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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Groups I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 27 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites in lines 14-16 “at least one noble metal selected from the group consisting of ruthenium…and a combination of two or more thereof”. The use of both of the phrases “at least one” and “a combination of two or more” is redundant. For clarity and consistency with later wording, the Examiner suggests deleting “at least one”.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, the claims each recite “the noble metal”. For antecedent basis purposes and with respect to the 112(b) rejection interpretation below, this should be amended to recite ‘the second noble metal” in each case.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-9 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.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites in line 8 “reactivating the catalyst…” However, the only time the catalyst is recited as “a catalyst” is in line 3, and the catalyst has not yet been used in the process in line 3, and thus would not need reactivation. As such, it is unclear what is being reactivated in line 8, and the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification recites in paragraph [0046] that the reactivating step takes place following the combusting step. Thus, the phrase “the catalyst” should be replaced with “the heated catalyst composition” for proper antecedent basis.
Also with regard to claim 1, the claim recites in line 16 “a ratio of total second noble metal”. However, the claim only previously recites “platinum” (a known noble metal) and “at least one noble metal” in line 14It is unclear whether the “at least one noble metal” and “second noble metal” are the same or different metals. As such, it is unclear what metals the phrase “second noble metal” refers to, and the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the ratio appears to refer to the ratio of the total “noble metal”, because paragraphs [0036]-[0037] in the instant specification refer to the same list of metals as claimed, but the specification calls them the “second noble metal” rather than the “at least one noble metal” of the claims. Thus, the Examiner suggests amending line 14 to recite “second noble metal” for clarity.
With regard to claims 2-9, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 been 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
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
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights