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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 19-20 have been added.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 6, and 17, have been amended.
The 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 7 has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KELLY JR et al. (U.S 3012082) and further in view of UNGELENK et al. (USPGPUB 2018/0282246).
Regarding claim 1, KELLY JR et al. teach in ln 3-25 of column 2 a method to employ a gas turbine compressor, booster compressor combination for regenerating a bed of catalyst.
KELLY JR et al. teach in Fig 1 and columns 6-7 air is supplied via conduit into a compressor 2. The air is compressed and sent through the apparatus. A cooled and dehumidified air is removed from the top of a spray cooler 20 and passed to a booster compressor 36. The cooled and dehumidified air is heated and pressurized in the booster compressor to form a regeneration air. (compressing an inlet gas stream to produce a high pressure gas stream)
The regeneration air passes through a heat exchanger 40 and into a direct fired heater 44 or burner 44 to produce a heated regeneration air. Other fuel such as methane may be supplied via conduit 46 into the direct fired heater 44 or burner 44. (combusting a fuel and the high pressure gas stream to produce a regeneration gas stream) The heated regeneration air is used in reactor or reactors 52 where hot regeneration effluent gases 54 is produced. (the regeneration gas stream is used to generate an exhaust gas from a catalyst regeneration process)
Regeneration effluent gases 54 pass through the heat exchanger 40 and through a catalyst fines removal system 56 and then passed to a gas turbine 14. Regeneration effluent gases 54 are heated to turbine exhaust gases from the gas turbine 14.
The turbine exhaust gases are passed by a conduit 62 to a direct fired burner 64. Hot gases leave direct fired burner and is sent to waste heat recovery 70.
The exhaust gases from the gas turbine are taught in column 9 to comprise oxygen. Oxygen serves as an oxidant.
The hot gases that leave direct fired burner and are sent to waste heat recovery have heating value that can be recovered by being used in an endothermic process. One object of KELLY JR et al. is taught in ln 53-56 of column 1 of KELLY JR et al. to “improve the method of supplying the endothermic heat requirements for a catalytic dehydrogenation process”. (providing the exhaust gas to supply heat and an oxidant to an endothermic chemical production process)
UNGELENK a process for dehydrogenation of n-butenes to form 1,3 butadienes. UNGELENK also teaches that a C4 fraction from steam cracking of naphtha comprises a high proportion of 1,3 butadiene. UNGELENK teach a process where steam cracking us applied to form a C4 fraction and then dehydrogenation is applied to the C4 fraction to further product more 1,3 butadienes.
Given that KELLY JR et al. teach in ln 54-57 of column 1 of KELLY JR. the method may be used to supply endothermic heat requirements for a catalytic dehydrogenation process, supplying the hot gases from directed fired burner 64 to provide the heat for the steam cracking step in a dehydrogenation process that is taught in UNGELENK would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (wherein the endothermic chemical production process includes a steam reforming process, and/or a steam cracking process.)
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 19 are dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, KELLY JR et al. teach in Fig 1 and column 6 that air may be supplied through a conduit 4 into the apparatus and associated process. The air eventually passes to a booster compressor to form a regeneration air.
The air for regeneration of catalyst is taught in ln 55-69 of column 3 of KELLY JR et al. to be compressed to a pressure between about 50 psia to about 150 psia, prior to being heated. (about 3.4 to about 10 bar)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 and the hot gas may be air. KELLY JR et al. further teach in column 3 that the oxygen content in the air that is used may vary from about 0% to about 100%.
Regarding claim 17, heated regeneration air (regeneration gas stream) is used in reactor or reactors 52 to regenerate a catalyst and where hot regeneration effluent gases 54 is produced.
Regeneration effluent gases 54 that have produced passes through multiple steps including a heat exchanger 40 and a burner 64 wherein the temperature is raised prior to passing to steam regeneration 70 where the steam is produced and used for the process.
The regeneration effluent gases are also taught in column 5 to pass through a flue gas heat exchanger. KELLY JR et al. that the regeneration effluent gas exits the reactor to a flue gas indirect heat exchanger. KELLY JR et al. further explicitly teach in column 9 that hot effluent regeneration gases from burner 64 may be sent to an additional heat exchanger provided in conduit 42 where the hot effluent regeneration gases would be cooled as it transfers heat away.
The regeneration effluent gases 54 are taught in column 9 to varied over a range of less than 1% to 21 vol%.
This range overlaps the range claimed and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, the air for regeneration of catalyst is taught in ln 55-69 of column 3 of KELLY JR et al. to be compressed to a pressure between about 50 psia to about 150 psia, prior to being heated. (about 3.4 to about 10 bar)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regeneration air, which is air after the booster compressor and heating, are fed into the reactor.
The regeneration of the catalyst in the reactor is taught in column 6 of KELLY JR et al. to occur at a pressure of about 70 to about 100 psia, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply the regeneration air at a pressure of about 70 to about 100 psia.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, KELLY JR et al. teach in Fig 2 and Columns 10-11 that fuel and regeneration effluent gases are fed into a gas turbine 92.
The fuel raises the temperature of the gases and drives an air compressor coaxially connected and to produce exhaust turbine gases.
UNGELENK teaches a process for producing butadiene from the dehydrogenation of butenes. The process comprises the production of MTBE from the isobutene portion when derivatized with methanol.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method that KELLY JR et al. teach to work with the dehydrogenation of butenes as taught in UNGELENK.
Modifying the system that KELLY JR et al. to dehydrogenate butenes and derivatizing isobutene to form MTBE, the gas produced would be considered waste air from a MTBE production unit. (combusting, in a gas turbine unit, a mixture of (1) a fuel in (2) a hot gas from a waste air vent of an MTBE production unit to produce a turbine exhaust gas stream)
The turbine exhaust gases may be passed through conduit 124 to direct fired burner 126 and eventually into process 112 wherein catalyst is regenerated.
(regenerating, using the turbine exhaust gas stream, a catalyst of a hydrocarbon dehydrogenation unit to produce a regeneration exhaust gas stream)
The regeneration effluent gases are passed via conduit 114 and eventually to waste heat recovery 140. Some amount of oxygen would be expected to be present and oxygen operates as an oxidant. (processing the regeneration exhaust gas stream to produce at least a portion of a combustion gas comprising the oxidant for the endothermic chemical production process)
Claims 12-16 and 20 are dependent on claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, UNGELENK teach that steam cracker is known and may be used alongside a dehydrogenation process.
Regarding claim 13, KELLY JR et al. teaches in lines 11-16 of page 6 that the catalytic dehydrogenation of butane.
Regarding claim 14, UNGELENK teaches the gases leaving the dehydrogenation include nitrogen, and carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. (Paragraph 95 of UNGELENK) (the hot gas from the waste air vent from the MTBE production unit further comprises nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, oxides of sulfur and/or nitrogen, or combinations thereof.)
Regarding claims 15-16, KELLY JR. teaches that the amount of oxygen present in gases may be from 0 to 100% (ln 34-39 of column 3 of KELLY JR) The amount of oxygen present in the regeneration gases is taught to be less than 21%. (ln 3)8-42 of column 9 of KELLY JR.) KELLY JR. teaches recycled effluent may be cooled to about 524°F to 331°F and combined with fresh air to be supplied to the gas turbine. (ln 38-50 of column 6 of KELLY JR.) The water partial pressure of the regeneration gases is less than about 5 psia. (ln 56-61 of column 6 of KELLY JR.) (the combustion gas comprises 15 to 21 vol. % oxygen, and the combustion gas is at a temperature of 150 to 250°C. and a pressure of 200 to 300 millimeters water column)
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, the turbine exhaust gases are taught in ln 36-40 of column 11 to be passed to direct heat burner 126 at a pressure of about 14 psia.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 3, KELLY JR et al. teach in Fig 1 and columns 6-8 of KELLY JR et al. that fuel and regeneration effluent gases are fed into a gas turbine 14. Conduit 8 may bypass air from compressor into the gas turbine 14. (flowing air and at least some fuel to a gas turbine unit)
The fuel raises the temperature of the gases and drives an air compressor coaxially connected and to produce exhaust turbine gases (combusting, in the gas turbine unit, the fuel in the air to produce a turbine exhaust stream and drive an air compressor)
A booster compressor raises the pressure of air and an elevated pressure. (lines 37-38 of column 10 of KELLY JR.) (processing a hot gas stream in the air compressor and an air heater to produce a regeneration gas stream)
The preheated regeneration air is contacted with the bed of dehydrogenation catalysts in reactors to regenerate the dehydrogenation catalysts. (ln 71-75 of column 10 of KELLY JR.) (regenerating, using the regeneration gas stream, a catalyst of a hydrocarbon dehydrogenation unit to produce a regeneration exhaust gas stream; and)
The regeneration gasses are taught to comprise oxygen. Oxygen serves as an oxidant. (ln 38-41 of column 9 of KELLY JR.) The regeneration effluent gases recovered from the reactors are passed to an indirect heat exchanger and suitable catalyst fines removal system. The regeneration effluent gases may be then passed to a gas fired turbine or burner. (ln 12-31 of column 11 of KELLY JR.) (processing the regeneration exhaust gas stream to produce at least a portion of a combustion gas comprising the oxidant for the endothermic chemical production process)
UNGELENK teaches that the C4 fraction from a naphtha steam cracker comprises a high proportion of 1,3 butadiene.
Applying the gas to a steam cracker would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art. (wherein the endothermic chemical production process includes a steam reforming process, and/or a steam cracking process.)
The gas fired turbine is coaxially connected with the air compressor.
Using a shaft as a coaxial connection between the two would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, a booster compressor recycles air to from the process outlet to the regeneration process inlet. The booster compressor provides regeneration air to the process that is pressurized and heated. (lines 29-42 of column 4 of KELLY JR.) Combustion occurs in the gas turbine to produce the regeneration gas stream. (compressing the hot gas stream in the air compressor to produce a high pressure gas stream; and combusting a fuel with the high pressure gas stream to produce the regeneration gas stream)
Regarding claim 5, the amount of oxygen present in the regeneration gases is taught to be less than 21%. (ln 38-42 of column 9 of KELLY JR. et al.) (wherein the regeneration gas stream comprises 1 to 15 vol. % oxygen gas.)
Regarding claims 6, one embodiment is taught wherein turbine exhaust gases are at a temperature of 796 F and about 14 psia and then further heated to a temperature of about 1436 F. About 1436 F is about 780C which includes 730 C. (ln 36-47 of column 11 of KELLY JR. et al.)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (wherein the regeneration gas stream is at a temperature of 600 to 730° C. and a pressure of 1 to 2 bar)
Regarding claim 18, the regeneration gas may be regenerated air that includes atmospheric air that is compressed. (ln 3-48 of column 2 of KELLY JR. et al.)
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KELLY JR et al. (U.S 3012082) in view of UNGELENK (USPGPUB 2018/0282246) as applied to claims 1-8, and 12-20 above, and further in view of FOSTER (USPGPUB2010/0005782).
The above discussion of KELLY JR in view of UNGELENK is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 9-11, cooling the hot regeneration effluent gases and flowing it as a flue gas and routing it with a back pressure and a baffle damper to redirect flow into a furnace for steam cracker are all well known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
KELLY JR teaches that the hot regeneration effluent gases are cooled by heat exchange. (ln 49-55 of column 8 of KELLY JR.)
FOSTER teaches an exhaust system in which a baffle or damper redirects flow with an actuator. (Para 32 of FOSTER)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a baffle and/or damper with an actuator to the system and process that KELLY JR in view of UNFELENK teaches to flow some amount of cooled hot regeneration effluent gases to a furnace.
Flowing the cooled hot regeneration effluent gases to a furnace for a stream cracker would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
A steam cracker is taught by UNGELENK to also be used in producing desired product such as 1,3 butadiene from naphtha.
Regarding the amount of back pressure being about 500-800 millimeters of water column, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
FOSTER recognizes that exhaust back pressure modifies flow characteristics. (Paras 12 and 44 of FOSTER)
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it was unclear in the previous action what gas in KELLY et al. in view of UNGELENK teaches which gas is applied to a steam cracker.
The gas, that comprises the oxidant, which is applied to the steam cracker has been highlighted.
The turbine exhaust gases are passed by a conduit 62 to a direct fired burner 64. The exhaust gases from the gas turbine are taught in column 9 to comprise oxygen. Oxygen serves as an oxidant. Hot gases leave direct fired burner 64 and is sent to waste heat recovery 70.
The hot gases that leave direct fired burner 64 and are sent to waste heat recovery may be used as heating for an endothermic process.
Applicant argues that UNGELENK fails to teach the use of a regeneration exhaust gas in the burners of a steam cracker.
This is not persuasive as the rejection is based on a combination of KELLY JR et al. in view of UNGELENK.
UNGELENK teaches a dehydrogenation process for production of butadienes wherein a steam cracker is used.
KELLY JR et al. explicitly teach in ln 53-56 of column 1 that “it is still a further object of this invention to improve the method of supplying the endothermic heat requirements for a catalytic dehydrogenation process.”
Applicant argues that KELLY JR et al. do not teach combusting a fuel and high pressure gas but the use of a gas turbine compressor and booster compressor.
This is not persuasive as KELLY JR et al. teach in multiple parts in Fig 1 and throughout the specification such as ln 38-45 of column 7, “direct fired burners” where fuel is burned to supply heating.
Applicant further argues that KELLY JR et al. teach away from the claimed ranges for pressure. This is not persuasive as applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of those ranges.
Applicant argues that modifying KELLY JR et al. with UNGELENK would render KELLY JR et al. inoperable because the regeneration effluent is not sent to the turbine.
This is not persuasive as KELLY JR et al. explicitly teach in column 8 that regeneration effluent gases are passed through conduit 54 to catalyst fines removal equipment 56 and then passed through conduit 12 into gas turbine.
Applicant argues that KELLY JR et al. do not each that endothermic heat is supplied for dehydrogenation.
KELLY JR et al. explicitly teach in ln 53-56 of column 1 that “it is still a further object of this invention to improve the method of supplying the endothermic heat requirements for a catalytic dehydrogenation process.”
Applicant further states that KELLY JR et al. teaches a closed regeneration loop and fails to teach the use of regeneration gas to provide heat and an oxidant to an endothermic steam reformer and/or steam cracker.
This is not persuasive as the rejection is based on a combination of KELLY JR et al. in view of UNGELENK. UNGELENK is relied on to teach a steam cracker that is used in a dehydrogenation process.
KELLY JR et al. teach a regeneration loop but also how gas turbine gases generated can be sent for waste heat recovery or steam generation.
Applicant’s representative argues that the compressors that are presently claimed are different from the compressors that are taught in KELLY JR et al. Applicant’s representative argued that the term “process air compressor” is meant to be akin to another type of compressor.
This is not persuasive as KELLY JR et al. explicitly teach compressors that process air. The term “process air compressor” is not explicitly defined in the specification to refer to only some specific types of compressors.
Applicant argues that the prior art do not teach providing regeneration exhaust gas as flue gas that is cooled.
This is not persuasive as KELLY JR et al. that the regeneration effluent gas exits the reactor to a flue gas indirect heat exchanger. KELLY JR et al. further explicitly teach in column 9 that hot effluent regeneration gases from burner 64 may be sent to an additional heat exchanger provided in conduit 42.
Applicant’s representative argues that the UNGELENK only uses the term regenerated/regeneration 4 times and that KELLY JR et al. do not explicitly teach that regeneration exhaust gas is used for steam cracking and/or steam reforming.
This is not persuasive as the rejection is based on a combination of KELLY JR et al. in view of UNGELENK. UNGELENK is relied on to teach a steam cracker that is used in a dehydrogenation process. KELLY JR et al. explicitly teach in ln 53-56 of column 1 that “it is still a further object of this invention to improve the method of supplying the endothermic heat requirements for a catalytic dehydrogenation process.” One of ordinary skill in the art would apply waste heat to supply endothermic heat requirements for a catalytic dehydrogenation process such as one that use a steam cracker to produce butadienes.
Applicant’s representative argues that it is speculation to state that KELLY Jr et al. in view of UNGELENK would feed regeneration exhaust gas to a steam cracker.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, KELLY JR et al. explicitly teaches “it is still a further object of this invention to improve the method of supplying the endothermic heat requirements for a catalytic dehydrogenation process.”
UNGELENK explicitly teaches a catalytic dehydrogenation process. The motivation to do so is explicitly taught in KELLY HR et al. KELLY JR et al. teach waste heat recovery and that waste heat may be used to fulfill the endothermic heat requirements for a catalytic dehydrogenation process.
Applicant’s representative argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify KELLY JR et al. with UNGELENK as KELLY JR et al. do not teach the terms butenes, isobutenes, and MTBE. Applicant’s representative further argues that KELLY JR et al. is directed toward a process for the production of butadienes.
KELLY JR et al. teach one application is butadienes. UNGELENK also teaches production of butadienes. KELLY JR et al. also do not limit the teachings to only the production of butadienes. KELLY JR et al. teach in column 6 dehydrogenation of hydrocarbons, for example, the dehydrogenation of butane to butylene to butadienes.
Applicant’s representative argues that KELLY JR et al. do not specifically teach a fuel source other than regeneration effluent gas, depropanizer tail gas and methane for the burners.
This is not persuasive as KELLY JR et al. also explicitly teach in ln 57-65 of column 10 that any other suitable fuel may be used in the burners.
Applicant’s representative argue that FOSTER is not applicable in KELLY JR et al. because FOSTER is directed toward exhaust in regards to an internal combustion engine and not commercial scale chemical processing unit piping and operations. Applicant’s representative argues that FOSTER does not disclose the problem that is faced by the present application.
This is not persuasive as exhaust flow is what is taught in both KELLY JR et al. and FOSTER. FOSTER recognize how to deal with back pressure in an exhaust flow. Furthermore, there is no explicit size limitations that are taught in KELLY JR et al. to lead one to believe that the teaching of FOSTER would not be applicable in KELLY JR et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ALERASOOL (USPGPUB 2003/0232720) teaches that dehydrogenation to produce MTBE is known in the art.
MEYER et al. (US 5132007) teach a cogeneration system for coproducing clean coal-based fuels and electricity.
MEYER et al. teach that coal is processed into syngas. The syngas is fed into a gas turbine and combusted to produce electricity. The turbine is exhausted to a heat exchange which produces high temperature steam for use as chemical process heat or the like.
MEYER et al. further teach a system with both a gas turbine and a steam turbine. Hot exhaust gases from the combustion of a gas turbine is used to preheat combustible gases upstream of the gas turbine combustion chamber.
The gases fed into a gas turbine consist primarily CO and CH4 with minor amounts of H2, CO2, N2 and C2s.
DEGEN (US 7750194) teaches preparing isopropanol and butanol from alkanes by dehydrogenation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771