DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/448,883 application filed 11 August 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-10 and 15-20 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.
Claim 8 recites “…wherein the spent catalyst has a dispersion of the transition metal catalyst of about 20% to about 50%, and the regenerated catalyst has a dispersion of the transition metal catalyst of at least about 60%.” The basis of the percentages is unknown. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined. The same applies to the percentage(s) recited in instant claims 10 and 16 and percentage points recited in instant claims 15 and 19-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Snell et al (US 2018/0333705 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Snell et al discloses “[m]ethods of regenerating spent catalysts comprising a transition metal and a catalyst support…One such method for regenerating a spent catalyst may comprise (1) contacting the spent catalyst with a chlorine-containing stream comprising a chlorine-containing compound to produce a chlorinated spent catalyst, (2) contacting the chlorinated spent catalyst with a decoking gas stream comprising oxygen to produce a de-coked catalyst” [paragraph 0004]. Also note, the reference discloses “[s]tep (2) of the method for regenerating a spent catalyst often may be referred to as the carbon burn step, or decoking step, and in this step, a chlorinated spent catalyst may be contacted with a decoking gas stream comprising oxygen to produce a de-coked catalyst” [paragraph 0055]. The chlorinated spent catalyst corresponds to the chlorinated catalyst of the instant application, and the de-coked catalyst corresponds to the regenerated catalyst. Snell et al further discloses “the chlorine-containing compound may comprise (or consist essentially of, or consist of)…chlorine gas (Cl2)…” [paragraph 0048; see also paragraph 0049: “the chlorine-containing compound may comprise (or consist essentially of, or consist of) chlorine gas (Cl2)…”].
With respect to claim 2, Snell et al discloses the “chlorination step may be conducted at a variety of temperatures and time periods. For instance, the chlorination step may be conducted at a chlorination temperature in a range from about 20° C. to about 500° C.; alternatively, from about 20° C. to about 300° C.; alternatively, from about 25° C. to about 300° C.; alternatively, from about 30° C. to about 250° C.; alternatively, from about 30° C. to about 150° C.; alternatively, from about 35° C. to about 300° C.; alternatively, from about 35° C. to about 200° C.; alternatively, from about 50° C. to about 250° C.; alternatively, from about 50° C. to about 200° C.; alternatively, from about 100° C. to about 300° C.; alternatively, from about 100° C. to about 250° C.; or alternatively, from about 150° C. to about 275° C.” [paragraph 0052]. Additionally, the reference teaches “the amount of chlorine (Cl) in the chlorine-containing stream often may be less than about 10 vol. %…In some aspects, the amount of the chlorine-containing compound in the chlorine-containing stream may provide (or result in) an amount of Cl in the chlorine-containing stream in a range of from about 0.05 to about 7 vol. %, from about 0.05 to about 5 vol. %, from about 0.05 to about 3 vol. %, from about 0.05 to about 2 vol. %, from about 0.1 to about 10 vol. %, from about 0.1 to about 5 vol. %, from about 0.5 to about 7 vol. %, from about 0.5 to about 5 vol. %, from about 0.5 to about 3 vol. %, from about 1 to about 10 vol. %, from about 1 to about 5 vol. %, or from about 1 to about 3 vol. %, and the like” [paragraph 0050]. Snell et al further teaches “[t]he duration of the chlorination step is not limited to any particular period of time. Hence, the chlorination step may be conducted, for example, in a time period ranging from as little as 30-45 minutes to as long as 12-24 hours, 36-48 hours, or more. The appropriate chlorination time may depend upon, for example, the chlorination temperature and the amount of chlorine (Cl) in the chlorine-containing stream, among other variables. Generally, however, the chlorination step may be conducted in a time period that may be in a range from about 45 minutes to about 48 hours, such as, for example, from about 1 hour to about 48 hours, from about 45 minutes to about 24 hours, from about 45 minutes to about 18 hours, from about 1 hour to about 12 hours, from about 2 hours to about 12 hours, from about 4 hours to about 10 hours, or from about 2 hours to about 8 hours” [paragraph 0053].
With respect to claim 3, Snell et al discloses “[i]n certain aspects, the decoking gas stream may comprise (or consist essentially of, or consist of) oxygen and nitrogen; alternatively, air and nitrogen; or alternatively, air” [paragraph 0055].
With respect to claim 4, Snell et al discloses “the amount of oxygen in the decoking gas may be less than about 10 mole %. For example, in some aspects, the decoking gas stream may comprise less than about 8 mole %, less than about 5 mole %, or less than about 3 mole % oxygen. Accordingly, suitable ranges for the mole % of oxygen in the decoking gas stream may include…from about 0.5 to about 5 mole %, from about 0.5 to about 4 mole %, from about 0.5 to about 2 mole %, or from about 1 to about 3 mole %, and the like” [paragraph 0056]. Additionally, “[t]he carbon burn step may be conducted at a variety of temperatures and time periods. For instance, the carbon burn step may be conducted at a peak decoking temperature in a range…from about 200° C. to about 500° C.;…; alternatively, from about 300° C. to about 500° C.; alternatively, from about 320° C. to about 480° C.; alternatively, from about 340° C. to about 460° C.; or alternatively, from about 350° C. to about 450° C.” [paragraph 0060].
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Snell et al discloses a “method for regenerating a spent catalyst consistent with this disclosure may comprise (a) contacting the spent catalyst with a pre-drying gas stream comprising an inert gas, (b) contacting the spent catalyst with a chlorine-containing stream comprising a chlorine-containing compound to produce a chlorinated spent catalyst, (c) contacting the chlorinated spent catalyst with a decoking gas stream comprising oxygen to produce a de-coked catalyst” [paragraph 0005].
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snell et al (US 2018/0333705 A1).
With respect to claim 2, see discussion above with respect to the amount of chlorine (Cl) in the chlorine-containing stream and the duration of the chlorination step. The recited ranges would have been obvious in view of the teachings of the reference.
With respect to claim 7, Snell et al discloses “[t]he conditions used during the drying step encompass a wide range of drying times, drying temperatures, and drying pressures. For example, the drying time may range from about 1 to about 48 hours, from about 2 to about 24 hours, or from about 2 to about 12 hours, and the drying temperature may range from about 15° C. to about 200° C., from about 25° C. to about 150° C., or from about 50° C. to about 125° C.” [paragraph 0098]. Consequently, the recited ranges in limitations of the instant claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 10-11 and 16-17, Snell et al discloses “the reactivated or regenerated catalyst may have an activity from about 50% to about 100%, or from about 70% to about 100%, of the catalyst activity of a fresh reference catalyst of the same production run of catalyst, when tested on the same equipment, and under the same method and test conditions. For instance, the reactivated or regenerated catalyst may have substantially the same activity as that of the fresh reference catalyst (i.e., a temperature within 10° F. of the temperature required by the fresh catalyst to achieve an aromatics yield of 63 wt. % in C5+, as described in the examples that follow). Further, in some aspects, the regenerated catalyst may have a temperature within 5° F. of the temperature required by the fresh catalyst to achieve an aromatics yield of 63 wt. % in C5+” [paragraph 0111]. Clearly, if the regenerated catalyst has an activity of about 50% or even 70% of a fresh catalyst that has an aromatics yield of 63 wt %, then the un-regenerated or spent catalyst must have an activity that results in an aromatics yield of less than (50%)(63 wt %), i.e., an aromatics yield of 31.5 wt %. However, a regenerated catalyst having activity of 100% of the fresh catalyst has an aromatics yield of (100%)(63 wt %) or 63 wt %. Snell et al also discloses “the reactivated catalyst or regenerated catalyst has a selectivity…from about 80% to about 105%, or from about 98% to about 105%, of the catalyst selectivity of a fresh reference catalyst of the same production run of catalyst, when tested on the same equipment, and under the same method and test conditions…the reactivated catalyst or regenerated catalyst is characterized by an aromatics selectivity in any selectivity range disclosed herein, for example, from about 0.88 to about 0.94, or from about 0.90 to about 0.94” [paragraphs 0243-0244].
With respect to claim 12, Snell et al discloses “the carbon burn step may be conducted for a time period sufficient to reduce the wt. % of carbon on the chlorinated spent catalyst to less than about 1 wt. % (a de-coked catalyst). In some aspects, the carbon burn step may be conducted for a time period sufficient to reduce the wt. % of carbon on the chlorinated spent catalyst to less than about 0.75 wt. %, less than about 0.5 wt. %, or less than about 0.2 wt. %” [paragraph 0062].
With respect to claims 13 and 18, Snell et al discloses “[t]he regenerated catalyst was then tested in the aromatization reaction using the above procedure and the results are presented in FIGS. 3-4. FIG. 3 illustrates that full catalyst activity was returned to the catalyst using a regeneration procedure where a chlorine-containing compound was added in the gas phase as chlorine gas, following by de-coking in the absence of moisture or without the addition of a halogen to the decoking gas stream” [paragraph 0147]. A second spent catalyst after said aromatization with the regenerated catalyst is obvious.
With respect to claim 14, applicant is reminded that repetition of a known process is one of the “inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Perfect Web Technologies Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1850.
With respect to claims 15 and 19-20, see prior discussion(s). Snell et al does not appear to disclose the second dispersion is at least 10 percentage point greater than the first dispersion. However, since the regeneration method and catalyst(s) of the reference is/are the same or similar to that of the instant application, it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that the dispersion of transition metals is the same or similar as well. The same applies to instant claims 8-9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
2 March 2026