DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for application SN 18/874,677 having an effective date of 13 December 2024 and a provisional priority date of 14 June 2022. A preliminary amendment was filed on 13 December 2024. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-12 and 14-24 are pending. 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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, 10-12 and 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartolini et al (US 7,473,668) in combination with RU (2,224,735 C1).
Bartolini et al [“Bartolini”] disclose (column 1, line 55 to column 5, line 53 and the examples) a method for making light olefins by dehydrogenation. Bartolini discloses that the method comprises operating a catalytic dehydrogenation process comprising contacting a hydrocarbon-containing feed with a catalyst in a reactor to form an olefin-containing effluent; at least partially separating the olefin-containing effluent from the catalyst; passing the catalyst to a combustor and heating the catalyst by combusting a supplemental fuel that comprises methane in an amount of greater than or equal to 1 mol.%; followed by passing the catalyst from the combustor to the reactor, such that at least a portion of the catalyst continuously cycles between the reactor and the combustor.
The method for making light olefins by dehydrogenation of independent claim 1 differs by monitoring a composition of a combustion gas in the combustor to detect a concentration of one or more hydrocarbons; and selectively adding a combustion additive with the catalyst when the combustion gas comprises one or more hydrocarbons in an amount greater than 5% of a lower flammability level of the combustion gas at a temperature and pressure of the combustor.
The claimed combustion additive comprises: from 0.1 wt.% to 10 wt.% of gallium; from 100 parts per million by weight (ppmw) to 10,000 ppmw of manganese; from 0 ppmw to 100 ppmw of noble metals; and at least 85 wt.% support. The effect resulting from these differences is an improved combustion of methane and an improved yield of light olefins.
However, the RU document (RU 2,224,735) is added to teach that gallium and manganese (examples 3a and 4) are providing an improved combustion of methane, and are acting as a combustion promoter. The RU document also discloses the use of a composite (example 6). Thus, the examiner is of the position that it would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art to have added gallium and manganese to the combustion additive of Bartolini in order to improve the process of Bartolini.
Further, the examiner is of the position that none of the dependent claims contribute and inventive step of the method for making light olefins by dehydrogenation of independent claim 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN M MCAVOY whose telephone number is (571)272-1451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am - 7:00 pm EST.
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.
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
EMcAvoy
June 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights