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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/31/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 20-22, 24, 33, 35, 44, 46-48, 51, 58, 60-61, and 64, filed on 10/17/2024, are under consideration.
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.
Claim 48 is 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.
Claim 48 recites “wherein the furnace-reactor couple comprises a single furnace and a single reactor, a plurality of the furnace-reactor couples is present, each of the furnace-reactor couples is fluidly coupled to each other, and at least one of the plurality of the furnace-reactor couples is a spare furnace-reactor couple” which does not clearly differentiate if a single furnace and a single reactor and a plurality of the furnace-reactor couples is present of if a single furnace and a single reactor or a plurality of the furnace. In view of instant Fig. 4-5, it seems that plurality of these couple are being utilized.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 20-22, 24, 33, 35, 44, 46-48, 51, 58, 60-61, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taheri et al. (US 2013/0178674).
For claim 1, Taheri teaches process for the catalytic dehydration of ethanol to ethylene where the reactor train is comprised of … multiple reactor vessels wherein each … vessel has different length, internal diameter, and volume than the other … vessels and in addition the … reactor vessels are connected in series or in parallel arrangement, preferably used with an improved means of introducing the ethanol feedstock and a heat carrying inert gas to the improved reactor train (shown below; Abstract). This disclosure reads on the claimed “passing a first fluid comprising the alcohol through a plurality of reactors, each reactor comprising a catalyst bed”.
Regarding the catalyst bed, Taheri suggests that catalytic bed comprise fixed bed dehydration catalyst that is “active” [0023] and [0044]. This active catalyst is shown to include the entire catalyst bed (labels 12A, 13B and 14B). Without any criticality, it can be assumed that the Taheri does suggest an amount of up to 100% of the catalyst bed to be catalytically active zone. Therefore, and before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used 90% catalytic active zone in the fixed reactor, during a catalyst campaign/cycle, because this involves better volume utilization of the fixed bed reactor, and also because it involves maximum utilization of catalyst material and activity within smaller catalyst bed. Fig. 2 also reads on pending claim 64 directed to system limitations that are similar to those discussed above.
PNG
media_image1.png
618
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, Taheri teaches the catalytic-active zone is 100% of the catalyst bed during the catalyst campaign (labels 12B, 13B and 14B).
For claim 3, Taheri teaches that the temperature is about 300-480°C [0030] which overlaps the claimed catalytic-active zone operates at a temperature of 280-500°C.
For claim 4, the process shown in Fig. 2 does not require that at least one of the catalyst beds does not include an idle catalyst zone during the catalyst campaign.
For claim 7, Taheri teaches the alcohol is ethanol [0024] which is a C2 alcohol.
For claim 10, Taheri teaches contacting the first fluid (hot stream 1, [0025]-[0026]) with a second fluid comprising steam prior to the first fluid contacting the plurality of reactors, wherein a ratio of the steam to the alcohol is 0.5-10 [0025], which overlaps the claimed ration of 1:1 to 3:1. Taheri further teaches obtaining a third fluid from at least one of the plurality of reactors, wherein the third fluid comprises the alcohol at a concentration lower than a concentration of the alcohol in the first fluid (after the reaction of the alcohol to reduce its concentration), contacting the third fluid with the first fluid prior to contacting the third fluid with another reactor among the plurality of reactors ([0026]), and obtaining from an end of the plurality of reactors, a fourth fluid comprising the olefin and an alkane that has the same number of carbon atoms, wherein an amount of the olefin in the fourth fluid is at least 1,000 ppm, mole basis, greater than an amount of the alkane (ethylene selectivity of more than 99%, [0026]).
For claim 11, an ethylene selectivity of more than 99% implies alkane/ethane amount of less than 1,000 ppm which overlaps the claimed amount 2,500 ppm or less.
For claim 12, Taheri does not disclose compression of the fourth fluid with a one-stage compressor connected to an end of the plurality of reactors. However, Taheri is considered to teach that the method excludes pressurizing the fourth fluid with a multi-stage compressor.
For claim 14, Taheri teaches feeding the first fluid to at least one of the plurality of reactors at a temperature of 300-480°C [0030] which overlaps the claimed catalytic-active zone operates at a temperature of more than 280 0C.
For claim 15, Taheri teaches wherein the temperature is up to 480°C which is more than 400 0C.
For claim 17, Taheri teaches WHSV of 0.01-10 hr-1 which overlaps the claimed wherein at least one of the plurality of reactors has a weight hourly space velocity of the alcohol of more than 0.6/h and up to 1.5/h.
For claim 20, Taheri (Fig. 2) teaches wherein the plurality of reactors comprises: a first group of reactors including reactors each having a first height, and a second group of reactors including reactors each having a second height, wherein the first height is different from the second height.
For claim 21, Taheri teaches the number of reactors is 2-10 such as 2-5 [002] which implies a first reactor comprising a first catalyst bed, a second reactor comprising a second catalyst bed, a third reactor comprising a third catalyst bed, and a fourth reactor comprising a fourth catalyst bed. A fifth reactor also reads on claim 22.
For claim 24, Taheri teaches each stage preferably having a length of between 0.3 to 15 meters [0022]; this length overlaps the claimed wherein each of the plurality of reactors independently has a height of from 2.5 m to 4.0 m, and/or wherein the first reactor has a height of 2.8 to 3.1 m, and/or wherein the third reactor has a height of 3.2 to 3.5 m. These dimension also overlap claim 35.
For claims 33 and 44, Taheri teaches different volume in the individual reactors [0037] to optimize temperature profiles and residence time of alcohol. Considering that the change in temperature results from conversion which depends strongly on concentration of alcohol, it would be reasonable to increase catalyst volume from first to fourth to counter the reduction of concentration of alcohol and to use larger reactor to allow more residence time (and thus more alcohol reactivity).
For claim 46, Taheri teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of reactors is fluidly coupled to a furnace to form a furnace-reactor couple (Fig. 2 label 20 and 22). This also reads on claim 47 (Fig. 2 label 20) and claim 48 (a single furnace and a single reactor).
For claim 51, “the spare furnace-reactor couple” is not positively recited and is not considered limiting at this time.
For claim 58, Taheri teaches longer cycle time [0040]. In the absence of criticality and/or causation, this longer cycle time is expected to include catalyst campaign is between five and seven months.
For claims 60 and 61, it should be noted that catalyst regeneration after catalytic campaign is known and commonly practiced in the art (see US 4,973,778 and US 5,489,726). Therefore, and before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, after the catalyst campaign, perform decoupling of at least one of the plurality of the furnace-reactor couples from the remaining furnace-reactor couples, and regenerating the catalyst bed or changing the catalyst bed in the at least one decoupled furnace-reactor couple; and to perform the decoupling immediately after the catalyst campaign (to return to service as soon as possible), and/or at the time where remaining furnace-reactor couples operate together at 100% of capacity (to restore reactivity of the catalyst and reduce heat load requirement from the furnace).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI Z FADHEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0267. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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.
/ALI Z FADHEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights