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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, and 14, in the reply filed on May 18, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32-34, 37, 41, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 57, and 59 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 6, 10, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of the claims, the word --upstream-- should be inserted after “preceding” (at line 2) for consistency in the claim terminology, which was set forth in claim 2 (at line 4).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 14 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 limitation “each catalyst bed section has a higher catalyst capacity than the preceding upstream catalyst bed section” (at lines 4-5) is unclear because the farthest upstream catalyst bed section does not have a “preceding upstream catalyst bed section”.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is also rejected because it depends from claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, the recitations of “one or more catalyst bed sections” and “the preceding catalyst bed section” lack proper positive antecedent basis. Note that the claim depends from canceled claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “one or more catalyst bed sections comprise a dilution ratio that is lower than the preceding catalyst bed section” is unclear because the claims have not set forth that one or more catalyst bed sections are diluted (i.e., by catalyst additives and/or heat dissipative particles, as described by the specification at page 10, lines 7-18).
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “one or more catalyst bed sections comprise a dilution ratio that is from 2 to 15% lower than the preceding catalyst bed” is likewise unclear because the claims have not set forth that one or more catalyst bed sections are diluted.
Regarding claim 14, the recitations of “one or more catalyst bed sections” and “the preceding catalyst bed section” lack proper positive antecedent basis. Note that the claim depends from canceled claim 11.
Also, the limitation “one or more catalyst bed sections comprise a void fraction that is from 10 to 25% lower than the preceding catalyst bed section” is unclear because the claims have not set forth that one or more catalyst bed sections comprise voids (i.e., spaces between catalyst particles in a packing of the catalyst particles, as described by the specification at page 11, lines 19-27).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 5, the claim depends from canceled claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the claim depends from canceled claim 11.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zellhuber et al. (US 2021/0230093 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zellhuber et al. discloses a fixed bed reactor system for the oxidative dehydrogenation (ODH) of ethane to ethylene (i.e., a system 100 including a fixed bed reactor 10 for the ODH of ethane to ethylene; see FIG. 1, paragraphs [0083]-[0086]), comprising:
a catalyst bed (i.e., in the example shown, a catalyst bed 11a, 12a, 13a contained in a reaction tube 10c of the reactor 10), wherein a catalyst capacity profile (i.e., a catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity) increases, gradually or in steps, from an upstream end to a downstream end of the catalyst bed (see paragraph [0085]).
In particular, Zellhuber et al. (at paragraph [0030]) discloses,
“… the present invention provides an increase in catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity in the direction of the reactor outlet and by contrast, a reduction in the direction of the reactor inlet.”
Zellhuber et al. (at paragraph [0042]) further discloses,
“In the context of the invention, the increased catalyst activity… can in particular also be carried out only in the “last” reaction zone or in a corresponding catalyst bed, and the previously arranged catalyst beds or corresponding reaction zones can have lower, in particular gradually lower, catalyst activities and/or catalyst loadings per space unit… As mentioned, the catalyst activities can intensify stepwise from zone to zone in the direction of the reactor outlet.”
Regarding claim 2, Zellhuber et al. discloses that the catalyst bed comprises at least two non-overlapping catalyst bed sections (i.e., layers 11a, 12a, 13a in the example shown; see FIG. 1) arranged in series along the catalyst bed length, wherein the catalyst bed sections are identified by a change in the catalyst capacity (i.e., a change in catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity), and wherein each catalyst bed section has a higher catalyst capacity than the preceding upstream catalyst bed section (i.e., the catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity increases in the direction of the reactor outlet; see paragraphs [0030], [0042], [0085]).
Regarding claim 3, Zellhuber et al. discloses that the catalyst bed comprises catalyst bed sections 11a, 12a, 13a having an increasing catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity in the direction of flow (see paragraphs [0030], [0042], [0085]). The increase in catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity can be achieved by providing a stronger catalyst in subsequent catalyst bed sections (i.e., by providing catalyst bulk bodies produced with a higher proportion of active catalyst material to inert material) and/or by physically mixing a smaller proportion of inert bulk bodies with the catalyst bulk bodies in subsequent catalyst bed sections (see paragraphs [0023], [0030]). As well-known in the art, the conversion of ethane to ethylene is proportional to the catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity (i.e., for the same reaction conditions, a higher catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity leads to a higher conversion of ethane to ethylene, since more surface area and active sites of the catalyst material are available to contact the reactants).
Applicant (see specification, at page 2, lines 6-9) further states,
“The catalyst capacity, or ability to convert ethane in the ethylene, can be assessed by determining the 35% conversion temperature, which is dependent on which and how much catalyst, is present, to what degree the catalyst is diluted within the bed with catalyst additives and or heat dissipative particles, and the void fraction within the catalyst bed.”
Applicant (see specification, at page 10, lines 1-2) further states,
“Catalysts with a lower 35% conversion temperature have a higher ability to convert ethane into ethylene compared to a catalyst with a higher 35% conversion temperature.”
Therefore, one or more catalyst bed sections in the fixed bed reactor of Zellhuber et al. inherently comprise a lower 35% conversion temperature (i.e., a higher ability to convert ethane into ethylene due to the presence of a higher catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity) than the preceding catalyst bed section.
Regarding claim 6, Zellhuber et al. (at paragraph [0030]) discloses,
“… the present invention provides an increase in catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity in the direction of the reactor outlet and by contrast, a reduction in the direction of the reactor inlet. The catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity can here be adjusted in particular by means of different degrees of dilution by means of inert material…”.
Zellhuber et al. (at paragraph [0023]) further discloses,
“… The dilution of the active catalyst material with inert material is preferably conducted during the production of corresponding bulk bodies which form a catalyst bed, and can be carried out in such a way that different bulk bodies with different proportions of active catalyst material are provided. In this case, a catalyst bed with a predetermined activity level consists entirely of identical bulk bodies with the corresponding proportion of active catalyst material. In another embodiment, different reaction zones with reduced catalytic activity can also be provided by physical mixing of inert bulk bodies and bulk bodies with a higher proportion of active catalyst material.”
Therefore, the catalyst bed 11a, 12a, 13a in the fixed bed reactor of Zellhuber et al. further comprises one or more catalyst bed sections comprising a dilution ratio (i.e., a proportion of inert material to active catalyst material) that is lower than the preceding catalyst bed section.
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.
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 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zellhuber et al. (WO 2019/243480 A1). (NOTE: For the purpose of examination, claim 5 has been interpreted to depend from claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, Zellhuber et al. does not state that the one or more catalyst bed sections comprises a 35% conversion temperature that is, specifically, “from 2 to 10 °C” lower than the preceding catalyst bed section.
However, the specific degree of decrease in the 35% conversion temperature, in the direction of the reactor outlet, is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise degree of decrease would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art.
In particular, Zellhuber et al. (at paragraph [0015]) discloses,
“… Within the plurality of reaction zones, within the context of the present invention, a temperature influence is effected to different extents, specifically in such a way that a minimum reaction temperature is maintained overall in the reactor or it is ensured that the reaction temperature does not drop below a predetermined value in the direction of the reactor outlet. This is achieved by selectively influencing the temperature, i.e. influencing the temperature to different extents, in the individual reaction zones.”
Zellhuber et al. (at paragraph [0016]) further discloses,
“… A degree of heating can be set in particular by adjusting the catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity per space unit in a corresponding reaction zone. Since with higher catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity per space unit, the heat released in each case is correspondingly increased (i.e. the temperature is influenced to a greater extent), the reaction temperature can be correspondingly increased through higher catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity per space unit…”.
Zellhuber et al. (at paragraph [0019]) further discloses,
“… The advantages of the present invention result from the fact that in the direction of the reactor outlet, the reaction temperature can be raised above a value which is higher than the value which would result with continuous or constant reactor design. The reaction temperature must be limited at the reactor inlet in the conventional manner so that a maximum reaction temperature is not exceeded. However, as has been recognized according to the invention, a corresponding restriction proves to be not advantageous in the subsequent reaction zones, since at the reactor outlet it leads to the minimum advantageous reaction temperature being undershot. However, a deviating temperature control proposed according to the invention ensures that this minimum reaction temperature is not undershot.”
Zellhuber et al. (at paragraph [0027]) further discloses that,
“The proposed solution according to the invention has in particular the advantage that compared with only one reaction zone, both the conversion of the paraffin used and the selectivity to the corresponding olefin can be significantly increased by a plurality of reaction zones and thus an ODH-E process can be operated in a markedly more economical way.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the degree of decrease in the 35% conversion temperature (based on the amount of increase in the catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity) in the catalyst bed sections in the direction of the reactor outlet in the fixed bed reactor system of Zellhuber et al. in order to sufficiently raise the reaction temperature within subsequent catalyst bed sections and maintain the reaction temperature above a predetermined minimum reaction temperature in the direction of the reactor outlet, and thereby maximize the conversion of ethane and selectivity to ethylene. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Zellhuber et al. does not state that a dilution ratio of the one or more catalyst bed sections is, specifically, “from 2 to 15%” lower than the preceding catalyst bed section.
However, the specific percent decrease in the dilution ratio, in the direction of the reactor outlet, is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise percent decrease in the dilution ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. The same comments with respect to Zellhuber et al. apply (see claim 5, above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the percent decrease in the dilution ratio (and thus, the amount of increase in the catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity) in the catalyst bed sections in the direction of the reactor outlet in the fixed bed reactor system of Zellhuber et al. in order to sufficiently raise the reaction temperature within subsequent catalyst bed sections and maintain the reaction temperature above a predetermined minimum reaction temperature in the direction of the reactor outlet, and thereby maximize the conversion of ethane and selectivity to ethylene. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zellhuber et al. (US 2021/0230093 A1) in view of Okuno et al. (US 6,380,399 B1). (NOTE: For the purpose of examination, claim 14 has been interpreted to depend from independent claim 1).
Zellhuber et al. fails to disclose that one or more catalyst bed sections comprise a void fraction that is from 10 to 25% lower than the preceding catalyst bed section.
Okuno et al. discloses a fixed bed reactor system for the gas-phase catalytic oxidation of ortho-xylene and/or naphthalene to phthalic anhydride (i.e., a production system comprising a fixed bed reactor as shown in FIG. 1; see column 4, lines 12-24) comprising:
a catalyst bed including a plurality of catalyst bed sections (i.e., a catalyst bed including first, second, and third catalytic layers contained in a reactor tube of the reactor), wherein a catalyst capacity profile (i.e., catalytic activity) increases, gradually or in steps, from an upstream end to a downstream end of the catalyst bed (i.e., “… the catalytic activity of each individual catalytic layer should increase in the order from the first catalytic layer to the second and subsequent catalytic layers to achieve the conversion rate in each individual catalytic layer within the specified range,” see column 5, lines 63-67).
Okuno et al. (see column 6, lines 1-45) further discloses a variety of methods (1)-(6) for increasing the catalyst capacity profile from an upstream end to a downstream end of the catalyst bed. For instance, by using methods (2) and/or (5), the catalyst capacity profile can be increased in the direction of flow by providing one or more catalyst bed sections with a dilution ratio that is lower than the preceding catalyst bed section (i.e., by decreasing the proportion of inert carrier or inert substance to active catalyst material in the catalytic layer in the direction of flow; see column 6, lines 9-15 and 32-38). Also, by using method (4), the catalyst capacity profile can be increased in the direction of flow by providing one or more catalyst bed sections with a void fraction that is lower than the preceding catalyst bed section (i.e., the supported catalyst can be packed in such a manner that a voidage (void fraction) in the reactor tube of each individual catalytic layer sequentially decreases in the order from the first catalytic layer to subsequent catalyst layers, wherein the voidage can be changed by changing the size of a catalyst supported on an inert carrier to thereby change the packing ratio of the catalyst in the catalyst layer; see column 6, lines 26-62 and 49-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure one or more catalyst bed sections to comprise a void fraction that was lower than the preceding catalyst bed in the fixed bed reactor system of Zellhuber et al. because the increasing catalyst capacity profile (i.e., increasing catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity), from the upstream end to the downstream end of the catalyst bed, can also be achieved by decreasing a void fraction of the catalyst bed sections in the direction of flow, as taught by Okuno et al.
The further limitation of the void fraction of one or more catalyst bed sections being, specifically, “from 10 to 25%” lower than the preceding catalyst bed section is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise percent decrease in the void fraction would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. The same comments with respect to Zellhuber et al. apply (see claim 5, above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the percent decrease in the void fraction (and thus, the amount of increase in the catalyst loading and/or catalyst activity) in the catalyst bed sections in the direction of the reactor outlet in the modified system of Zellhuber et al. in order to sufficiently raise the reaction temperature within subsequent catalyst bed sections and maintain the reaction temperature above a predetermined minimum reaction temperature in the direction of the reactor outlet, and thereby maximize the conversion of ethane and selectivity to ethylene. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Egbert (AU 211242 B2) and Bos et al. (US 2019/0055177 A1) are cited to further illustrate the state of the art.
* * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights