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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is based on the 18/702963 application originally filed April 19, 2024.
Amended claims 1-15, filed April 19, 2024, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from consideration due to being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-10 in the reply filed on April 19, 2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 11, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al. (WO 2018/203233 A1) hereinafter cited under US 2020/0031739 “Ansari”.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10
Ansari discloses in paragraph 0027, a method has been discovered for dehydrogenating a hydrocarbon in a fixed bed dehydrogenation unit comprising one or more parallel fixed bed reactors. By implementing the method in the dehydrogenation unit, the utilization rate of the fixed bed reactors increases, thereby improving the efficiency of the fixed bed dehydrogenation unit and reducing production cost without substantial capital expenditure.
Ansari discloses in paragraph 0028 and reference to FIG. 1, a process schematic diagram is shown as fixed bed dehydrogenation unit 100. As shown in FIG. 1, fixed bed dehydrogenation unit 100 may include fixed bed reactor 101 in purge mode, fixed bed reactor 102 in dehydrogenation mode, and fixed bed reactor 103 in regeneration mode. Each of the fixed bed reactors comprises a catalyst bed. The inlet of fixed bed reactor 102 in dehydrogenation mode may be connected to heater 110 that is configured to heat a hydrocarbon feed to a reaction temperature, and the outlet of fixed bed reactor 102 in dehydrogenation mode may be connected to heat exchanger 108 to cool down the effluent from fixed bed reactor 102 in dehydrogenation mode. Fixed bed dehydrogenation unit 100 may further include a regeneration air system comprising air compressor 104 configured to blow air into fixed bed reactor 103 in regeneration mode, regeneration air heater 105 configured to heat the air from air compressor 104, fuel injector 106 configured to inject fuel gas into fixed bed reactor 103 in regeneration mode, and heat exchanger 107 configured to cool down the effluents from fixed bed reactor 103 in regeneration mode and fixed bed reactor 101 in purge mode. Fuel injector 106 may be disposed between air compressor 104 and air heater 105. Heat exchanger 107 may be connected to the outlets of fixed bed reactor 103 in regeneration mode. The fixed bed dehydrogenation unit 100 may further include a compression and recovery system 109 to recover and purify a dehydrogenated hydrocarbon obtained from fixed bed reactor 102 on line (in dehydrogenation mode).
Ansari discloses in paragraph 0029 and FIG. 2 shows method 200 for dehydrogenating a hydrocarbon. Method 200 may be implemented by fixed bed dehydrogenation unit 100 as shown in FIG. 1. The process may start with hydrocarbon feed stream 11 combined with recycled hydrocarbon stream 12 from compression and recovery system 109 to form combined hydrocarbon stream 13. The hydrocarbon may include propane, isobutane, pentane, isopentane, n-butane, or combinations thereof. The product (dehydrogenated hydrocarbon) of the fixed bed dehydrogenation unit may comprise propylene, isobutylene, pentene, isoprene, butadiene, or combinations thereof.
Ansari discloses in paragraph 0036, method 300 for dehydrogenating a hydrocarbon in a fixed bed dehydrogenation unit may further include controlling the length of period X, the length of period Y and the length of total slack time Z by a programmable logic controller. The total slack time may be shorter than both X/2 and Y/2. In embodiments of the invention, period X, period Y and total slack time Z in the controlling may be determined by a mathematical model based on one or more correlations between (a) operating periods which include period X, period Y, first slack time Z1, second slack time Z2 and/or total slack time Z, and (b) one or more operating parameters and/or operating factors of the fixed bed reactor. The one or more operating parameters and/or factors of the fixed bed reactor may comprise days on stream (on line), changes in process, number of fixed bed reactors in the dehydrogenation unit, catalyst conditions, improper heat input, partial effect of lump formation, unexpected activity decay of catalyst, or combinations thereof.
Ansari further discloses in paragraph 0037, the changes in process may include change of the feed material, which may be one or more of propane, isobutene, isopentane, and/or n-butane. The catalyst conditions may include the type of catalyst (chromium oxide over alumina or tin-platinum over alumina) used in the reactors and the reaction conditions. In embodiments, the reaction conditions may include reaction temperature, reaction pressure and weight hourly space velocity (weight flowrate of the feed divided by the catalyst weight), or combinations thereof.
Ansari discloses in paragraph 0039, provide a control system for controlling the process of dehydrogenating a hydrocarbon in a fixed bed dehydrogenation unit. As shown in FIG. 4, control system 400 may include one or more processors 401, one or more communication interfaces 402, one or more input/output devices 403, and memory 404. The memory 404 may include one or more random access memory (RAM) devices, read only memory (ROM) devices, one or more hard disk drives (HDDs), flash memory devices, solid state drives (SSDs), network attached storage (NAS) devices, other devices configured to store data in a persistent or non-persistent state, or a combination of different memory devices. In embodiments of the invention, memory 404 may comprise a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors 401, cause one or more processors 401 to perform operations for analyzing, controlling, or both, dehydrogenating a hydrocarbon by one or more fixed bed reactors of a fixed bed dehydrogenation unit. In embodiments of the invention, the operations may include the block 301 to block 304 shown in FIG. 3 and all the processes of method 300.
Ansari discloses in paragraph 0040, block 501 shows that the operations may further include running a mathematical model, with input including operating parameters and/or operating factors of the one or more fixed bed reactors, to generate an output comprising dehydrogenation period X, regeneration period Y, total slack time Z, first slack time Z1 and second slack time Z2 for each fixed bed reactor, where total slack time Z is a sum of first slack time Z1 and second slack time Z2. The operations may further include flowing a hydrocarbon through two or more of the fixed bed reactors operating in parallel, as shown in block 502. In embodiments of the invention, the mathematical model may be run in tandem with other existing mathematical models. Block 503 shows catalyst in the fixed bed reactors may be regenerated after dehydrogenation period X, and first slack time Z1. The operations may further include repeating block 502 after the regenerating period Y and second slack time Z2. Additionally or alternatively, before repeating block 502, based on changes of operating parameters and/or operating factors, the mathematical model from block 501 may be run again to generate a second output including an updated dehydrogenation period X, an updated regeneration period Y, an updated total slack time Z, an updated first slack time Z1, an updated second slack time Z2, or combinations thereof.
It is to be noted, Ansari discloses moving from dehydrogenation mode to regeneration mode in order to regenerate the catalyst, is aided by the mathematical models that is operated under the known parameters (i.e. temperature, pressure and time). In this case, the mathematical models affect the flow of hydrocarbons and catalyst. The applicant is reminded that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable models by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. It is well-settled that optimizing a result effective variable is well within the expected ability of a person of ordinary skill in the subject art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The applied prior art fails to specifically teach claim 1 and the methods of claims 3-8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bodas et al. (US 2022/0055002) disclose in the abstract, houdry lumps can be reduced by controlling the reactors in a fixed bed dehydrogenation process for producing olefins according to defined rules. A programmable logic controller can apply the rules to the operation of the dehydrogenation unit and control the operation of individual reactors according to the rules. By doing so, the performance of dehydrogenation units can be improved without adding any heat generating inerts, such as CuO-α alumina For example, the dehydrogenation units can be operated according to combinatorics in the programmable logic controller such that the farthest two reactors in the dehydrogenation unit never operate in parallel in the dehydrogenation or air regeneration steps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 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 at 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 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights