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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/07/2023, 05/22/2025, 11/03/2025, 04/02/2026 and 06/09/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments/Status of Claims
Claims 1-19, filed on 07/09/2023, are under consideration.
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 18 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 18 recites “the kerosene is ethane” which is ambiguous because ethane has 2 carbons and kerosene typically has 12-16 carbons; it is not clear what is being claimed here.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bos et al. (US 2019/0055177).
For claim 1, Bos teaches method for reaction systems for the oxidative dehydrogenation of an alkane containing 2 to 6 carbon atoms, preferably ethane (as relating to pending claims 10 and 18), in shell and tube heat exchanger (Fig. 1 shown below, labels 10 and 20) comprising: supplying a feed gas comprising the alkane and oxygen to a reactor vessel that comprises an upstream and downstream catalyst bed; contacting the feed gas with an oxidative dehydrogenation catalyst in the upstream catalyst bed, followed by contact with an oxidative dehydrogenation/oxygen removal catalyst in the downstream catalyst bed, to yield a reactor effluent comprising the alkene. The gas mixture flowing out is withdrawn without further catalytic activity (label 29 in Fig. 1).
Regarding the claimed first bed, Bos teaches inert material placed upstream of the upstream catalyst bed [0032] which allows for preheating [0068]; this is considered equivalent to the claimed first tube section foe heating from first to second temperature range
Bos teaches sections that comprise different catalyst wherein the first catalyst is for oxidative dehydrogenation and the second catalyst comprises additional oxygen removal functionality. Therefore, per volumetric activity, it is expected that a catalyst arranged in the third tube sections (disclosed by Bos as downstream catalyst) has a volumetric activity below the highest volumetric activity of the one or the plurality of catalysts arranged in the second tube sections (disclosed by Bos as the downstream catalyst bed) because the latter bed has additional functionally (oxygen removal) that would take away from the volumetric activity of the upstream bed.
It is noted that Bos is silent about the volumetric activity of the catalyst beds. However, the manipulation of reactor bed activity in ODH is disclosed by US 2021/0230093 and US 2003/0060659. Also, the layering of catalyst material is disclosed by US 2015/0321974.
Therefore, and before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method/apparatus of Bos to manipulate catalyst bed activity to control reaction temperatures with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success—see MPEP 2143 I, 2143 A, 2143 D, and 2143.02.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claims 2-5, 8-9, 12, the claimed limitations are considered process variables that can be optimized with routine experimentation/optimization.
For claims 6-7 and 16-17, Bos teaches the oxidative dehydrogenation catalyst comprises Mo, V, Nb in their oxide forms [0034] and claims 6 and 16. The catalyst further comprises Te which is also included in the third section (ODH and oxygen removal catalyst) ([0034], [0043] and claims 6-7) which reads on claim 16.
For claims 11 and 19, Bos teaches the second temperature is about 300-500°C [0062] which overlaps the claimed temperature of 280-450°C. This necessitates that the preheat temperature (first temperature) is below 280°C which overlaps the claimed temperature of 200-280°C. The disclosed temperature also overlaps the claimed temperature of 300-400°C of pending claim 19.
For claims 13-14, Bos teaches using cooling medium for the tube sections [0058].
For claim 15, Bos teaches the plant for producing target compound comprising shell-and-tube reactor (Fig. 1) comprising sections with different temperatures and catalyst activity as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI Z FADHEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0267. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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.
/ALI Z FADHEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights