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 .
Claim Interpretations
Claim 8 recites “light paraffins”, such claimed “light paraffins” is interpreted as any paraffin having 2 to 5 carbon atoms, which is described in the instant specification (see the published application US2024/0367157 para. [0042]).
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 8-15 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. In this case, claim 8 recites “the catalyst according to claim 1”, but the catalyst according to claim 1 has been withdrawn due to restriction/election, therefore, such limitation renders claim indefiniteness. Applicant is kindly reminded to recite all the specific catalyst composition features as recited in claim 1 into claim 8 independently. Next, claim 8 recites subjecting a feedstock of light paraffins to dehydrogenation in the presence of the catalyst, then recites “recovering olefins corresponding to the light paraffin from the dehydrogenation product”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what is the relationship between such olefins as compared to light paraffins or as compared to dehydrogenation product? Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed “subjecting a feedstock of the light paraffins to dehydrogenation in the presence of the catalyst” because dehydrogenation reaction conditions, such as temperature, pressure, feedstock gas velocity etc. are all lacking. Therefore, such limitations render claim indefiniteness. All claim 8’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 15 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. In this case, claim 15 recites a gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) of 100 to 2000 hr-1, but one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain such GHSV is referring to which material in the dehydrogenation reaction, such as paraffins or olefins? Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed limitations.
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, 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.
Claim 8 and 10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhao et al (Zirconium Modification Promotes Catalytic Activity of a Single-Site Cobalt Heterogeneous Catalyst for Propane Dehydrogenation, ACS Omega 2018, 3, 1117-11127).
Zhao teaches a process of dehydrogenating propane (page 1119 section 2.2 Catalyst preparation, section 2.4 Catalytic Activity Testing, Fig. 6, page 11123-page 11124 section 3.5 Catalytic PDH and section 4 Conclusion) comprising contact a single-site cobalt catalyst with propane to produce propene, wherein the single-site cobalt catalyst comprising a zirconia support surface modified with silica (page 1119 section 2.2 Catalyst preparation). Zhao further teaches the silica modified zirconia support has a structure in which at least a part of the silica is exposed on an outside of the zirconia (Fig. 8). Furthermore, since Zhao teaches zirconium being mixed with silica material, then the resulting solid being dried and heated in air to obtain zirconium containing silica material (page 1119 section 2.2 Catalyst preparation). Since the formed support material containing zirconium oxide and silicon oxide, wherein such material being produced via intimate mixing of zirconium and silicon oxide, then calcining in air, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the obtained support comprising zirconia having surface or outer portion of the zirconia with silica. Zhao et al. further teaches cobalt having an oxidation number of 2+ exist in an isolated form of single-atom on the silica-modified zirconia support while being tetrahedrally coordinated at a three-membered hydroxyl ring on the surface of the support (Fig. 8-9, page 11123-page 11124 section 3.5 Catalytic PDH and section 4 Conclusion).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao does not expressly teach recovering olefins. However, Zhao already teaches hydrogenating propane to propylene (page 11123 section 3.5 Catalytic PDH), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to recover such propylene for obtaining a valuable final product.
Regarding claim 10 and 12-14, Zhao further teaches the dehydrogenation propane (a light paraffin) at a temperature of 550 °C wherein propane is a gas under ambient conditions, and the selectivity for propene is 97% (page 11123 left col. last para.).
Claim 9 and 11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhao et al (Zirconium Modification Promotes Catalytic Activity of a Single-Site Cobalt Heterogeneous Catalyst for Propane Dehydrogenation, ACS Omega 2018, 3, 1117-11127) as applied above, and in view of Al-Hazmi (US2015/0209759).
Regarding claim 9, 11 and 15, Zhao does not expressly teach the content of light paraffin in the feedstock being at least 50 vol%, or dehydrogenation pressure being 0.3 to 2 bar, or dehydrogenation being carried out at a gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) of 100 to 2000 hr-1.
Al-Hazmi teaches a nonoxidative dehydrogenation process for alkane (i.e. paraffin), preferably alkane with 2 to 4 carbon atoms, e.g. propane (para. [0088]-[0090]) and such dehydrogenation process can use a feedstock comprising at least 75 mol% of one alkane (when propane is used which is gas, its mol% equals to its vol% in the gas stream) (para. [0092]-[0093]), and such dehydrogenation reaction can be preformed at pressure of 50.7 KPa to 505 KPa ( i.e. 0.507 to 5.05 bar) with a GHSV of 1500 to 6000 (para. [0098]-[0100]). Al-Hazmi disclosed feedstock alkane percentage, dehydrogenation pressure and GHSV respectively overlapping with that of instantly claimed paraffin volume percentage, dehydrogenation pressure and GHSV, thus renders a prima case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such alkane percentage, dehydrogenation pressure and GHSV as shown by Al-Hazmi to modify the dehydrogenation process of Zhao because adopt such well-known alkane percentage, dehydrogenation pressure and GHSV to modify a well-known dehydrogenation process for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Li (CN109225306) teaches using a single atom catalyst dehydrogenating low carbon hydrocarbon under temperature 300-700 °C. Pretz (US2016/0289144) teaches oxidative dehydrogenating propane to propene with presence of sulfur under temperature range of from 550 ° C to 800° C, and a pressure within a range of from 3.6 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) (24.8 kilopascals (KPa) to 64.7 psia (446.1 KPa).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights