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 of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 07/15/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “a combination thereof” and “a mixture thereof” appear to be redundant (i.e. are interpreted equivalently) and should be amended. This interpretation is supported by analysis of the instant specification, which does not appear to explain a difference.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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 1-3, 7-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US20150202601A1; cited in IDS dated 01/23/2025) in view of Bogdan et al. (US20090143218A1).
Regarding claim 1, Luo teaches a reactivation process for a catalyst that comprises a Group IIIA metal, a group VIII noble metal, an optional promoter, and a support (Abstract; Title). Luo teaches the catalyst can contain 72 and 78 ppm of Pt, which is equivalent to 0.0072 and 0.0078 wt.% Pt (wt% = ppm/10,000) ([0044]-[0045]).
Luo teaches the reactivation is performed with heat generated from a fuel source other than coke and that the catalyst is at least partially deactivated when performing the treatment ([0024]). Luo teaches the gas mixture comprises 16 mol% H2O ([0041]).
Luo teaches following heating the partially deactivated catalyst with the gas mixture comprising 16 mol% H2O derived from fuel combustion, the catalyst is exposed to a flow of oxygen-containing gas to perform a reactivation step ([0025]). Luo teaches the oxygen-containing gas mixture is “100% air” and that the exposure of the catalyst to the gas is performed for 2 minutes to 20 min at a temperature of at least 660 °C with a practical upper limit of 850 °C ([0032]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Luo (Pt 0.0072 and 0.0078%; 16 mol% H2O in step (I); oxidizing for 2 min to 20 min at 660-850 °C) overlaps with the claimed ranges (Group 10 from 0.001 wt% to 6 wt%; greater than 5 mol% H2O in step (I); oxidizing from 620 to 1,000°C for at least 30 seconds). Therefore, the ranges in Luo render obvious the claimed ranges.
Luo teaches after performing the heating and oxygen-containing gas treatment, rejuvenated catalyst particles are obtained ([0027]).
The claim further requires “providing an oxidative gas comprising no greater than 5 mol% of H2O, based on the total moles in the oxidative gas,” to which Luo teaches 100% air is used, however Luo does not explicitly state the mol% of water in this stream.
Bogdan teaches a method of regenerating a supported catalyst that includes one or more stages of contacting the catalyst with an oxidizing gas, where the gas is air that comprises up to 5.0 mol% water (Abstract; [0033]; [0035]; [0051]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Bogdan (up to 5.0 mol% water in oxidative gas) overlaps with the claimed range (greater than 5 mol% H2O in oxidative gas). Therefore, the range in Bogdan renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, low water concentration can aid the catalyst regeneration and improve the primary carbon removal stage ([0034]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an oxidative gas up to 5.0 mol% water in the process of Luo in order to aid the catalyst regeneration and improve the primary carbon removal stage, as taught by Bogdan.
Regarding claims 2-3, Luo in view of Bogdan teach the process of claim 1. Luo further teaches the heating gas is generated by combusting a fuel source other than coke, where examples include propane (i.e. a hydrocarbon) ([0014; [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Luo in view of Bogdan teach the process of claim 1. Luo further teaches from 0 to 2.0 wt% of an alkali metal selected from sodium (Na), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), and cesium (Cs) is included in the catalyst ([0018]-[0019]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Luo (0 to 2.0 wt% of an alkali metal) overlaps with the claimed range (up to 5 wt.% alkali metal) Therefore, the range in Luo renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Luo in view of Bogdan teach the process of claim 1. Luo further teaches the catalyst, which comprises the platinum noble metal (i.e. group 10 element), performs dehydrogenation of alkanes, such as ethane, butane, and pentane ([0017]; [0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Luo in view of Bogdan teach the process of claim 1. Luo further teaches after performing the regeneration with the oxidizing gas, the catalyst is flowed over with an inert gas such as nitrogen, while teaching an example using Helium (He), to produce a catalyst that has had labile oxygen stripped ([0034]; [0043]). Luo teaches the regenerated catalyst is obtained after this stage of the process, where multiple regeneration cycles can be performed ([0043]). Flowing the inert gas He over the catalyst to strip oxygen is equivalent to “a first stripping gas free of O2” and would provide a catalyst stripped of oxygen, equivalent to “a stripped oxidized precursor catalyst”.
Regarding claim 12, Luo in view of Bogdan teach the process of claim 1.
The claim further requires using an “H2-containing atmosphere to produce a reduced catalyst” to which Luo does not explicitly teach using hydrogen.
Bogdan teaches the regeneration of a catalyst where after the catalyst has been oxidized, it is contacted with a reducing agent, such as hydrogen, prior to providing a regenerated catalyst ([0052]; [0061]).
Advantageously, using hydrogen as the reducing gas after performing an oxidizing treatment helps to reduce the state of the metal in the catalyst to a reduced state where it is active and also helps reduce the carbon remaining on the catalyst ([0042]; [0050]; [0052]; [0061]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a reduction step that contains hydrogen in the process of Luo in order to reduce the metal in the catalyst to a reduced state (i.e. lower oxidation state) as well as reduce the carbon remaining on the catalyst, as taught by Bogdan.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US20150202601A1; cited in IDS dated 01/23/2025) in view of Bogdan et al. (US20090143218A1) and further in view of Rytter et al. (US6313063B1).
Regarding claims 4-5, Luo in view of Bogdan teach the process of claim 1. Luo teaches the group 10 element is platinum ([0018]; [0044]-[0045]).
Luo and Bogdan do not explicitly teach “the inorganic support comprises at least 0.5 wt.% of a Group 2 element, based on the weight of the inorganic support” and “the group 2 element comprises Mg, and at least a portion of the group 2 element is in the form of MgO or a mixed oxide comprising MgO.”
Rytter teaches a catalyst for dehydrogenation and a process for reactivating the catalyst where the support contains MgO and alumina, where the Mg is present at a molar ratio of about 1:1 to 10:1 Mg:Al (col. 2; lines 44-60; col. 3, lines 28-31; col. 4; lines 17-25). A molar ratio of about 1:1 would provide at least about 45 wt.% Mg (calculation below). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Rytter (about 45 wt.% Mg) overlaps with the claimed range (at least 0.5 wt%. Group 2 element). Therefore, the range in Rytter renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, including MgO in the support provides a high specific surface area and improved stability of the catalyst towards sintering (col. 4, lines 17-25).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include at least about 45 wt% Mg in the form of MgO in the support in the process of Luo in order to provide the catalyst high specific surface area and improved stability towards sintering, as taught by Rytter.
Calculation:
Mg molar mass= 24.305 g/mol
Al molar mass = 26.98 g/mol
1:1 Mg/Al ratio = 24.305/26.98 = 0.900 ratio; 1:1 = 50:50; 50* 0.900 = 0.45 wt.% Mg
Regarding claim 6, Luo in view of Bogdan teach the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires the “catalyst comprises up to 10 wt% of a promoter, based on the weight of the inorganic support, and wherein the promoter comprises one or more of the following elements: Sn, Ag, Cu, a combination thereof, or a mixture thereof,” to which Luo teaches a promoter is included ([0018]), but does not teach the elements of Sn, Ag, Cu, or mixtures thereof. Bogdan is silent regarding a promoter.
Rytter teaches a process for regenerating a catalyst, where the catalyst contains the Group IV metal Sn, where the Sn is present from 0.05 to 7 weight percent (col. 3, line 63-col. 4, line 5; col. 4, lines 32-36). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Rytter (0.05 to 7 weight percent Sn) overlaps with the claimed range (up to 10 wt%). Therefore, the range in Rytter renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, catalysts containing Sn achieve a maximum amount of selectivity of the oxidation of the hydrogen formed in the dehydrogenation process in addition to high hydrogen conversion (col. 6 ,lines 31-53).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include at least about 0.05 to 7 wt% Sn in the catalyst in the process of Luo in order to provide a maximum amount of selectivity of the oxidation of the hydrogen formed in the dehydrogenation process in addition to high hydrogen conversion, as taught by Rytter.
Claims 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US20150202601A1; cited in IDS dated 01/23/2025) in view of Bogdan et al. (US20090143218A1) and further in view of Snuggs et al. (US2773014).
Regarding claim 9, Luo in view of Bogdan teach the process of claim 1. The claim further requires limitations to which Luo and Bogdan are silent.
Snuggs teaches a process for the regeneration of a platinum catalyst used in hydrocarbon conversion processes (col. 1, lines 15-20). Snuggs teaches the process includes oxidation and hydrogen reducing gas treatments of the spent catalyst with gas purging cycles incorporated into the process (col. 1, lines 15-21; col. 2, lines 29-67; col. 5, lines 1-24). Snuggs teaches the oxygen containing regeneration gas is introduced into a heating inlet at a temperature lower than 1250 °F (676 °C) prior to being heated to about 1250 °F (col. 2, line 68-col. 3, line 4). Snuggs teaches the regeneration is conducted at temperatures not above 1050 °F (565 °C) (col. 3 ,lines 16-22). Snuggs introducing the oxygen gas at a temperature below 1050 °F prior to heating to 1250 °F is equivalent to “providing the oxidative gas at a temperature below the oxidizing temperature.” Snuggs teaching the oxidative gas is heated at 1250 °F prior to being passed over the catalyst, which was operated at 950 to 1100 °F (col. 2, lines 45-55), is equivalent to “pre-heating the oxidative gas to a temperature higher than the temperature of the precursor catalyst before the contacting in step (III).”
Advantageously, managing the oxidative gas temperature and catalyst temperature as taught by Snuggs allows the reaction bed to operate within an optimum temperature (col. 3, lines 5-15).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the oxidative gas at the temperature differences taught by Snuggs in the process of Luo in order to allow the reaction bed to operate with an optimum temperature, as taught by Snuggs.
Regarding claim 10, Luo in view of Bogdan teach the process of claim 1. The claim further requires limitations to which Luo and Bogdan are silent.
Snuggs teaches flue gas is combusted to provide heat to the reactor, where a heat exchanger is used (col. 5, lines 44-56; col. 6, lines 17-21; col. 7, lines 21-32).
Advantageously, a heat exchanger allows transfer of heat that can aid cooling of circulating steams and manage reactor temperatures (col. 5, lines 44-56; col. 6, lines 17-21; col. 7, lines 21-32).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a heat exchanger to heat the oxygen gas in the process of Luo in order to manage the temperature of reactors and circulating steams, as taught by Snuggs.
Regarding claim 14, Luo in view of Bogdan teach the process of claim 1 and 12. The claim further requires limitations to which Luo and Bogdan are silent.
Snuggs teaches a process for the regeneration of a platinum catalyst used in hydrocarbon conversion processes (col. 1, lines 15-20). Snuggs teaches the process includes oxidation and hydrogen reducing gas treatments of the spent catalyst with gas purging cycles incorporated into the process (col. 1, lines 15-21; col. 2, lines 29-67; col. 5, lines 1-24). Snuggs teaches that after performing an oxygen gas treatment and sweeping the catalyst from oxygen, a hydrogen treatment is performed to rejuvenate the catalyst, where the rejuvenation is effected at a higher temperature than the conversion temperature (i.e. use temperature of the catalyst) (col. 2, lines 42-53; col. 7, lines 14-36). Snuggs teaches the catalyst must be cooled prior to returning to hydrocarbon reforming and that the time must be sufficient to prevent overtreating of the introduced charge with attendant cracking, carbon deposits and product degradation (col. 2, lines 50-58). Accordingly, a skilled artisan could readily adjust the cooling time after reducing the catalyst with hydrogen at a temperature greater than the use temperature in order to prevent overtreating of the introduced charge with attendant cracking, carbon deposits and product degradation, as taught by Snuggs. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Advantageously, treating the catalyst with hydrogen at higher temperatures than the use temperature and cooling the catalyst prior to being used again provides the catalyst with substantially all of its original activity, selectivity, and rate of decline while also preventing overtreating of the introduced charge with attendant cracking, carbon deposits and product degradation (col. 2, lines 42-53).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the hydrogen treatment at a temperature higher than the use temperature followed by cooling the catalyst in the process of Luo in order to provide the catalyst with substantially all of its original activity, selectivity, and rate of decline while also preventing overtreating of the introduced charge with attendant cracking, carbon deposits and product degradation, as taught by Snuggs.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US20150202601A1; cited in IDS dated 01/23/2025) in view of Bogdan et al. (US20090143218A1) and further in view of Mosesman (US3069352).
Regarding claim 13, Luo in view of Bogdan teach the process of claim 1 and 12. The claim further requires limitations to Luo teaches using a stripping gas after oxidation however does not discuss this following a reducing treatment. Bogdan does not discuss a stripping gas treatment following reduction.
Mosesman teaches a process for regenerating platinum catalysts used in hydrocarbon reforming where a hydrogen reducing regeneration treatment is performed following an oxygen regeneration treatment (col. 1, lines 16-65; col. 3, line 48-col. 4, line 9). Mosesman teaches after the hydrogen regenerating treatment, a nitrogen purge step is performed (col. 3, lines 65-75; col. 5, lines 55-65). Nitrogen gas is equivalent to a “a second stripping gas”
Advantageosuly, purging the catalyst with nitrogen following the reducing treatment removes hydrogen and carbon dioxide prior to reusing the regenerated catalyst (col. 5, lines 55-65; Claims 1-2).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a nitrogen purge after the hydrogen treatment in the process of Luo in order to remove hydrogen and carbon dioxide prior to reusing the regenerated catalyst, as taught by Mosesman.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights