DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are amended. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn due to an earlier restriction requirement.
The amendments to claims 1, 8, and 9 overcome the previous 112(b) rejections and claim objections.
Claims 1-9 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of the Remarks that the proposed modification to Luo to specify the ratio as in Huang would render Luo unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because Luo dehydrogenates short-chain paraffins up to C5 while Huang dehydrogenates longer chain paraffins of C8+, and thus the ratio of Huang would not be suitable for the process of Luo.
In response, while the Examiner agrees that Luo generally teaches up to C5 paraffins and Huang teaches C8+ paraffins, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the combination renders Luo unsuitable for its intended purpose. Luo teaches the option for a combination for platinum and palladium as the noble metal for the catalyst (paragraph [0018]). While Luo is silent regarding the ratio when such a combination is used, any ratio would be expected to be suitable, absent evidence to the contrary. Huang teaches that a ratio of 1:1 is suitable for paraffin dehydrogenation (column 5, lines 23-25). The Applicant has provided no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a ratio of palladium to platinum that is suitable for long chain paraffins to be unsuitable for short chain paraffins. Absent this evidence, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a teaching of the platinum to palladium ratio for paraffin dehydrogenation is suitable for all carbon numbers of paraffins, especially since Luo already recognizes the possibility of combining palladium and platinum as the noble metal and merely is silent regarding amounts. Thus, the combination is expected to function in the process of Luo to dehydrogenate short chain paraffins, absent evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the Remarks that no prima facie case of obviousness has been presented because there is no motivation to combine the teaching of Huang with Luo, and even if there was a motivation, there would be no reasonable expectation of success.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner has presented the motivation, which is that Luo teaches the combination of metals but is silent regarding the specific ratio, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related prior art of paraffin dehydrogenation with platinum and palladium to find a suitable ratio, which is present in Huang. Thus, the prima facie case has been made properly. Second, there is a reasonable expectation of success, because both references teach paraffin dehydrogenation over a catalyst comprising platinum and palladium as noble metals, and Huang teaches that a 1:1 ratio is known and suitable. Applicant has not provided any evidence that short chain paraffin dehydrogenation differs from long chain paraffin dehydrogenation in a manner such that the ratio for the long chain dehydrogenation would not be suitable for the short chain dehydrogenation of Luo. Luo and Huang each teach paraffin dehydrogenation over a catalyst comprising platinum and palladium. Thus, a ratio that is suitable for paraffin dehydrogenation in Huang would have a reasonable expectation of success of being suitable for paraffin dehydrogenation in Luo, even though the chain lengths are different, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2015/0202601) in view of Huang (US 3,585,253).
With regard to claims 1, 3, 8, and 9, Luo teaches a method for dehydrogenation of alkanes (paragraph [0012]) comprising the following steps:
a) contacting a gas stream comprising propane (first hydrocarbon instant claim 3) with a catalyst in a reactor at a temperature of 620°C (first temperature) to produce a product stream and a deactivated catalyst (paragraph [0039]). The temperature of 620°C is within the range of 550-700°C of instant claim 3. The catalyst for the dehydrogenation comprises a support, a Group IIIA metal which is gallium, and a Group VIII noble metal which is a combination of noble metals, including platinum and palladium (instant claims 8 and 9) (paragraph [0018]).
b) passing a stream comprising O2 at a temperature of 730°C (second temperature) over the deactivated catalyst (paragraph [0041]), wherein the stream further comprises a fuel source other than the coke, thus combusting the coke and producing a heated catalyst (paragraph [0024]). The temperature of 730°C (second temperature) is 110°C greater than the temperature of 620°C (first temperature), which is within the range of a second temperature greater than the first temperature by 50-200°C of instant claim 1.
c) passing a stream comprising oxygen over the catalyst to reactivated the catalyst (paragraph [0025]).
Luo fails to teach the ratio of platinum to palladium when the catalyst uses a combination of noble metals.
Huang teaches a process including dehydrogenation of paraffins (column 1, lines 16-17). Huang teaches the dehydrogenation catalyst includes a noble metal (column 2, lines 1-4) , where a mixture of noble metals is highly desirable (column 3, lines 36-37) and specifically a fifty-fifty (1:1) mixture of palladium and platinum is suitable (column 5, lines 23-25). This ratio of 1:1 palladium to platinum is within the range of a ratio of palladium to platinum of 0.05 to 1.5 of instant claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a fifty-fifty (1:1) ratio of palladium and platinum in the catalyst of Luo, because each of Luo and Huang teach dehydrogenation of paraffins to olefins over a catalyst comprising a combination of noble metals including palladium and platinum, and Huang teaches that the 1:1 ratio of palladium and platinum is suitable (column 5, lines 23-25).
With regard to claim 6, Luo teaches the dehydrogenation reaction takes place in a fluidized bed (paragraph [0018]).
Claims 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2015/0202601) in view of Huang (US 3,585,253) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pretz et al. (US 2015/0073191).
With regard to claims 2 and 4, Luo teaches that the alkane can be ethane (instant claim 2) or iso-butane (instant claim 4) (paragraph [0031]) and that the combustion temperature (second temperature) can be in the range of 700-780°C (paragraph [0033]).
Luo fails to each the temperature of the dehydrogenation when the alkane is ethane or iso-butane.
Pretz teaches a process for dehydrogenation of lower alkanes including ethane and butanes (paragraph [0002]) where the catalyst comprises gallium and a noble metal (paragraph [0030]). Pretz further teaches that the temperature range (first temperature) for the dehydrogenation of the lower alkanes is preferably 600-750°C (paragraph [0021]), which overlaps the ranges of 700-850°C of instant claim 2 and 500-650°C of instant claim 4, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious. When the dehydrogenation temperature (first temperature) is 600-750°C and the combustion temperature (second temperature) is 700-780°C, the combustion temperature (second temperature) is -50°C to 180°C greater than the dehydrogenation (first temperature), which overlaps the range of 50-200°C of instant claim 1, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the temperature of Pretz for the process of Luo, because Luo and Pretz each teaches the dehydrogenation of ethane or iso-butane with a gallium and platinum containing catalyst, Luo fails to teach the temperature of the dehydrogenation when the paraffins are used, and Pretz teaches that 600-750°C is a preferable temperature for the dehydrogenation of alkanes including ethane and butanes.
With regard to claim 7, Luo teaches that the combustion step includes a fuel source other than coke (paragraph [0024]).
Luo is silent regarding the specific fuel source used.
Pretz teaches a process for dehydrogenation of lower alkanes including ethane and butanes (paragraph [0002]) where the catalyst comprises gallium and a noble metal (paragraph [0030]). Pretz further teaches that regeneration of the catalyst takes place in the presence of oxygen and optionally a fuel source which can be methane (paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use methane as the fuel gas of Luo, because each of Luo and Pretz teaches a process for dehydrogenation and regeneration with a catalyst comprising gallium and a noble metal, where the regeneration includes a fuel source, Luo is silent regarding the specific fuel source, and Pretz teaches that methane is a known and suitable fuel source for the combustion regeneration of the similar platinum and gallium containing catalyst (paragraph [0029]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2015/0202601) in view of Huang (US 3,585,253) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tullo (Turning Ethylene Into Propylene).
With regard to claim 5, Luo in view of Huang teaches the process above comprising dehydrogenation and regeneration, where the alkane feed can include ethane, propane, or iso-butane (paragraph [0031]).
Luo in view of Huang fails to specifically teach using a different alkane in the dehydrogenation feed after regeneration of the catalyst.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that all of the feeds listed in Luo are suitable feeds for the alkane dehydrogenation before or after the regeneration. Tullo teaches that at times propylene demand has been higher than ethylene demand, and vice versa (page 2, last full paragraph). Thus, Tullo teaches that depending on demand, different olefins are more valuable. Further, Luo teaches that the feed flow is stopped for the regeneration (paragraphs [0039] and [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the stopped feed flow to change feed composition, as desired, because changing the feed at that point is not interrupting the process flow.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a different alkane in the process of Luo after regeneration of the catalyst, because Luo in view of Huang teaches that the catalyst is suitable for multiple different alkane feeds, Tullo teaches that the olefin products have variable demand, changing the feed to produce different olefins when demand lowers for a particular olefin and increases for another olefin is obvious, and performing the switch in feeds during regeneration is suitable because regeneration is a good time to make changes to the composition of the feed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights