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 Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “heat transferred media” is a typo of –heat transfer media—.
Claim 2: “the cooling passages” (plural, two recitations) should be –the cooling passage— (singular).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 7, 12-17 and 19 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 6 recites the limitation "the tube bundle" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 6 should depend from claim 5 instead of claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the reactant" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the reactor effluent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outlet for the reactant" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the cooling media" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the outlet for the reactant" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear what the relationship is between “the outlet for the reactant” and the outlet previously introduced in the claim. Is Applicant intending to introduce a new element or refer to the element previously introduced? The office believes the latter is intended and has interpreted the claim accordingly.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the outlet for the reactant" in line 2. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesterenko et al (WO 2019/162392) in view of Lehr et al (US 2008/0023175).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6 and 18, Nesterenko discloses a process for converting naphtha comprising (see Abstract; Fig. 1):
contacting a naphtha stream 1 and a hydrogen stream 9 with a catalyst in a reactant passage of a reactor 3 to produce a light paraffinic stream 5 (see p. 4, lines 4-13; p. 10, lines 14-23); and
separating 7 the light paraffin stream into an ethane stream 13 and a propane stream 15 (see p. 10, line 26 – p. 11, line 1).
Nesterenko does not disclose carrying out the reaction in a reactor which cools the reactant passage by indirect heat exchange with a heat transfer media in a cooling passage adjacent to the reactant passage.
Lehr is directed to a tube bundle reactor for exothermic and endothermic reactions (see Abstract; [0002]-[0003]). The reactor comprises a bundle of vertically disposed reactor tubes and a reactor shell which encloses the tube bundle. Catalyst is located within the tubes. Heat transfer medium flows around the outer surfaces of the reactor tubes and is circulated in at least one circuit through the reactor portion (see [0003]; [0028]; [0051]). Lehr discloses that this reactor configuration allows for uniform reaction conditions to be obtained along the flow path of the reactor tubes, allowing for isothermal operation and preventing inadmissibly high thermal stresses as a consequence of excessive different temperature-induced expansions (see [0004]; [0007]; [0033]).
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 Nesterenko by carrying out the hydrocracking reaction in a reactor design as disclosed in Lehr, entailing a shell and tube heat exchanger wherein reactant flows through catalyst filled tubes and heat exchange medium flows through the shell around the tubes, in order to provide temperature control for the reaction.
Regarding claim 2, Lehr discloses the reactor configuration comprising a first zone in the cooling passage comprising a first heat exchange inlet (downstream of valve 31 connecting to 30) and a first heat exchange outlet 26 and a second zone in the cooling passage comprising a second heat exchange inlet 25 and a second heat exchange outlet 29 (see Fig 1; [0219]-[0223]).
Regarding claim 3, the first zone is located in a top quarter of the reactor height (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Lehr discloses wherein the first zone is at a lower temperature than the second zone (see [0257], which discloses temperature increase from the inlet to the exit of the reactor, i.e., top to bottom).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Lehr discloses the reactor comprising an inlet 147 for reactant and an outlet 16 for reactor effluent (see Fig. 1; [0220]).
However, Nesterenko in view of Lehr does not explicitly disclose wherein maximum temperature in the reactor is within 10°C of a temperature at the outlet for reactor effluent.
In this regard, the office notes that Lehr discloses the reactor configuration being suitable for isothermal operation (see [0007]). Thus, considering the teachings of Lehr, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to minimize temperature differences within the reactor consistent with the objective of isothermal operation. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, the claimed temperature difference between the reactor effluent outlet and that within the reactor is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Lehr discloses wherein the heat transfer medium is in a molten state (see [0060]; [0076]).
Regarding claim 9, Lehr discloses (see [0060]-[0063]; [0219]-[0223]):
heating the heat transfer medium to provide a molten heat transfer medium;
passing the molten heat transfer medium to the cooling passage through a medium inlet to contact and cool the reactant passage;
taking a contacted molten heat transfer medium from the cooling passage through a medium outlet; and
cooling the contacted molten heat transfer medium in a medium cooler to provide a cooled molten heat transfer medium.
Regarding claim 10, Lehr discloses wherein the heat transfer medium comprises one or more salts selected from sodium nitrite, sodium nitrate, and potassium nitrate (see [0060]).
Regarding claim 11, Lehr discloses wherein the heat transfer medium has a melting temperature in the range 100 to 450°C (see [0060]).
Regarding claim 12, Lehr discloses wherein the reactant (naphtha as in Nesterenko) is passed to a top of the reactant passage and the heat transfer medium is passed to a side of the reactant passage (see Fig. 1; [0219]-[0223]).
Regarding claim 13, Nesterenko discloses a process for converting naphtha comprising (see Abstract; Fig. 1):
contacting a naphtha stream 1 and a hydrogen stream 9 with a catalyst in a reactant passage of a reactor 3 having an inlet and an outlet to produce a light paraffinic stream 5 (see p. 4, lines 4-13; p. 10, lines 14-23); and
separating 7 the light paraffin stream into an ethane stream 13 and a propane stream 15 (see p. 10, line 26 – p. 11, line 1).
Nesterenko does not disclose: (1) carrying out the reaction in a reactor which cools the reactant passage by indirect heat exchange with a heat transfer media in a cooling passage adjacent to the reactant passage; and (2) wherein maximum temperature in the reactor is within 10°C of a temperature at the outlet for reaction effluent.
Regarding (1), Lehr is directed to a tube bundle reactor for exothermic and endothermic reactions (see Abstract; [0002]-[0003]). The reactor comprises a bundle of vertically disposed reactor tubes and a reactor shell which encloses the tube bundle. Catalyst is located within the tubes. Heat transfer medium flows around the outer surfaces of the reactor tubes and is circulated in at least one circuit through the reactor portion (see [0003]; [0028]; [0051]). Lehr discloses that this reactor configuration allows for uniform reaction conditions to be obtained along the flow path of the reactor tubes, allowing for isothermal operation and preventing inadmissibly high thermal stresses as a consequence of excessive different temperature-induced expansions (see [0004]; [0007]; [0033]).
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 Nesterenko by carrying out the hydrocracking reaction in a reactor design as disclosed in Lehr, entailing a shell and tube heat exchanger wherein reactant flows through catalyst filled tubes and heat exchange medium flows through the shell around the tubes, in order to provide temperature control for the reaction.
Regarding (2), the office notes that Lehr discloses the reactor configuration being suitable for isothermal operation (see [0007]). Thus, considering the teachings of Lehr, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to minimize temperature differences within the reactor consistent with the objective of isothermal operation. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, the claimed temperature difference between the reactor effluent outlet and that within the reactor is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Lehr discloses (see [0060]-[0063]; [0219]-[0223]):
heating the heat transfer medium to provide a molten heat transfer medium;
passing the molten heat transfer medium to the cooling passage through a medium inlet to contact and cool the reactant passage;
taking a contacted molten heat transfer medium from the cooling passage through a medium outlet; and
cooling the contacted molten heat transfer medium in a medium cooler to provide a cooled molten heat transfer medium.
Regarding claim 16, Lehr discloses wherein the heat transfer medium comprises one or more salts selected from sodium nitrite, sodium nitrate, and potassium nitrate (see [0060]).
Regarding claim 17, Lehr discloses wherein the reactant (naphtha as in Nesterenko) is passed to a top of the reactant passage and the heat transfer medium is passed to a side of the reactant passage (see Fig. 1; [0219]-[0223]).
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
