Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the application filed 3/12/2025.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pretz (EP 3699163) in view of Luo (WO 2020060700).
With respect to claim 1, Pretz (EP 3699163) is directed to a hydrocarbon dehydrogenation processing using oxygen-carrier and oxygen-carrier reactivation and regeneration. A feed stream comprising one or more hydrocarbons is reacted in a dehydrogenation reactor in the presence of a solid catalyst which is an oxygen-carrier material to produce a product. [0017]+; [0041]. The dehydrogenation reaction produces hydrogen which reacts with the oxygen from the catalyst to form water and reduce the oxygen content in the oxygen-carrier material. [0070] The particulate solid from the dehydrogenation reactor is separated from the product and passed to a combustion unit. [0037]-[0040] Catalyst and gases preferably move upward concurrently through the regeneration, for example first through a combustor and then riser. [0039] The combustion unit comprises a gas inlet for oxygen-containing gas and fuel. [0039] The catalyst is subject to regeneration burning coke and fuel. After combustion the catalyst may be passed directly to the dehydrogenation reactor, [0042], or first through a conditions step of the regenerator. [0041]
The art is silent regarding wherein the first gas inlet containing oxygen is disposed beneath the fuel inlet. However, this is one of three limited options, and is common in the art of catalyst regeneration as shown in Luo (WO 2020060700), see figure 1 and par. [0031]. “The combustor 350 may include the lower combustor inlet port 352 where air inlet 428 connects to the combustor 350. The air inlet 428 may supply air or other reactive gases, such as an oxygen- containing gas to the combustor 350. Air and/or other reactive gases, may be introduced to the combustor 350 to aid in combustion of the supplemental fuel. The combustor 350 may also include a fuel inlet 354. The fuel inlet 354 may supply a fuel, such as a hydrocarbon stream 356 to the combustor 350.” [0031]. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to send the oxygen to the regenerator at an inlet below the fuel in the process of Prez as taught by Lub because both are directed to catalyst regeneration in an upflow concurrent reactor, Prez teaches regeneration in the upflow concurrent reactor using both air or oxygen and fuel but is silent regarding the relative inlet positioning, and combination of the inlet positioning of Luo with the process of Prez would do no more than combine elements known in the art in a known way to perform their respect function and combust coke and fuel in the regenerator. Where the oxygen is contacted first, it would have been expected that the oxygen would increase the oxygen content on or in the carrier as discussed with respect to the downstage conditions step [0041], and that oxygen would react.
With respect to claim 2, the production of combustion, the flue gas, is separated from the catalyst. [0062]
With respect to claim 3, “where the target product is an olefin (as distinguished from a di-olefin), that the C3-C4 hydrocarbon feed comprises the corresponding, i.e., same carbon number, starting paraffin, preferably in rich amount. As the term is used herein, "rich amount" means a feed comprising at least 50 percent by weight (wt%) of such paraffin, preferably at least 80 wt%, and most preferably at least 90 wt%.” [0019]
With respect to claim 4, the focus of Prez is production of C3-C4 olefins/diolefins from propane and butane. However, C2 may be in the feed [0018] and ethylene may be produced [0077], though not the focus of this disclosure.
With respect to claim 5, Prez mentions any supplemental fuel may be used. Hydrogen, or light gas from product effluent which includes hydrogen [0032], may be used as fuel. [0079]; see also [0006].
With respect to claim 6, coke is deposited on the particulate solid that passes from the dehydrogenation reactor to the combustion unit, and at least a portion of the coke is reacted with oxygen in the combustion unit.
With respect to claim 7, a portion of the particulate solid from the combustion unit to the dehydrogenation reactor comprises passing the particulate solid through a conditioning or regeneration unit, wherein the particulate solid is exposed to an oxygen-containing gas in the regeneration unit such that the content of oxygen in at least a portion of the oxygen-carrier material of the particulate solid is increased. [0041]
With respect to claim 8, “[i]n a particularly preferred embodiment, the reactivation zone configuration enables an average catalyst flow downward and an average gas flow upward.” [0041]
With respect to claim 9, the regeneration unit comprises fuel, oxygen, and optional additional oxygen after combustion, optional stripping before or after each of the oxygen and fuel and optional stripping downstream of the oxygen conditioning to remove free oxygen.
With respect to claim 10, “a portion of the at least partially deactivated catalyst may also or alternatively be cycled back to the regenerator combustor directly without reactivation, with reactivation, or with partial reactivation, via a recycle loop.” [0042].
With respect to claim 11, Pretz teaches wherein a single selected catalyst may be used, thus consists essentially of the oxygen-carrier material. This catalyst (or oxygen-containing material) includes, for example, an iron oxide-based particle having iron oxide, alkaline or alkaline earth oxide, and optional rare earth oxide on a carrier. Pretz [0053].
With respect to claim 13, the catalyst includes both oxygen-carrier and dehydrogenation catalyst material, [0048]-[0051], and the alkane dehydrogenation is catalytic. Pretz, Abstract (“catalyst which has an activity for dehydrogenating the C3-C4 hydrocarbon feed”).
With respect to claim 14, the dehydrogenation catalyst material and the oxygen-carrier material may be the same particle or may include one or more. Pretz [0050]-[0051].
With respect to claim 15, the particulate solid is a Geldart group A or Geldart group B particulate. Pretz [0014].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pretz (EP 3699163) in view of Luo (WO 2020060700) as applied to claims 1-11 and 13-15 above, further in view of Sharma (US 20210245146).
With respect to claim 12, Pretz in view of Luo discloses all the limitations of the claims discussed above. Luo discloses wherein one catalyst may be used and provides oxygen to the dehydrogenation reactor, ie an oxygen carrier. Pretz fails to disclose wherein the dehydrogenation of the one or more alkanes is by non-catalytic thermal dehydrogenation.
However, thermal dehydrogenation in the presence of a solid oxygen carrier is known in the art. Sharma is directed to oxygen carriers which are used in dehydrogenation reactions for conversion of paraffins to olefins. [0055] The dehydrogenation reactions may take place in the presence of the oxygen carrier by either thermal cracking or by contact with a dehydrogenation catalyst. [0055] In both, the “paraffin is converted to a olefin and the resulting hydrogen reacts with the hydrogen-selective oxygen carrier material to produce water and a reduced transition metal in the hydrogen-selective oxygen carrier material.” [0055] The reduced hydrogen-selective oxygen carrier material may be subject to regeneration in combustion and reoxidized in air. [0055] Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pretz by utilizing a non-catalytic oxygen carrier of Sharma because both are directed to paraffin dehydrogenation, regeneration, and replenishing oxygen of an oxygen carrier, Sharma teaches the oxygen carrier may be used and regenerated in either a thermal or catalyst-assisted dehydrogenation process, and substitution of one would do no more than produce predictable results – conversion of the paraffin to olefin, water, and hydrogen, regeneration of the catalyst for looping, with an expected change in product when the catalyst is replaced with the oxygen carrier of Sharma.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights