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 .
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 1-20 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 1 is indefinite because the recitation “the first support comprises at least one of: (i)… and (ii)…” fails to clearly define whether the claimed subject matter requires separate compounds, a single compound, or combinations thereof, and the overlap between alternatives (i) and (ii) renders the scope unclear.
The claims 1, 3 and 4 recite molar ratio limitations defined as a ratio of “the at least one metal having the atomic number of 21, 39, or 57-71” to “the at least one Group 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 metal or metalloid,” and further to Pt. However, both the numerator and denominator are defined as open-ended groups (“at least one”) that may encompass multiple different metal species. The claims do not specify whether the recited molar ratio is calculated based on (i) a single selected metal from each group, (ii) the total combined molar amount of all metals within each group, or (iii) some other basis of calculation. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, how to calculate the claimed molar ratios or whether a given composition falls within the scope of the claims. Therefore, the scope of claims 1, 3, and 4 is indefinite.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Washburn et al. (US 2016/0318828 A1) in view of WO 2020/046978 A1, and further in view of Hu et al.: "Process Optimization of Propane Combined with Selective Combustion", Simulation and Dehydrogenation Hydrogen CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND PROCESSING: PROCESS INTENSIFICATION, ELSEVIER SEQUOIA, LAUSANNE, CH, vol. 143, 12 August 2019.
Washburn discloses a process for dehydrogenating hydrocarbons comprising:
(I) feeding a hydrocarbon-containing feed including alkanes to a reaction zone(Washburn, ¶[0020], ¶[0040]–[0042]).
(II) contacting the feed with a dehydrogenation catalyst (including Pt- and Cr-based catalysts) to produce an effluent comprising dehydrogenated hydrocarbons and molecular hydrogen(Washburn, ¶[0035]–[0038], ¶[0043]).
(III) contacting the effluent with a solid oxygen carrier disposed within the conversion zone to selectively oxidize molecular hydrogen to water(Washburn, ¶[0045]–[0048], ¶[0052]).Washburn teaches that oxygen from the solid oxygen carrier reacts preferentially with hydrogen to form water and that the oxygen carrier and dehydrogenation catalyst may be present in the same reaction zone or mixed (¶[0046], ¶[0050]).
Washburn does not explicitly disclose:
the specific support compositions, elemental selections, and ratios recited for the Pt catalyst (atomic number 21, 39, or 57-71 metals combined with Group 4-16 elements), and
certain specific catalyst material selections and structural variations.
WO ’978 discloses:
oxygen carrier materials capable of cycling between oxygen-rich and oxygen-depleted states and reacting with hydrogen to form water (WO ’978, pp. 5–7);
use of such oxygen carriers in dehydrogenation systems to remove hydrogen and shift equilibrium toward increased olefin production (pp. 4–6);
circulating and regenerating systems, including multiple reaction zones and regeneration zones for continuous operation (pp. 6–10);
configurations in which dehydrogenation catalyst and oxygen carrier are present in the same or integrated reactor system (pp. 5–6).
Hu teaches that:
combining dehydrogenation with selective hydrogen combustion:
removes hydrogen to shift equilibrium toward increased olefin production, and
provides heat to drive the endothermic dehydrogenation reaction,
thereby improving conversion and process efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Washburn to incorporate the oxygen carrier systems and regeneration configurations of WO 2020/046978 A1 in order to improve hydrogen removal efficiency and enable continuous operation through cyclic oxidation and regeneration of the oxygen carrier, since WO ’978 teaches that oxygen carrier materials react with hydrogen to form water and shift the dehydrogenation equilibrium toward increased olefin production (WO ’978, pp. 4–7), and further in view of Hu which explicitly teaches that combining dehydrogenation with hydrogen combustion provides equilibrium shift and heat integration benefits, thereby improving process performance.
Claims 2–12 (catalyst compositions and supports)
Washburn teaches Pt- and Cr-based dehydrogenation catalysts (¶[0035]–[0038]).
WO ’978 teaches the use of metal oxides and mixed oxide systems as oxygen carriers and catalyst supports (pp. 5–7), and selection and modification of catalyst compositions to improve redox performance.
The claimed elemental selections, oxide supports, and ratios represent routine optimization of known catalyst systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the catalyst compositions of Washburn in view of WO ’978 to optimize activity, stability, and redox performance, as these parameters are recognized as result-effective variables in dehydrogenation and oxygen carrier systems.
Claims 13–15 (oxygen carrier cycling / regeneration)
Washburn teaches redox use of oxygen-providing materials (¶[0047]–[0052]).
WO ’978 explicitly teaches cyclic oxidation and reduction of oxygen carriers and regeneration zones and continuous looping systems (pp. 6–10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed cyclic regeneration of the oxygen carrier as taught by WO ’978 in order to maintain oxygen capacity and enable continuous operation.
Claim 16 (process conditions)
Washburn discloses dehydrogenation conditions within typical industrial ranges (¶[0040]–[0043]).
The claimed temperature, pressure, and WHSV ranges are within or obvious variations of known operating conditions.
Claims 17–19 (catalyst / oxygen carrier arrangement)
Washburn teaches co-location or mixing of catalyst and oxygen-providing material (¶[0046]).
WO ’978 teaches integrated reactor systems, including mixed and staged configurations (pp. 5–6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the catalyst and oxygen carrier in integrated or staged configurations as taught by WO ’978 to control reaction efficiency and hydrogen removal.
Claim 20 (multiple conversion zones)
As claim 1 above, Washburn teaches reaction and regeneration zones (¶[0047]–[0052]).
WO ’978 teaches multiple reaction and regeneration zones in a circulating system (pp. 6–10).
Hu further supports process-level integration for improved efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement multiple conversion zones for dehydrogenation and oxygen carrier regeneration in order to improve process control and efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights