DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 21 October 2025 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1-9 and 20-31 are pending.
The previous rejection of claims 1-9 and 20-31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained. The rejection follows.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9 and 20-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2012/0298556) in view of Zhang (Zhang et al., “A New Method to Intensify Heat Transfer of an FCC Catalyst Cooler: Experimental Validation” in “The 14th International Conference on Fluidization – From Fundamentals to Products” (2013)).
With respect to claims 1-3, Li (US 20120298556) teaches a method of cycling cold regenerated catalyst in a fluidized catalytic cracking process (abstract). A hydrocarbon raw material is contacted with a catalyst in a riser reactor, with or without fluidized bed reactor (0014), the reacted effluent and catalyst mixture is passed to a settler for separation of the catalyst from the hydrocarbon effluent (0014). The separated spent catalyst is steam stripped by a steam stripping section and regenerated using charring (abstract; 0014). The regenerated catalyst is then optionally passed or not to a catalyst cooler and back to the riser reactor (0014).
With respect to the regenerator coolers, Li teaches the presence of one, two, or more catalyst coolers (0015). The coolers are designed for adjusting the temperature of the reaction zone and/or regenerator and maintain its optimum value (throughout; 0015; 0034). Li teaches cooling at least a part of the regenerated catalyst from the regenerator to 200-720° C (abstract; 0019). Each cooler is provided with one or more outlets for transporting the catalyst to the riser or regenerator (0017). Furthermore, the catalyst cooler may be of the downflow type (see Li, paragraph [0029]).
The regenerated and cooled catalyst either enters a pre-lift zone or the reaction zone, or the cooled catalyst is mixed with a portion of hot regenerated catalyst which bypasses the cooler and the mixture enters the pre-lift zone or reaction zone, or both cold regenerated catalyst and hot regenerated catalyst each individually directly enter pre-lift zones of the riser and reach an equilibrium temperature or directly enter the riser, or regenerated catalyst without passing through a cooler enter the riser (0018-0019). The catalyst may or may not contact a pre-lift medium to transport the catalyst to the riser (0018-0019). The catalyst coolers have facilities for distribution of streaming media in the lower part (0095). The temperature of the cold regenerated catalyst can be controlled by regulating the flow rate of the fluidized media and/or the lifting media (0098).
Li is silent regarding the fluidizing gas superficial velocity, claimed as a range of 0-0.7 m/s or the more narrow ranges of claims 2 and 3. Likewise, Li does not explicitly disclose using a low-velocity dense bed in the catalyst cooler so as to increase a driving force for a catalyst-cycling system and to overcome an increase in cycling system resistant force that is caused by the increasing of a catalyst-to-oil ratio.
However, Li teaches utilizing fluidizing gas in the lower portion of the catalyst cooler the fluidizing gas works to transport the catalyst and affects the cooling of the regenerated catalyst. The temperature of the cooled catalyst leaving the cooler may be controlled to the desired value by, among other variables, adjusting the rate of fluidizing gas. Adjusting the rate of fluidizing gas corresponds to adjusting the superficial velocity, which is the volume flow rate over the cooler cross section.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the flowrate, or superficial velocity, of the fluidizing gas through the cooler such that the desired catalyst temperature, which further produces the desired riser or regenerator temperature, is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. MPEP 2144.
Additionally, Zhang discloses FCC catalyst coolers used for controlling temperature of regenerated catalyst and the process itself (abstract; throughout). Zhang teaches that the catalyst cooler is a well-known and even indispensable device in an FCC unit today where heavier feeds are processed due to the increased coking and therefore increased heat released during regeneration when processing these heavier feeds (page 1). These coolers include the fluidized bed heat exchanger outside the regenerator (page 1). “Heat exchange properties are closely related to the bed hydrodynamics” (page 1). Zhang teaches using these heat exchangers with air fluidizing medium provided in a superficial gas velocity range of 0.05 to 0.65 m/s which range covers the bubbling as well as turbulent flow regime (pages 2-3). The heat transfer in the catalyst is affected by both the fluidizing gas as well as the catalyst (page 3). The highest heat transfer coefficient through the bed depends on the configuration of the cooler and the best heat transfer performance in terms of coefficient is balanced with other factors, such as the energy savings which comes with the use of smaller gas velocity (page 5-6).
Thus, Li teaches using fluidizing gas for affecting the transport and the cooling of the hot regenerated catalyst in an external FCC regenerator catalyst cooler. Li further teaches the rate (and thus superficial gas velocity) affects the heat transfer, but is silent on the preferred rate. Zhang teaches that in external FCC regenerator catalyst coolers, the heat transfer performance is affected by the superficial gas velocity, as is the associated utility cost. Zhang also teaches an acceptable range of 0.05-0.65 m/s with an optimum range of 0.2 – 0.5 m/s (page 7; figures 6 and 7; figures 8 & 9 (peak at 0.2)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the acceptable range for superficial gas velocity taught in Zhang for selecting the fluidizing gas velocity in the catalyst coolers in the process of Li to achieve the desired catalyst cooling. Moreover, because Li (either alone or as modified by Zhang) discloses operating the same system (compare the Figures of Li with those of the instant application) (showing identical reactor/regenerator systems) under the same conditions as provided for in the claims, then the person having ordinary skill in the art would expect those identical systems to operate identically and produce identical results, including creation of an increased driving force for the catalyst-cycling system as claimed. “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claims 4, 20, and 26, Li teaches wherein of the described cold regenerated catalyst can be controlled by adjusting the flows of the fluidized media and/or taking-heat media or adjusting other parameters; or controlled by adjusting the flows of the fluidized media and/or taking-heat media and/or adjusting the flows of cool catalyst returning regenerator or other parameters (0022); or by adjusting the ratio of cold and hot regenerated catalyst (0023).
With respect to claims 5, 21, and 27, Li teaches wherein the reaction temperature of the described riser reactor or fluidized bed reactor reaction zones can be controlled by adjusting the ratio of the catalyst and feed, or/and by adjusting the temperature of the described cold regenerated catalyst or the temperature of the described regenerated catalyst mixture, or/and by using multi-point feeding technology, and/or by adding various cold shock agents to the riser reactor (0024).
With respect to claims 6, 22, and 28, Li teaches the transmission channel is wholly or partially provided outside a catalyst cooler shell or inside a catalyst cooler shell (claim 1; 0017); a transporting channel of the cold catalyst that returns to the regenerator is wholly or partially provided outside a catalyst cooler shell or inside a catalyst cooler shell (0017); and the pre-lift section is wholly (or partially) provided outside or inside the catalyst cooler shell that is connected thereto (0018).
With respect to claims 7, 23, and 29, Li teaches setting one, two or more auxiliary risers for transporting the cold regenerated catalyst to reaction zones of the one, two or more riser reactors and/or the fluidized bed reactors as the cold-shocking agent for cycling (0020). The cold-shocking agent can be any one of gas or liquid (including water, or any kinds of oil, etc.) and cold catalysts, or two or more of them (0101). The cold catalyst is the one of the cold regenerated catalyst, the spent catalyst, or the cold semi -regenerated catalyst, or two or more of them (0101).
With respect to claims 8, 24, and 30, Li teaches wherein the cycling method of cold regenerated catalyst is singly implemented, for the reaction zones of the riser reactor and/or the fluidized bed reactor of fluidized catalytic cracking processes; or is jointly implemented, for the reaction zones of one, two or more riser reactors and/or fluidized bed reactors in two or more riser reactors that have different functions, including for the reaction zones of a heavy oil riser and a gasoline riser of a double riser catalytic cracking device or one, two or more riser reactors in two or more risers for processing different raw materials (0027).
With respect to claims 9, 25, and 31, Li teaches wherein the method may be used widely for a number of processes “including tar catalytic cracking, wax oil catalytic cracking, gasoline catalytic modification for improving quality, or light hydrocarbon catalytic conversion, or for other burning process of gas-solid fluidized reaction including residue pre-processing, ethylene made by methanol, fluidize coking or flexible coking” (0026).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be:
I. Examiner, without providing any supporting documentary evidence, has continued to maintain his positions and findings. Accordingly, the Examiner’s position is insufficient under MPEP §§ 2144.03(A), (C), (E) and 2145.
II. Before the filing date of the present application, there is no prior art, including Li and Zhang, that discloses the claimed function of the claimed “low velocity dense bed.” Therefore, before the filing date of the instant application, one or ordinary skill in the art would not be aware of the concepts of the “low velocity dense bed” and the claimed function. Therefore, a person with ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably expect the claimed function of the present application according to MPEP § 2141.02(V).
III. Zhang only studies the relationship between a superficial gas velocity “0.05-0.65 m/s” and the heat-transferring coefficient, and does not disclose both the claimed “low velocity dense bed . . . to improve the driving force of the catalyst cycling, so as to overcome the increasing of the cycling system resistant force that is caused by the increasing of the catalyst to oil ratio.”
IV. There is no written evidence that the cited references disclose the problem to be solved proposed firstly by claim 1 of the present application.
V. According to Zhang’s experimental results, a gas velocity of 0.3-0.5 m/s is identified as the optimal range for improving the heat transfer coefficient. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would generally consider using a higher gas velocity to enhance the heat transfer coefficient, thereby reducing equipment size and cost. Consequently, there would be no motivation for such as person to employ the claimed “low velocity dense bed” of the present application.
VI. Both the Examiner and the PTAB disregarded the substantial difference between the common external catalyst cooler and the regenerated catalyst cooler.
VII. The PTAB affirmed the Examiner’s rejection relying solely on legal conclusion in case law as the rationale without providing supporting documentary evidence.
VIII. Neither the Examiner nor the PTAB has explicitly identified what claimed feature 1 (“low dense speed bed”) is or what it does. Therefore, the PTAB decision should simply be reversed.
IX. Examiner has not addressed all limitations and is improperly attempting to shift the burden of proof to the Applicant.
X. Zhang fails to disclose the function of the “low velocity dense bed” proposed in the application nor does it identify or address the technical problem solved by the claimed method.
XI. Examiner disregarded the previously submitted Exhibits 1-7 by Applicant which prove the unexpected results over Li in combination with Zhang.
With respect to Applicant’s first argument, the cited prior art references serve as “documentary evidence” to support the rejection at issue.
With respect to Applicant’s second, third, fifth, and ninth arguments, Li teaches using fluidizing gas for affecting the transport and the cooling of the hot regenerated catalyst in an external FCC regenerator catalyst cooler. Li further teaches the rate (and thus superficial gas velocity) affects the heat transfer, but is silent on the preferred rate. Zhang teaches that in external FCC regenerator catalyst coolers, the heat transfer performance is affected by the superficial gas velocity, as is the associated utility cost. Zhang also teaches an acceptable range of 0.05-0.65 m/s with an optimum range of 0.2 – 0.5 m/s (page 7; figures 6 and 7; figures 8 & 9 (peak at 0.2)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the acceptable range for superficial gas velocity taught in Zhang for selecting the fluidizing gas velocity in the catalyst coolers in the process of Li to achieve the desired catalyst cooling. Moreover, because Li (either alone or as modified by Zhang) discloses operating the same system (compare the Figures of Li with those of the instant application) (showing identical reactor/regenerator systems) under the same conditions as provided for in the claims, then the person having ordinary skill in the art would expect those identical systems to operate identically and produce identical results, including creation of an increased driving force for the catalyst-cycling system as claimed. “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
With respect to Applicant’s fourth and tenth arguments, there is no requirement that the reason(s) for modifying prior art references as proposed in the rejection be the same as that supporting the claimed invention. MPEP § 2144(IV). Likewise, the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to Applicant’s sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth arguments, Examiner again notes that the cited prior art references themselves serve as documentary evidence to support the rejection, such rejection having been duly considered by a panel of three judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and affirmed, such decision being supported by a reasoned opinion pointing to specific portions of the documentary evidence (prior art references) or other portions of the record discussing such references. Examiner has no jurisdiction to review and “reverse” any decision of the PTAB. Applicant had every opportunity to pursue appropriate action as outlined in MPEP § 1214 following the PTAB decision affirming the rejection at issue (e.g., filing a request for rehearing before the PTAB; appealing the PTAB decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), but no such action was taken.
With respect to Applicant’s eleventh argument, all such evidence was noted in Applicant’s Appeal Brief prior to the PTAB decision being rendered (see Applicant’s Appeal Brief filed 24 April 2023, page 26 (labeled “Evidence Appendix,” page 7)). Thus, all such evidence was already duly considered during the course of prosecution (including a total of 9 Office Actions and 1 PTAB decision over a 6+ year period) but did not outweigh the obviousness rejection at issue.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771