternatively, Doolin teaches chloride ions are not only required for redispersing the platinum atoms, but they also help maintain a high platinum dispersion during process; in addition, chloride ions interact with the alumina support to create acidity needed for the reforming reactions (Doolin, page 453, 3rd paragraph); however, an excessive amount of chloride is detrimental as it leads to undesirable cracking reactions and increased coke formation (Doolin, page 453, 3rd paragraph).
Although there are no explicit disclosures on the amounts of above about 1.2 weight percent of halogen concentration on the surface of the catalyst particles, as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of halogen content on the surface of the catalyst particles in Oyekan in view of Doolin, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to maintain high platinum dispersion, achieve desirable cracking reactions and coke formation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention, as set forth above on pages 8-10, absent evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, Doolin teaches the need to optimize the chloride concentration, depending on catalyst, and does not teach away from a specific chloride concentration, absent evidence to the contrary.
Applicant further argues:
“Applicant notes that "Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range..... In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." MPEP §2145.05(III)(A). Applicant submits that a chloride concentration higher than 1.1 weight percent is critical. The as-filed application illustrates the criticality and unexpected results of a chloride concentration greater than 1.1 weight percent. For example, and only as one example, Example 1 shows the redispersion of platinum on two different catalysts as a function of catalyst chloride levels. See as-filed application, paragraph [0050]. The as-filed application describes that:
Catalyst chloride levels were varied between 0.7 and 1.2 wt. % Cl to determine the effect of catalyst chloride level on platinum dispersion in the tested catalysts.
As demonstrated in Table 1 below, platinum dispersion improved when catalyst chloride levels were increased to 1.0 wt. % Cl and further improved significantly
when catalyst chloride levels were increased to 1.2 wt. % Cl.
Id., paragraph [0050]. With reference to Table 1, reproduced below, between a chloride content of 1.0 weight percent and 1.2 weight, the redispersion on catalyst A increased from 59% to 98% percent and the redispersion on catalyst B increased from 32% to 79%.
…
Therefore, Example 1 illustrates the criticality of a chloride concentration greater than 1.0 as evidenced by the difference in redispersion between a chloride content of 1.0 weight percent about a chloride content of 1.2 weight percent. In view of the foregoing, Applicant submits that claim 1, as currently amended, would not have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art.”
Remarks, p. 13-14
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
The data to show advantageous effects by a chloride concentration greater than 1.0 in the present invention is not persuasive for the following reasons.
Firstly, Doolin teaches that it is known that metals redispersion can be effected by appropriated amounts of chloride (Doolin, page 9, 4th paragraph from bottom). Therefore, it is not unexpected that the chloride concentration can affect metal dispersion and an optimized chloride concentration can be achieved for improved dispersion for specific catalyst.
Secondly, the specification only provides data for re-dispersion experiments, instead of a method of operating a continuous catalyst regeneration reformer system, therefore the data is out of the scope of the claim.
Thirdly, even if the data is drawn to a method of operating a continuous catalyst regeneration reformer, the data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims. The specification only provides data for using a specific catalyst particle, a specific burn zone condition (temperature, oxygen concentration), specific halogenation condition (chloride source, temperature), no drying zone; however, the present claim is drawn to a method of operating a continuous catalyst regeneration reformer system, using any catalyst particle comprising a platinum group metal, any halogenation zone condition, and any burn zone condition.
Applicant further argues:
“As discussed above, Okeyan and Doolin do not appear to teach or suggest all of the elements of amended claim 1. Hung does not resolve the deficiencies thereof. For example, Hung appears to teach a redispersion process carried out with a ratio of air/ethylene dichloride (EDC) of 30 to 40. Hung, page 8. However, Hung appears to be completely silent regarding the chlorine concentration of the catalyst or that the chlorine concentration is greater than 1.1 weight percent.
The nonobviousness of independent claim 1, in turn, precludes a rejection of claim 21, which depends therefrom, because a dependent claim is obvious only if the independent claim from which it depends is obvious. See In re Fine, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1596, 2600 (Fed. Cir. 1988), see also M.P.E.P. § 2143.03. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the 35 U.S.C. § 103 obviousness rejection of claim 21.”
Remarks, p. 17
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is noted that while Hung does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Hung is used as teaching reference, namely to conduct the halogenation with a higher O2 content, in order to achieve increased redispersion efficacy, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant further argues:
“Claim 25 is further allowable because the applied references, alone or in combination, do not appear to disclose, teach, or otherwise suggest "wherein the halogen-containing gas comprises perchloroethane," as recited in claim 25. For example, Okeyan appears to be silent regarding the halogen-containing gas comprising perchloroethane. Doolin appear to teach that the halogen-containing gas may include ethylene dichloride, but appears to be silent regarding perchloroethane. Hung appears to be silent regarding perchloroethane. Therefore, claim 25 is allowable at least for this additional reason.”
Remarks, p. 18
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
“wherein the halogen-containing gas comprises perchloroethane” is met by teaching reference Wu, as set forth above on page 16, absent evidence to the contrary.
Applicant further argues:
“Claim 27 is further allowable because the applied references, alone or in combination, do not appear to disclose, teach, or otherwise suggest "further comprising circulating the halogen- containing gas from a halogenation gas outlet of the burn section, to a halogen recovery system, and from the halogen recovery system to the halogenation zone," as recited in claim 27. For example, each of Okeyan, Doolin, and Hung appear to be silent regarding a halogen recovery system, let alone circulating the halogen-containing gas from a halogenation gas outlet of the burn section to a halogen recovery system, and from the halogen recovery system to the halogenation zone. Therefore, claim 27 is allowable at least for this additional reason.”
Remarks, p. 19
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Oyekan in view of Doolin further teaches continuously circulating the halogen-containing gas from a halogenation gas outlet to a halogenation gas inlet in a halogenation loop and adding a halogen to said halogenation gas loop in an amount determined to maintain a halogen concentration in the halogenation loop (Oyekan, claim 1); typically, air or an oxygen-containing gas enters the drying zone as the drying medium and passes upward through the halogenation zone to the burn zone to provide combustion gas (Oyekan, column 1, bottom paragraph), i.e., the halogen gas added in the halogenation zone could also pass upward to the burn zone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to also circulate the halogen-containing gas from the gas outlet of the burn zone, to the halogenation loop (reading upon to a halogen recovery system, and from the halogen recovery system to the halogenation zone), in order to optimize process efficiency, as set forth above on pages 14-15.
Applicant further argues:
“Claim 28 is further allowable because the applied references, alone or in combination, do not appear to disclose, teach, or otherwise suggest "wherein contacting the catalyst particles with a halogen-containing gas comprises providing an excess amount of the halogen-containing gas to the halogenation zone," as recited in claim 28. Okeyan and Hung appear to be silent regarding the above-referenced element. Doolin appears to teach that "[a]n excessive amount of chloride is detrimental and leads to undesirable cracking reactions and increased coke formation." Doolin, page 453. Therefore, claim 28 is allowable at least for this additional reason.”
Remarks, p.
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Claim 28 is subjected to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, as the term “excess” in claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “excess” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to providing any amount of the halogen-containing gas, as set forth above in item 7 and claim 28 is rejected according to this interpretation.
Therefore, the Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, but they are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732