PROCESS FOR CONVERTING NAPHTHA TO LIGHT PARAFFINS WITH STAGED REACTORS

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 . Office Action Summary This is the initial office action for application 18/975684 filed 12/10/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered. 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, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMITH (US 2965560) SMITH teaches reforming naphtha in multiple stages. Regarding claim 1, SMITH teaches in lines 23-46 of column 3 and the drawing a setup of the process. A naphtha feed is sent via line 10 to a preliminary reactor 13. A line 50 also allows for the naphtha feed to be separated and to bypass preliminary reactor 13 and into reactor #1. Furthermore, SMITH teaches in lines 15-21 of column 4 that the preliminary reactor may be two preliminary reactors that are piped in parallel and that both may be used simultaneously. (separating a naphtha stream into a plurality of naphtha streams) Recycle hydrogen 14 is taught in lines 23-46 of column 3 to be mixed with the feed prior to being passed into the preliminary reactor 13. The reactor 13 comprises a fixed bed of catalyst. Reactor 1 is taught in lines 35-58 of column 4 to also comprise a fixed bed of catalyst. (contacting naphtha stream and a hydrogen stream with a catalyst in a dedicated reactors to produce a contacted stream) SMITH teaches in lines 55-62 of column 3 that the products formed include hydrogen and light gases such as ethane and propane. Although not explicitly stated, ethane and propane have value as streams and it would well within one of ordinary skill in the art to separate out an ethane stream and a propane stream. (separating said contacted streams into an ethane stream and a propane stream) Regarding claim 2, SMITH teaches in lines 23-46 of column 3 and lines 3-34 of column 4 that effluent from preliminary reactor 13 and naphtha from line 50 are both fed into reactor 1. Hydrogen is present in the stream and reactor 1 comprises a catalyst. Regarding claim 12, SMITH teaches in lines 23-46 of column 3, and lines 3-34 of column 4, that effluent from preliminary reactor 13 and naphtha from line 50 are both fed into reactor 1. Hydrogen is present in the stream and reactor 1 comprises a catalyst. Regarding claims 4 and 14, SMITH does not explicitly teach separating hydrogen into a plurality of hydrogen streams. However, SMITH teaches a reaction in the reactor that comprise different reaction conditions and splitting the hydrogen into different hydrogen stream feeds would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow better control of the reaction conditions. Regarding claims 5 and 15, SMITH further teaches in lines 23-46 of column 3 that a heat exchanger 11 may be used to indirect heat exchange between the naphtha feed and the effluent from the final reforming reactor with the naphtha feed being heated. Regarding claim 6, SMITH further teaches in lines 23-46 of column 3 that a heat exchanger 11 may be used to indirect heat exchange between the naphtha feed and the effluent from the final reforming reactor. Regarding claim 8, SMITH teaches in lines 15-22 of column 1 that the one goal of the process is for aromatics production. Given that SMITH also teaches that ethanes and propanes are produced, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate aromatics from paraffins. Regarding claim 9, SMITH teaches a preliminary reactor and 3 reactors which in total is 4 reactors. Regarding claim 10, SMITH teaches a naphtha feed is sent via line 10 to a preliminary reactor 13. Recycle hydrogen 14 is taught in lines 23-46 of column 3 to be mixed with the feed prior to being passed into the preliminary reactor 13. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUNK et al. (USPGPUB 2023/0357654) in view of SMITH (US 2965560). FUNK et al. teach a process for converting naphtha to light olefins with separation. Regarding claim 1, FUNK et al. teach that naphtha can be contacted with a zeolitic catalyst to produce a light paraffin stream. FUNK et al. teach that the light paraffin stream can be separated into ethane and propane streams. The light paraffin stream can also be separated into a heavy stream which can be recycled back into the contacting step. FUNK et al. teach in paragraphs 24 and 36 that a naphtha stream in line 10 may be combined with a hydrogen stream in line 22 and a heavy stream in line 12 and fed into a NEP reactor 16 comprising a NEP catalyst and discharge a light paraffin stream comprising ethane and propane. (contacting naphtha stream and a hydrogen stream with a catalyst in a dedicated reactors to produce a contacted stream) The light paraffin stream is taught in paragraph 38 to be sent to a NEP separation unit 20. The separation unit separates out an ethane stream and a propane stream. (separating said contacted streams into an ethane stream and a propane stream) Although FUNK et al. teach a NEP reactor for conversion of naphtha to ethane and propane, FUNK et al. also teach in paragraph 52 that it is known to employ several reactors in parallel or series instead of a single reactor. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ multiple reactors in parallel with the naphtha stream split into multiple naphtha stream going to multiple NEP reactors since the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (separating a naphtha stream into a plurality of naphtha streams) For example, SMITH teaches in lines 23-46 of column 3 and the drawing a setup of the process. A naphtha feed is sent via line 10 to a preliminary reactor 13. A line 50 also allows for the naphtha feed to be separated and to bypass preliminary reactor 13 and into reactor #1. Furthermore, SMITH teaches in lines 15-21 of column 4 that the preliminary reactor may be two preliminary reactors that are piped in parallel and that both may be used simultaneously. SMITH provides the motivation to use multiple reactors in parallel as they can be used simultaneously and one may be offstream and the other may be onstream. Regarding claim 2, with a plurality of setups that FUNK et al. teach, it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle the heavy paraffin stream to any of the NEP reactor with a reasonable expectations of success given that the duplication of the setups would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the parallel series of NEP reactors would be interchangeable. Feeding the heavy paraffin stream from one reactor to a second reactor as recycle would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 12, with a plurality of setups that FUNK et al. teach, it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle the heavy paraffin stream to any of the NEP reactor with a reasonable expectations of success given that the duplication of the setups would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the parallel series of NEP reactors would be interchangeable. Feeding the heavy paraffin stream from one reactor to a second reactor as recycle would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art. Feeding the heavy paraffin stream from one reactor or a third reactor to a second reactor as recycle would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 16, with a plurality of setups that FUNK et al. teach, it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle the heavy paraffin stream to any of the NEP reactor with a reasonable expectations of success given that the duplication of the setups would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the parallel series of NEP reactors would be interchangeable. Feeding the heavy paraffin stream from one reactor to a second reactor as recycle would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 3, 13, and 17, FUNK et al. teach in paragraph 38 that the light paraffin stream may be cooled prior to feeding it into a NEP separation unit 20 and wherein a heavy paraffin stream 12 may be recycled. Regarding claims 4, 14, and 18, FUNK et al. teach a NEP reactor for conversion of naphtha to ethane and propane, FUNK et al. also teach in paragraph 52 that it is known to employ several reactors in parallel or series instead of a single reactor. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ multiple reactors in parallel with the hydrogen stream split into multiple hydrogen stream going to multiple NEP reactors since the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Regarding claim 10, with a plurality of setups as taught by FUNK et al., it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a plurality of hydrogen lines with the plurality of feed streams. Regarding claims 5 and 15, SMITH teaches a heat exchanger 11 that exchanges heat for the naphtha stream with the final effluent stream from a reactor. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a heat exchanger to exchange heat between the naphtha stream that is fed into the NEP reactor and the effluent stream that exits the NEP reactor or separator. The motivation to do so would be effective recycle of heat. Regarding claims 6 and 19, SMITH teaches a heat exchanger 11 that exchanges heat for the naphtha stream with the final effluent stream from a reactor. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a heat exchanger to exchange heat between the naphtha stream that is fed into the NEP reactor and the effluent stream that exits the NEP reactor or separator. The motivation to do so would be effective recycle of heat. Regarding claims 7 and 20, SMITH heat exchanges with one naphtha stream with an effluent stream. With the setups from FUNK et al. duplicated, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat exchange each naphtha stream with the respective effluent streams. Regarding claim 8, FUNK et al. teach in paragraph 63 and 68 that the heavy paraffin stream may also comprise aromatics and that the aromatics may be preserved in separation unit for valorization into other valuable aromatics. Regarding claim 9, the number of reactors to be duplicated appears to be a matter of design choice and 4 total reactors appear to be well within one of ordinary skill in the art. SMITH, for example, teaches a setup with 4 reactors. Regarding claim 11, with a plurality of setups that FUNK et al. teach, it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle the heavy paraffin stream to any of the NEP reactor with a reasonable expectations of success given that the duplication of the setups would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the parallel series of NEP reactors would be interchangeable. Feeding the heavy paraffin stream from a second reactor to a third reactor as recycle would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. ALSHAREEF et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0220395) teach catalytic pre-reforming process in which naphtha from 332 and 342 are feed into reactors 350 and 300. STILES (US 2954341) teaches a hydrocarbon conversion process with a naphtha feed that is separated into different feeds. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6. 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. /MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771 /ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771