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 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.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pretz et al., US Patent No. 8,669,406 (hereinafter referred to as Pretz) in view of Luo et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0202601 (hereinafter referred to as Luo).
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, 10-11 and 13, Pretz discloses a process for the dehydrogenation of a paraffinic hydrocarbon compound, such as an alkane to produce an unsaturated hydrocarbon compound, such as an olefin, in which a dehydrogenation catalyst contacts gaseous reactant hydrocarbons in a reactor at dehydrogenation conditions (as recited in claim 1) (see Abstract). The hydrocarbon compound is introduced to the lower end of a reactor and contacted by the hot fresh or regenerated catalyst which is pneumatically moved by a carrier gas. As the hydrocarbon compound rises in the cylindrical reactor with the catalyst, the dehydrogenation reaction takes place and at the top or upper end of the riser, the lower olefin is separated from the catalyst (as recited in claim 1) (Col. 5-6/L. 61-14).
Pretz further discloses the cracking process occurs in the petroleum as the liquid petroleum is vaporized by the hot catalyst and both rise in the reactor cylinder. At the top of the riser reactor, the catalyst and hydrocarbon product are separated and the gasoline product stream exits via a vent pipe for separation and further processing into gasoline and heating oil fractions. The catalyst settles in an annular space between the outside wall of the riser tube and an inner wall of the reactor housing through which a stripper gas contacts the catalyst, at a rate which does not prevent settling of the catalyst, and strips off additional petroleum product from the catalyst surface. The catalyst is then sent to a regenerator/reactivator in which the catalyst is contacted with a regeneration fluid, usually an oxygen-containing gas for combustion of any remaining hydrocarbons, and the regenerated catalyst is sent back to the lower end of the riser reactor to contact additional petroleum for cracking. Spent catalyst may also be directly recycled to the lower end of the reactor without regeneration (as recited in claim 1) (Col. 4/L. 43-61). The spent catalyst may then optionally be sent to a stripper, and then either to a regenerator or recycle loop, after which the catalyst is returned to the dehydrogenation reactor. During regeneration the catalyst is contacted with a regeneration fluid, usually an oxygen-containing gas and optionally a fuel source such as methane where remaining hydrocarbons, coke, heavy residues, tar, etc. are removed from the catalyst, and the resulting regenerated catalyst is cycled back to the dehydrogenation reactor and the residence time of the catalyst in the reactor is between from 1 to 60 seconds (as recited in claim 1 and reads on claims 4-6) (Col. 3/L. 1-7 and Col. 6/L. 54-66).
Pretz discloses all the limitations discussed above but does not explicitly disclose the specific catalyst recited in claim 1.
Luo discloses a process to dehydrogenate an alkane wherein a circulating fluidized bed-based process for dehydrogenating an alkane may be described as including placing an alkane in operative contact, in a reactor, with a dehydrogenation catalyst (Para. [0012] and [0018]) wherein the catalyst includes 0.25 to 5 wt% of a Group IIIA metal, such as gallium, 5 to 500 parts by weight of a Group VIII noble metal, such as palladium, and an optional promoter metal which can be an alkali or alkaline earth metal present in the range of from 0 to 2 wt%, on a support selected from silica, alumina, silica-alumina compositions, rare earth modified alumina, and combinations thereof, doped with 100 to 2100 parts by weight of iron (as recited in claim 1 and reads on claims 10-11 and 13) (see Abstract and see Examples and see Claims 1-2 of Luo and Para. [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the catalysts of Luo in the process of Pretz in order to reduce reactivation time (see Abstract of Luo).
Regarding claims 2-3, although the limitations are not explicitly taught by Pretz/Luo it is the position of the examiner that the claims would be obvious as they are optimizable. You may use this when certain parameter(s) is(are) claimed, but criticality of such parameter(s) is(are) not shown on the record. However, you need to explain why the parameter is result effective. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art and would have been obvious, consult In re Boesch and Slaney (205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claims 7-9, 12 and 14-15, see discussion above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of co-pending application No. 18/874,223. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '223 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting II
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of co-pending application No. 18/874,232. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '232 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights