DETAILED ACTION
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the coke" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (US 9,884,314) in view of Pretz et al (US 2021/0261481).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 7-13, Luo discloses a method for making light olefins by dehydrogenation comprising contacting a hydrocarbon-containing feed with a catalyst in a reactor to form an olefin-containing effluent (see col. 2, lines 49-52; col. 4, lines 30-34). The catalyst is then regenerated by combusting a supplemental fuel and at least a portion of coke on the catalyst (see col. 3, lines 44-46; col. 8, lines 35-37). A representative catalyst comprises 1.5 wt.% gallium, 78 ppmw platinum, 560 ppmw chromium, 2200 ppmw potassium loaded on a support of alumina doped with silica (see Table 2; Example 7; Examples 1-4), thus teaching components having concentrations as claimed. Based on the concentration of catalyst elements, the concentration of support must also be within the claimed range.
As noted, Luo discloses combusting a supplemental fuel, but is silent with respect to the supplemental fuel comprising methane in an amount of at least 3 mol.%. Nor does Luo provide the specific details of cycling the catalyst between the reactor and the regenerator (combustor).
Pretz, like Luo, is directed to a method for producing light olefins by dehydrogenation (see [0032]). The method comprises:
contacting a hydrocarbon-containing feed with a catalyst in a reactor to form an olefin-containing effluent (see [0035]; [0038]);
at least partially separating the olefin-containing effluent from the catalyst (see [0035]; [0038]);
passing the catalyst to a combustor and heating the catalyst by combusting a supplemental fuel and at least a portion of coke on the catalyst, wherein the supplemental fuel comprises methane in an amount of at least 5 mol.% (see [0040]; [0050]-[0051]); and
passing the catalyst form the combustor to the reactor, such that at least a portion of the catalyst continuously cycles between the reactor and the combustor (see [0047]).
Pretz discloses that the supplemental fuel ats to provide heat for the endothermic reaction along with combustion of coke from the reaction. Methane specifically is a desirable supplemental fuel because it is affordable and is energy efficient at relatively high temperatures, such as those of the catalyst during operation (see [0007]; [0010]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process of Luo by implementing the processing and regeneration steps of Pretz, including combustion with a methane supplemental fuel, in order to use an affordable and energy efficient supplemental fuel source which provides heat for the endothermic reaction.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Pretz discloses passing the catalyst from the combustor to an oxygen treatment zone and exposing the catalyst to an oxygen-containing gas for a period of greater than 2 minutes (overlapping the claimed range) and then passing the catalyst from the oxygen treatment zone to the reactor (see [0030]; [0044]-[0045]; [0047]).
Regarding claim 15, Luo discloses wherein the hydrocarbon-containing feed comprises propane and the olefin-containing effluent comprises propylene (see col. 6, lines 18-19).
Claim 5, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Pretz, as applied to claim 1, as evidenced by and/or in further view of Pierce et al (US 8,653,317).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Luo in view of Pretz does not explicitly disclose the residence time of the catalyst within the reactor.
However, selecting a suitable residence time which provides the desired conversion conditions amounts to nothing more than routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Arriving at an embodiment as claimed, i.e., a catalyst residence time of less than or equal to 1 minute, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see Pierce: col. 7, lines 31-40, which discloses a residence time of less than 60 seconds). The claimed catalyst residence time is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Luo in view of Pretz does not explicitly disclose the catalyst has Geldard group A or B properties.
Pierce provides evidence that a catalyst being maintained in a fluid state of Geldart A solid particulate material by means of fluidizing inert gas is desirable in a process for dehydrogenating a hydrocarbon (see Abstract; col. 10, lines 24-35). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to ensure that the catalyst has sufficient properties, e.g., Geldart A properties, conducive to produce proper fluidization during the dehydrogenation reaction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights