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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US20160237004A1; cited in IDS dated 01/19/2024), with evidentiary support for claim 1 provided by PSCS Inchem (Decane 1998).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a process for upgrading light C3-C8 paraffins to higher boiling range paraffinic liquid hydrocarbons using a bi-functional catalyst (Abstract; Title). Wang teaches the bi-functional catalyst comprises noble or non-noble metal such as Pt, Pd, Ni, Co, Fe, Sn, Rh, Ir, Ru, Re, W. Mo, or In, either as a single component or binary or ternary component in the form of alloys or solid solutions, while teaching Pt-Sn, Pt-Re, or Pt-In alloys can be used ([0021]). Wang teaches the catalyst includes zeolites, including ZSM-5 zeolite, as well as alumina or silica supports ([0021]; [0024]). Wang teaches the process is conducted with a reaction range typically in the range of 150-500 °C ([0022]). 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 Wang (process temperature of 150-500 °C) overlaps with the claimed range (350 to 700 °C). Therefore, the range in Wang renders obvious the claimed range.
Wang teaches the products include decane, decene and other Cs+ hydrocarbons with a significant yield of saturated paraffins resulting from hydrogenation of the intermediate olefin oligomers by the hydrogen generated in the reactor ([0019]). Wang teaches the products may typically comprise hydrocarbons in the gasoline boiling range including saturates such as decane with some residual olefins such as decene as well as higher boiling, middle distillate hydrocarbons such as products in the kerojet and road diesel boiling range, e.g. (JP-5, JP-8, 1-D, 2-D diesel (ASTM D-975)) or even higher boiling products such as lube basestocks ([0019]). Wang teaches the product distribution includes C4, C5, C6, C7, and C10 paraffins as well as C10 aromatics (Table 1).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the boiling points of these products, however decane is known to have a boiling point of 174 °C, as evidenced by PSCS Inchem, and accordingly Wang teaches a product that falls within the claimed range of boiling points.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the process of claim 1 and Wang teaches the metals can include Pt, Pd, Ni, Co, Fe, Sn, Rh, Ir, Ru, Re, W. Mo, or In, either as a single component or binary or ternary component in the form of alloys or solid solutions, while teaching Pt-Sn, Pt-Re, or Pt-In alloys can be used ([0021]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the process of claim 1 and further teaches the zeolite is ZSM-5 ([0021]; [0024]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the process of claim 1 and further teaches the feed is pentane (i.e. a C5 hydrocarbon) ([0018]-[0019]; [0024]). Wang teaches the pentane is pure, which is consistent with the term “consists essentially of”, as outlined in the specification in at least [0016].
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the process of claim 1 and Wang teaches the products include decane, decene and other Cs+ hydrocarbons with a significant yield of saturated paraffins resulting from hydrogenation of the intermediate olefin oligomers by the hydrogen generated in the reactor ([0019]). Wang teaches the products may typically comprise hydrocarbons in the gasoline boiling range including saturates such as decane with some residual olefins such as decene as well as higher boiling, middle distillate hydrocarbons such as products in the kerojet and road diesel boiling range, e.g. (JP-5, JP-8, 1-D, 2-D diesel (ASTM D-975)) or even higher boiling products such as lube basestocks ([0019]). Wang teaches the product distribution includes C4, C5, C6, C7, and C10 paraffins as well as C10 aromatics (Table 1).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teach the process of claim 1 and Wang further teaches the conversion of the C5 hydrocarbon can be performed in a single reactor with the bifunctional catalyst ([0018]).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the process of claim 1 and Wang teaches the products include decane, decene and other Cs+ hydrocarbons with a significant yield of saturated paraffins resulting from hydrogenation of the intermediate olefin oligomers by the hydrogen generated in the reactor ([0019]). Wang teaches the products may typically comprise hydrocarbons in the gasoline boiling range including saturates such as decane with some residual olefins such as decene as well as higher boiling, middle distillate hydrocarbons such as products in the kerojet and road diesel boiling range, e.g. (JP-5, JP-8, 1-D, 2-D diesel (ASTM D-975)) or even higher boiling products such as lube basestocks ([0019]). Wang teaches the product distribution includes C4, C5, C6, C7, and C10 paraffins as well as C10 aromatics (Table 1).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the boiling points of these products, however decane is known to have a boiling point of 174 °C, as evidenced by PSCS Inchem, and accordingly Wang teaches a product that falls within the claimed range of boiling points.
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the process of claim 1 and further teaches the product stream contains no C2 hydrocarbon species (Table 1), effectively teaching about 0 ethane wt.% in the product.
Regarding claims 12-13, Wang teaches the process of claim 1 and further teaches the catalyst contains 0.6% Pt based ([0024]). 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 Wang (0.6 wt% Pt) overlaps with the claimed ranges (about 0.1 wt% to about 10 wt% Pt (Claim 12); about 0.5 wt% to about 5 wt% Pt (Claim 13)). Therefore, the range in Wang renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Claims 3, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US20160237004A1; cited in IDS dated 01/19/2024) in view of Maximov et al. (Fuel Proc. Tech. 2020, 199, 106281), with evidentiary support for claim 1 provided by PSCS Inchem (Decane 1998).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the metal is zinc” to which Wang is silent.
Maximov teaches a process for the conversion of hydrocarbons to products containing aromatics with a Pd-Zn-ZSM-5/Al2O3 catalyst (Abstract; Title). Maximov teaches the Pd-Zn is an alloy (Pg. 3, 3.1.4).
Advantageously, including Zn in the catalyst aids formation of arenes while also improving the catalyst stability (Pg. 1, right col.; Pg. 4, right col.)
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 zinc in the catalyst used in the method of Wang in order to provide improved catalyst stability and produce products including arenes as taught by Maximov.
Regarding claims 14-15, Wang teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires the other metal (M) concentration, to which Wang is silent.
Maximov teaches a process for the conversion of hydrocarbons to products containing aromatics with a Pd-Zn-ZSM-5/Al2O3 catalyst where the catalyst contains 3 wt.% Zn (Pg. 2, 2.1). 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 Maximov (3 wt% Zn) overlaps with the claimed ranges (about 0.05 wt% to about 15 wt% (Claim 14); about 0.5 wt.% to about 10 wt.% (Claim 15)). Therefore, the range in Maximov renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Advantageously, including Zn in the catalyst at the concentration taught by Maximov provides formation of arenes while also improving the catalyst stability (Pg. 1, right col.; Pg. 4, right col.)
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 zinc in the catalyst used in the method of Wang in order to provide improved catalyst stability and produce products including arenes as taught by Maximov.
Regarding claim 16-17, Wang teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires the a ratio of alloy and support to total weight of the acidic zeolite, to which Wang is silent.
Maximov teaches the total weight of the alloy is 4 wt.% (Pt+Zn) and the weight of the support binder (Al2O3) is 20 wt.% (Pg. 2, 2.1). Accordingly, the total weight of the zeolite is 76 wt% and the ratio of alloy + support to the total weight of the acidic zeolite is 0.32 (24/76). 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 Maximov (0.32 ratio of alloy+support:acidic zeolite) overlaps with the claimed ranges (alloy and support to total weight of acidic zeolite is 0.02 to 10 (Claim 16); 0.1 to 2 (Claim 17)). Therefore, the range in Maximov renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Advantageously, the composition of the catalyst at the concentration taught by Maximov provides formation of arenes while also improving the catalyst stability (Pg. 1, right col.; Pg. 4, right col.)
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 zinc in the catalyst used in the method of Wang in order to provide improved catalyst stability and produce products including arenes as taught by Maximov.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US20160237004A1; cited in IDS dated 01/19/2024) in view of Shekhar et al. (US20170088488A1), with evidentiary support for claim 1 provided by PSCS Inchem (Decane 1998).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the one or more C2 to C12 alkanes consists essentially of C2 to C6 alkanes.”
Shekhar teaches a process of converting C2+ nonaromatic hydrocarbons to aromatic hydrocarbons where the feed contains [Symbol font/0xB3]10 wt. % ethane, or [Symbol font/0xB3]50 wt. %, or [Symbol font/0xB3]90 wt. %, such as in the range of from 10 wt. % to 99.5 wt. % ethane, with [Symbol font/0xB3]95 wt. % of the balance of the feed comprising one or more of methane, propane, and butanes ([0035]).
Advantageously, providing the feed taught by Shekhar provides for [Symbol font/0xB3]65% conversion of C2-C4 feeds and allows for the recovering of at least a portion of the product’s aromatic hydrocarbon ([0011]).
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 ethane and propane in the method of Shekhar in order to provide improved feed conversion and the recovery of at least a portion of the aromatic hydrocarbons, as taught by Shekhar.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US20160237004A1; cited in IDS dated 01/19/2024) in view of Yang et al. (RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 26532), with evidentiary support for claim 1 provided by PSCS Inchem (Decane 1998).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches the method of claim 1 and the claim further requires product distributions to which Wang is silent.
Yang teaches the production of aromatics, olefins, and paraffins from propane with a Ga/ZSM-5 catalyst over a dual-stage catalyst, where the 1st state produces about 34-35.5% aromatics, olefins at 13%, and paraffins at about 35% (Pg. 26533, left col.; Fig. 2). 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 Yang (about 34-35.5% aromatics, olefins at 13%, and paraffins at about 35%) overlaps with the claimed range (about 5 to 80 wt.% olefins, about 5 to about 80 wt.% paraffins, about 10 to about 90 wt.% or more aromatics). Therefore, the range in Yang renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, providing the distribution of products taught by Yang provides for the gross yield of aromatics to be improved due to olefin production while providing very stable operation conditions for the catalyst (Pg. 26533, left col.; Pg. 26535, right col.)
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 a product distribution of about 34-35.5% aromatics, olefins at 13%, and paraffins at about 35% in the method of Wang in order to provide improved catalyst stability and improve the yield of aromatics, as taught by Yang.
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