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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18655962 filed 5/6/24.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 5/20/24 has been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 5/6/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAZANEC ET AL. (WO2008150451; 12/2008) in view of SCHMIDT ET AL. (WO2004044095; 5/2004) and as evidence by HAMAD ET AL. (US PG PUB 20190170046) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as MAZANEC, SCHMIDT and HAMAD.
Regarding claims 1-20:
MAZANEC teaches in the abstract a microchannel apparatus (liquid hydrocarbon fuel system) comprising a conduit including a microchannel mixing section (mixing zones), a microchannel reaction section, a microchannel heat transfer section, and a separation section, where the microchannel mixing section includes direct injection inlets, where the microchannel mixing section is downstream from the reaction section, and where the separation section is downstream from the reaction section. Further exemplary embodiments are also disclosed.
MAZANEC teaches in para [0003] microchannel unit operations (flow channels) and, more specifically, to microchannel unit operations for use in oxidizing methane or methane and other reacting species to form higher molecular weight hydrocarbons and/or oxygenates and removal of those products from effluent streams, while recycling the portion of the effluent stream for further reactions, all conducted within a single microchannel apparatus or within a series of distinct microchannel devices within a single assembly or within a series of distinct microchannel devices that are within separate assemblies.
MAZANEC teaches in para [0018] referring again to FIGS. 1 and 2, the exemplary microchannel apparatus 100 incorporates catalysts (not shown) and operating conditions providing high selectivity toward higher hydrocarbons with acceptable overall conversion of methane. Selectivity in this context refers to the percentage of the desired product, for example, ethane, ethylene, and acetylene in the converted hydrocarbon product stream. Conversion, on the other hand, refers to the percentage of methane that is eventually converted into hydrocarbons. In exemplary form, a methane-containing gaseous stream 102 enters a first set of microchannels 104 that directs the methane-containing stream 102 into intimate communication with a catalyst that may be coated along the walls of the microchannels, packed, inserted, or suspended within the microchannels, and/or entrained within the methane-containing stream 102. Exemplary catalysts for use in the instant invention include, without limitation, molybdenum oxides, manganese oxides, vanadium oxides, potassium molybdenum oxides/silicon oxide, copper/gallium ZSM type 5, lithium oxides, and rare earth oxides including samarium oxide, lanthanum oxide, and others in this chemical family. Further exemplary catalysts for use with the instant invention comprise the general formula MiM.sub.2Ox , where Mi is selected from the group comprising Cu, Cr, Fe, Ag, Pd, and M.sub.2 is selected from the group comprising Zn, Zr, Mn, Ce, and rare earth metals. Still further catalysts for use with the instant invention comprise oxides chosen among Al, Si, P, Mg, V, Zr, Ce, Mo Te, Sb, Bi and other transition metals, and mixtures thereof.
MAZANEC teaches in para [0019] an oxygen source for performing the oxidation is mixed with the methane- containing gaseous stream 102. The oxygen source may comprise air, air enriched with oxygen, oxygen, or another source of oxygen. The oxygen source may be mixed with the methane-containing gaseous stream 102 prior to entering the process microchannels or within the process microchannels at one or more locations along the reaction coordinate. A preferred embodiment comprises mixing an oxygen- containing stream 104 with the methane-containing gaseous stream 102 in two or more incremental stages inside of microchannels within which the oxidative coupling of methane reactions are occurring. This mixing may occur before the catalyst is introduced and/or in the presence of the catalyst, resulting in the conversion of some of the methane into various products. The product stream may comprise ethylene, ethane, higher hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water, and nitrogen (when air is used as the oxygen source).
MAZANEC teaches in para [0004] the invention includes a stage-wise approach for conducting oxidative coupling of methane through two or more stages of reaction, interspersed with at least one separation step. Absorption using ionic fluids is one potential separation useful for this reaction. A similar microchannel apparatus architecture may be used wherein other separation techniques may be used to remove the desired product from an intermediate reaction product stream. For example, a membrane separation may replace absorption with ionic fluids. Alternatively, the desired product may be absorbed onto a solid or reacted to a more stable intermediate to be removed from the apparatus, and then subsequently desorbed or converted back to the desired species.
MAZANEC teaches in para [0031] a two-phase system is present during the first separation process comprising a gaseous stream 136 and a heavy liquid stream 138. The gaseous stream 136 is predominantly nitrogen, while the heavy liquid stream 138 comprises the ionic liquid as well as dissolved carbon containing species. The gas and liquid phases are separated and directed to different conduits by any number of techniques for phase separation in microchannels known in the art,. The gaseous stream 136 may be vented from the apparatus 100 or directed to a down-stream apparatus (not shown) where such a stream would be useful. Likewise, the heavy ionic liquid stream 138 is fed into a portion of the apparatus 100 carrying out the second stage of the separation.
MAZANEC teaches in para [0037] an assembly is a system of one or more microchannel devices, which are attached to inlet and outlet macromanifolds for flow of feed and product streams. An assembly may include a pressure vessel which houses one or more microchannel devices. One or more assemblies are integrated into a chemical processing plant through connection with adjacent piping or other equipment. A chemical plant may contain one or more assemblies comprising microchannel devices. Many combinations of assemblies may be used for the inventive system. The reaction, heat exchange may be in one assembly, while heat exchange and separation in a second assembly. Regeneration of the separation agent could be in a third assembly or housed in either the first or second assembly. In some embodiments two distinct assemblies are required, in other embodiments three or four distinct assemblies are required. In one embodiment, all unit operations are maintained in the same assembly. There may be more than one device either in series or parallel in the same assembly.
MAZANEC teaches in para [0024] connections to the microchannel apparatus 100 supplying the methane- containing gaseous stream 102, the oxygen-containing streams 104, and the cooling gas streams 116, may utilize manifolds (not shown) to simultaneously distribute/stage/pulse a single input stream across numerous microchannels. For example, a first manifold (not shown) distributes the oxygen-containing stream 104 across the reaction loops 118, 120, 122. This oxygen-source manifold and an inlet coupling (not shown) for the methane-containing stream 102 are mounted to a lower half of the apparatus 100, while the upper half of the apparatus where the highly exothermic reactions are occurring is free of external connections.
MAZANEC teaches in claim 70 a method of carrying out an oxidative coupling of methane reaction within a microchannel apparatus comprising: reacting a plurality of reactants in the presence of a catalyst within a microchannel to form a plurality of products comprising at least one of ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane, propylene, and hydrocarbons greater than C.sub.4; wherein the act of reacting the plurality of reactants occurs at a pressure ranging between 0 to 40 bars.
Although, MAZANEC may not disclose monolith walls; however, it is within the scope of MAZANEC as taught by SCHMIDT.
SCHMIDT teaches in the abstract a process for the production of a reaction product including a carbon containing compound. The process includes providing a film of a fuel source including at least one organic compound on a wall of a reactor, contacting the fuel source with a source of oxygen, forming a vaporized mixture of fuel and oxygen, and contacting the vaporized mixture of fuel and oxygen with a catalyst under conditions effective to produce a reaction product including a carbon containing compound. Preferred products include α-olefins and synthesis gas. A preferred catalyst if a supported metal catalyst, preferably including rhodium, platinum, and mixtures thereof.
SCHMIDT teaches the evaporator mixer system used in the following examples is shown in Figure 2(a). The reactor 40 consisted of a quartz tube with a 19 mm inner diameter and was 55 centimeters (cm) in length. The fuel 42 was delivered to the reactor 40 from the top, using a fuel injector 44 as described above, creating a film of fuel 45 on the reactor walls. The oxygen source used, air 46, was separately delivered to the reactor from the top. The reactor walls were preheated to a temperature of between about 250 degrees Centigrade (°C) and 400°C, depending on the fuel boiling temperature. The pre-heat temperature was at least about 50°C and no greater than about 150 °C higher than the boiling point of the fuel used. Heating tape 48 and insulation 50 was provided around the reactor to prevent dissipation of heat. Blank monoliths 52 were provided on either side of the catalyst 54 to act as a heat shield. The back face temperature of the catalyst 54 was measured with a thermocouple 56 and the reaction products 58 were recovered at the downstream side of the catalyst. (pg 22 para 2)
SCHMIDT teaches a washcoated rhodium coated alumina ceramic foam monolith catalyst. The blank monoliths acted as axial heat shields and were used to promote additional radial mixing. All three monoliths were wrapped with FIBERFRAX (Unifrax Corporation, PS3338, Niagara Falls, NY) alumina-silica paper to avoid bypassing of gasses between the monoliths and the reactor wall. (pg28 para 2)
SCHMIDT teaches additionally, the present processes are scalable. While the processes of the present invention are suitable for use with reactants of various sizes, including methane and lighter alkanes, the present process is particularly advantageous in that larger hydrocarbons and mixtures of hydrocarbons may typically be used as starting materials. This system includes an apparatus for delivery of the liquid fuel source, in the manner described throughout the disclosure, to a reactor that includes walls that, preferably, have been heated to a temperature higher than the fuel boiling point. The fuel is delivered to the reactor by an apparatus that provides relatively small droplets of fuel. By delivery in this manner, a film of the liquid fuel is created on a wall of the reactor. This allows vaporization and mixing substantially simultaneously of the fuel source with the oxygen source, avoiding the combustion of reactants that can occur when fuel is vaporized before mixing with an oxygen source. (pg 9 para 4)
SCHMIDT teaches the foam structure is characterized by the number of pores per linear inch (ppi). Preferred ceramic foam monoliths include those with at least about 10 ppi (approximately 394 pores per meter). (pg 15 para 4)
SCHMIDT teaches the processes of the present invention may preferably and advantageously be operated using a fuel to oxygen atomic ratio (C/O) of the fuel source and oxygen source that includes an excess of fuel as compared to typical known catalytic processes , for example, an internal combustion engine. An internal combustion engine, such as is used with an automobile, requires a C/O ratio of the fuel and oxygen source that is at or below the combustion stoichiometry for the fuel provided to improve engine performance and lower unwanted emissions. The processes of the present invention, however, preferably include C/O atomic ratios of the fuel and oxygen sources that are fuel rich, that is, above the combustion stoichiometry for the fuel used. (pg 10 para 2)
SCHMIDT teaches additionally, the fuel source and oxygen mixture preferably contact the catalyst at a flow rate of no greater than about 20 SLPM. (pg 12 para 4)
Therefore, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine MAZANEC and SCHMIDT monolith coated walls; and the motivation is taught by MAZANEC in para [0018] that a methane-containing gaseous stream 102 enters a first set of microchannels 104 that directs the methane-containing stream 102 into intimate communication with a catalyst that may be coated along the walls of the microchannels.
Although, MAZANEC may not disclose the catalyst maybe NHPI; however, it is within the scope of MAZANEC as evident by HAMAD teachings in para [0026] a catalyst such as N-Hydroxyphthalimide.
From the teachings of the reference, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
In addition, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
Also, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Moreover, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In conclusion, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Again, HAMAD is considered teaching a reference, not a modifying reference. See MPEP 2112.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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 Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771