DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claim 12 is amended. Claims 1-11 are withdrawn due to an earlier restriction requirement. Claim 17 is cancelled.
The cancellation of claim 17 overcomes the previous objection.
Claims 12-16, 18, and 19 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 19 December 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 17 under USC 103 over Pan in view of Mettler have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the presence of multiple water sensors presented in previous dependent claim 17 is now incorporated into independent claim 12. The argument that the Mettler reference, used for previous claim 17, teaches a sensor which is only useful for dry gas and is not useful a reaction in the presence of water is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly presented prior art. The below rejection has been made Non-Final in response.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 12, the claim recites in lines 13-14 a range of “10 vppm to 3 mole percent”. While volume and mole percents are considered equivalents for gases, and at the typical regeneration temperatures the water would be gaseous, the units used within a range should still be consistent within the range. Thus, this phrase should be amended to “10 vppm to 3 volume percent”.
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 12-16, 18, and 19 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.
With regard to claim 12, the claim recites in lines 9-11 “sensing a water level using a plurality of sensors, wherein one of said sensors is at an inlet of said reactor, inside said reactor, at an outlet of said reactor, and at an outlet of said catalyst regenerator…” It is unclear from the phrasing whether a single sensor can be moved between some of the locations listed, because the phrase “a plurality” only requires a minimum of two sensors, and the phrasing “one of said sensors” is not repeated for each location. Further, the phrase “said sensors” lacks antecedent basis.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification as filed does not include the phrasing “a plurality”, only including the same language as in original claim 17 “sensing a water level sensor at an inlet of the reactor, inside the reactor, at an outlet of the reactor, and at an outlet of the catalyst regenerator” (paragraph [0008]). Thus, there is no support for the concept of “a plurality” being anything other than the four specific sensor locations listed. As such, the Examiner suggests rewording the claim to recite “sensing a water level with a sensor at an inlet of said regenerator, a sensor inside said reactor, a sensor at an outlet of said rector, and a sensor at an outlet of said regenerator…” or similar language to make it clear there are only and exactly four sensors at four locations.
Also with regard to claim 12, the claim recites in line 12 “controlling a water level in said reactor using said plurality of sensors…” It is unclear how sensors, which by definition merely “sense” water content, can be used to “control” the water level in a reactor. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the sensors are recited as being connected to a control unit in the instant specification (paragraph [0008]). Thus, it is understood that it is the control unit which controls the water level, rather than the sensors themselves, especially because three of the sensors are not in the reactor. The Examiner suggests that it is unnecessary to specify the control unit, and instead suggests removing the newly added language such that the claim recites only “controlling a water level in said reactor…” as previously presented.
With regard to claims 13-16, 18, and 19, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 12-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeck et al. (US 2,131,089) in view of Pan et al. (US 2009/0325784).
With regard to claims 12-15, Beeck teaches a process of activating and maintaining the catalytic activity of dehydrogenation catalysts (page 1, first column, lines 1-5) comprising the following steps:
a) contacting isobutane (reactant stream) with a catalyst in a reactor to produce a product comprising isobutylene (page 3, second column, Example I, lines 48-52 and 61).
b) regenerating said catalyst, and reusing the regenerated catalyst in the reactor (page 4, Example III, first column lines 59-61 and second column lines 2-3).
c) controlling a water level in the reactor feed (instant claim 15) to maintain a water content of 0.03 vol% (equivalent to 300 vppm) (page 3, second column, Example I, lines 66-68), where the amount of 0.03 vol% is within the ranges of about 10 vppm to 3 mol% of instant claims 12 and 15, about 100 vppm to about 2 mole percent of instant claim 13, and about 200 vppm to about 1 mole percent of instant claim 14. Beeck teaches that controlling the water content controls the activity of the catalyst and selectivity of the product (page 3, second column, Example I, lines 60-75).
Beeck does not explicitly teach i) that the regeneration takes place in a catalyst regenerator unit, such that the catalyst is supplied from the reactor to the regenerator and the regenerated catalyst is supplied to the reactor, ii) sensing a water level using a sensor at an inlet to the reactor, inside the reactor, and at an outlet to the reactor, or iii) sensing a water level at an outlet of the regenerator unit.
With regard to i), Pan teaches a process for dehydrogenation of paraffins (paragraph [0002]). Pan further teaches that it is known to perform catalyst regeneration for dehydrogenation reactions continuously, where the catalyst is withdrawn from the dehydrogenation reactor, regenerated, and recycled to the reactor (paragraphs [0018] and [0020]). Pan additionally teaches that the continuous regeneration allows the process to operate continuously, which is desired in industrial applications (paragraphs [0013]-[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to operate the process of Beeck with continuous catalyst regeneration in a separate regeneration unit, because Beeck and Pan teach dehydrogenation of paraffins over a solid catalyst which is regenerated, Beeck does not specifically state whether the regeneration is in a separate unit or not, and Pan teaches that continuous catalyst regeneration allows the process to operate continuously, which is desired in industrial applications (paragraphs [0013]-[0014]).
With regard to ii), Beeck teaches controlling a water level in the reactor by adjusting the amount of water added to the feed to the reactor (page 3, second column, Example I, lines 60-75). While Beeck does not explicitly teach using a sensor to determine the water content, because Beeck teaches that it is necessary to know the amount of water being added to the feed to the reactor and the amount of water in the reactor, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to place a sensor at certain locations, in order to determine the water content of the feed and within the reactor such that the water content can be controlled as taught by Beeck. Further, while Beeck does not specifically teach the locations of at an inlet to the reactor, inside said reactor, and at an outlet to the reactor, this is merely a selection from a finite list of options for where to sense the water content of the dehydrogenation reaction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select one or a combination of the locations, in order to obtain the water content of the feed and the reactor effluent as needed for the process of Beeck, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to iii), Beeck teaches that regeneration at certain higher temperatures reduces the amount of water on the catalyst and reduces the catalytic activity, and teaches adding more water to the catalyst before dehydrogenating again (page 4, second column, lines 10-18). Thus, Beeck teaches sensing the water content of a regenerated catalyst is important in order to determine the activity of the regenerated catalyst. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add a sensor to the outlet of the regenerator of Beeck in view of Pan, as claimed, in order to sense the water content of the regenerated catalyst and make sure the catalyst has appropriate activity desired by Beeck (page 4, second column, lines 10-18).
With regard to claim 16, Beeck teaches regeneration at a temperature of about 600 to about 800°C (page 4, first column, lines 66-67), which is within the range of 550 to 900°C of instant claim 16.
Beeck does not specifically teach the water level of the regenerated catalyst. However, Beeck in view Pan teaches the same process, the same water level in the reactor, and the same regeneration temperature, as recited above. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a similar result a catalyst having a water level of about 100 wppm to about 8000 wppm as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claims 18-19, Beeck teaches that the catalyst comprises gold, silver, platinum, or palladium (active and noble metals instant claims 18 and 19) (page 3, first column, lines 35-38) incorporated (dispersed) in a support which is clay, alumina, or silica (porous inorganic carrier instant claim 18) (page 3, first column, lines 51-59).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 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, 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights