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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07 November 2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 13, 15-17, 20, 22, 28, 29, and 31 are amended. Claims 24, 25, 33, and 34 are withdrawn due to an earlier restriction requirement. Claims 1-12, 18, and 19 are cancelled. Claim 35 is new.
The amendments to the claims overcome the previous claim objections and 112(b) rejections.
Claims 13-17, 20-23, 26-32, and 35 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under the heading “IV. Rejections of claim 13 under 35 USC 102” on pages 7-10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues with regard to the factual inquiries under Graham and obviousness. The arguments on pages 7-10 are thus actually directed to obviousness under USC 103, and are improper and moot, because claim 13 is only rejected under 35 USC 102.
Under the heading “ii. As to rejection under USC 102” on page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues with regard to written description and 112(a). The arguments on page 10 are thus actually directed to obviousness under USC 103, and are improper and moot, because claim 13 is only rejected under 35 USC 102.
Under the heading of “B. In view of the above, the Applicant provides Exhibits 1 to 9 to fully rebut the Examiner’s argument and prove his misunderstanding” on pages 11-18 of the Remarks, Applicant includes a list of 10 references cited by Applicant in Table 1 on pages 14-18, which the Examiner will not relist herein to save space. The Examiner will address the remaining arguments under this section in the next few paragraphs.
Applicant argues on page 11, the last paragraph of page 12, and the second and last paragraphs on page 13 that Lomas (US 4396531 as cited by Applicant), Ramos (US 6059958 cited by Applicant), and Chen (as cited by the Examiner in the Rejection), do not discuss the heat balance of the reactor.
In response, the instant claims make no mention of heat balance. Thus, any arguments directed to heat balance and how it relates to catalyst-to-oil ratio are moot, as this is not required by the claims and is not relevant to the anticipation rejection.
Applicant argues in the paragraph a) on page 11 that Lomas (US 4396531 as cited by Applicant) does not mention the degrees of freedom that make the catalyst-oil ratio an independent variable, neither the heat balance, not the optimal reaction temperature control, nor the commercial operation.
In response, the reference Lomas is not used by the Examiner for the rejection. Thus, the fact that it may or may not address the degrees of freedom is moot, as the reference is not relied upon within the rejection.
Applicant argues in the second paragraph of page 12 of the Remarks that “low-temperature contact, large catalyst-oil ratio in Chen is not a well-known concept”, and then uses Romas (US 6059958 cited by Applicant) to interpret the ratio.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the use of US 6,059,958 to interpret Chen. Chen explicitly states using the external heat exchanger to cool the regenerated catalyst, thus achieving the large catalyst-to-oil ratio desired by Chen (paragraphs [0011] and [0050]). Thus, Chen is explicitly tying the large catalyst-to-oil ratio to the cooling of the regenerated catalyst. As such, Chen does not require external interpretation from outside sources to understand.
Applicant argues in the second full paragraph of page 13 of the Remarks that the “large catalyst-oil ratio” attained by “low temperature contact” in Chen is not the same as the “large catalyst-oil ratio” obtained by “breaking the heat balance in the reactor and thus realizing the overall optimization of the reactor” in the present application.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nothing in the specification or the Remarks or Chen teaches that the large catalyst-to-oil ratio of Chen differs from the increase in catalyst as claimed. Chen teaches the same downer reactor and the same cooling of the catalyst to achieve a large catalyst-to-oil ratio. The instant application recites “an objective of the present invention is to use…a cold regenerated catalyst circulation method to achieve a large catalyst-to-oil ratio…[thereby to] increase the concentration of the catalyst in the downer reactor…” (paragraph [0009]). This is the same description as in Chen of using “an external heat sink to cool the regenerated catalyst…achieving “low temperature contact, large agent-to-oil ratio” operation (paragraph [0050]). Thus, the Examiner continues to assert that the increase in catalyst-to-oil ratio in Chen anticipates the claimed increase in catalyst concentration, as both Chen and the instant specification recite that the cooler achieves a large catalyst-to-oil ratio, and the instant specification goes on the recite that this thereby increases the catalyst concentration.
Applicant argues on page 18 of the Remarks that the claimed “regenerated catalyst cooler” is not the same as the conventional external heat exchanger used in the prior art of Chen.
In response, Chen teaches using an “external cooler” to cool the regenerated catalyst (Abstract), achieving “low temperature contact, large agent-to-oil ratio” operation (paragraph [0050]). This phrasing is very similar to Applicant’s description of their invention in the instant specification reciting “an objective of the present invention is to use…a cold regenerated catalyst circulation method to achieve a large catalyst-to-oil ratio…[thereby to] increase the concentration of the catalyst in the downer reactor…” (paragraph [0009]) and that the catalyst is cooled in a “regenerated catalyst cooler” (paragraph [0012]). Applicant does not provide any evidence on page 18 that the catalyst cooler claimed and the “external cooler” of Chen are different in function, and thus the
Applicant argues on pages 19 and 21 of the Remarks that means-plus-function is involved with the claim.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recitation of “the regenerated catalyst cooler is used for increasing the concentration of the catalyst in the downer reactor” is not means-plus-function language, because the claim explicitly recites the structure of the “regenerated catalyst cooler” which has a specific meaning in the art, and thus does not qualify as the required “generic placeholder”. “If persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function, even when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function (e.g., "filters," "brakes," "clamp," "screwdriver," and "locks") 35 U.S.C. 112(f) will not apply.” (MPEP 2181I(A)). Thus, the Examiner continues to interpret the claim as written, which is that the regenerated catalyst cooler has the “intended use” that the cooler increases the concentration of catalyst in the reactor. As explained above, Chen teaches that the cooler is used to increase the catalyst-to-oil ratio, which then is considered to increase the catalyst concentration as recited in the instant specification paragraph [0009]).
Applicant argues on page 20 of the Remarks that the setup of Chen is electrically heated and differs in product flow, citing Prior Art 10 from Table 1, page 18).
In response, none of the differences discussed by Applicant are claimed. Thus, the argument is moot, as the differences have no bearing on the claim as written.
Applicant argues again on the remainder of page 20 about the catalyst to oil ratio and the heat balance and Chen.
In response, this was addressed above with regard to pages 11-13, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 21-22 of the Remarks that the invention as claimed achieves benefits not obtained by the prior art and not claimed previously, including commercialization of the downer reactor and improved conversion rate.
In response, these arguments are mere assertions. Applicant has provided no evidence that the process of Chen differs from the claimed process, and has provided no evidence that the claimed process achieves improved results over the closest prior art. Chen teaches the same reasoning that cooling the catalyst achieves a higher catalyst-to-oil ratio, which as recited in paragraph [0009] of the instant specification is understood as being also an increased catalyst concentration as claimed. Thus, Chen continues to anticipate the claimed process.
Applicant argues on pages 23-24 of the Remarks that the “increase in catalyst-to-oil ratio” in Chen and other prior art is not the same thing as the claimed “increase in catalyst concentration”, because the concept of catalyst concentration is not discussed by name in Chen or the Prior Art 5-8 cited by Applicant in Table 1, pages 16-18 of the Remarks.
In response, there is no requirement that the prior art use the same words as the claim or that the prior art explicitly state every result of a claimed process. There is no evidence provided in the many prior art documents cited by Applicant or in the instant application that the increase in catalyst-to-oil ratio discussed explicitly by Chen does not lead to the claimed increase in catalyst concentration. In fact, reading the instant application as filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would come to the opposite conclusion. Paragraph [0009] of the instant specification explicitly states that the cooling of the catalyst increases the catalyst-to-oil ratio, which leads to the increased catalyst concentration claimed. There is no difference in the process of Chen from the claimed process except the absence of this explicit recitation of the catalyst concentration. Thus, because Chen teaches the same process as claimed with the same increase in catalyst-to-oil ratio by cooling the regenerated catalyst as described in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the process of Chen does also increase the catalyst concentration, as claimed and described in the instant specification, and Chen continues to anticipate the claimed process.
Applicant argues on pages 24-25 of the Remarks that Chen is not the closest prior art, because the current invention is intended to fix commercial problems in commercial-size reactors, and the reactor of Chen is a medium sized reactor that is not commercial scale.
In response, the Examiner respectfully notes that the claims do not require anything about commercial application, and there is no requirement that Chen be solving the same problem as the instant invention. The only requirement for anticipation is that Chen teaches every limitation of the claimed process. As explained above, Chen explicitly teaches every limitation except the result of an increase in catalyst concentration, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this result is taught in Chen implicitly because it is a result of following the claimed process and the process of Chen (emphasis added by Examiner).
Applicant argues on pages 25-27 of the Remarks that the structures of the inventive apparatus and the apparatus of Chen differ in their connections.
In response, the Examiner notes that the claims are process claims. The only requirements of the apparatus in the process claims are the presence of a downer reactor, a regenerator, and a regenerated catalyst cooler, where the catalyst flows from reactor to regenerator to cooler to reactor. Chen explicitly teaches the same process including passing cooled catalyst to the downer reactor, passing spent catalyst to a regenerator, cooling the regenerated catalyst in an external cooler, and recycling the cooled catalyst to the downer reactor (paragraphs [0015]-[0039] and Figure 1). Thus, Chen teaches the claimed apparatus pieces within the method, and the argument is moot.
Applicant argues on pages 29-33 of the Remarks that claims 13 and 33 are not obvious under USC 103.
As addressed above, claims 13 is only rejected as anticipated under USC 102, thus any arguments regarding USC 103 are moot. Claim 33 is withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention. Thus, any arguments regarding any rejection of claim 33 are moot, as the claim is withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pages 34-35 of the Remarks that claim 14 is not obvious because the claimed mixing and buffering tank differs from the tank of Chen because only cooled catalyst is placed in the claimed tank, where Chen teaches adding hot and cooled catalyst together.
In response, the claim language of claim 14 is open language “comprising”. Thus, the claim is open to other streams of catalyst being added to the tank, including the hot catalyst stream of Chen, and the claim remains obvious.
Applicant argues on pages 35-36 of the Remarks that claims 15, 21-23, 27, 32, and 35 are non-obvious.
In response, the Examiner rejected claims 15, 21-23, 27, and 35 under USC 102 by anticipation. Claim 35 is new and had not been rejected in the previous rejection. Thus, the arguments to non-obviousness are moot.
Applicant argues on page 36 of the Remarks that claims 20, 26, 28-31, and 34 are non-obvious for the same reasons as claims 13 and 33.
In response, as noted above, claim 33 and claim 34 are withdrawn due to the earlier restriction requirement, as they are directed to the non-elected invention. Also, as explained above, claim 13 is not rejected as obvious, but instead as anticipated. Applicant has provided no specific arguments to the specific obviousness rejections of claims 20, 26, and 28-31, and thus the obviousness rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 15, 21, 22, 32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 103540345, machine translation provided by Examiner herein with Figure).
With regard to claim 13, Chen teaches a catalytic cracking method (Abstract) comprising the following steps (see generally paragraphs [0015]-[0039] and Fig. 1):
a) mixing a regenerated catalyst from a regenerator 1 with a hydrocarbon feed 44 in a downer reactor 13 (paragraph [0016]) where the regenerated catalyst is cooled in an external catalyst cooler 32 before passing to the downer reactor (paragraph [0018]).
b) catalytic cracking of the hydrocarbon feed 44 concurrently flowing with the catalyst from pipe 9 in the downer reactor 13 (paragraph [0021], Fig. 1).
c) separating the spent catalyst from the product formed in the downer reactor by a cyclone 22 (rapid separation) (paragraph [0028]) and stripping the separated catalyst in a stripper 23 (paragraph [0030]).
d) passing the stripped catalyst to a regenerator 1 and burning to regenerate the catalyst (paragraph [0039]).
e) passing the regenerated catalyst to the external catalyst cooler 32, to the catalyst mixing zone 8 (paragraph [0018], and then recycling the cooled and mixed catalyst to the downer reactor 13 (paragraph [0020]).
Chen further teaches that the cooled and mixed catalyst has a temperature of 550-700°C (paragraph [0102]). This is within the range of the cooled catalyst temperature of 200-720°C of the instant application (see claim 16). Thus, the cooled and mixed catalyst is considered to be equivalent to the cooled catalyst as claimed. Chen also teaches the catalyst to oil ratio is preferably 8-12 (paragraph [0043]), which is within the range of 8-40 of the instant application (see claim 16). Chen additionally teaches that controlling the temperature of the regenerated catalyst is used to achieve a large catalyst to oil ratio in the reactor (paragraph [0050]) and the instant specification recites that the cooler achieves a large catalyst-to-oil ratio (paragraph [0009]). The instant specification additionally recites that the large catalyst-to-oil ratio thereby provides an increased concentration of catalyst in the reactor (paragraph [0009]), thus implicitly reciting that the large catalyst-to-oil ratio and the catalyst concentration are positively correlated. Thus, the process of Chen, which teaches a cooled and mixed regenerated catalyst having a temperature within the claimed temperature range of the claimed cooled regenerated catalyst and a large catalyst oil ratio within the claimed range of the ratio and that the cooling provides the large catalyst to oil ratio, implicitly teaches the claimed increased concentration of catalyst in the downer reactor.
With regard to claim 15, Chen teaches that the temperature of the regenerated catalyst is controlled (adjusted) to provide a low temperature contact in the downer reactor, thus inhibiting thermal cracking in the downer reactor (paragraph [0050]). This is equivalent to optimizing the temperature in the downer reactor, because Chen teaches that a low temperature contact provides the optimal benefits (paragraph [0050]).
With regard to claims 21 and 32, Chen teaches that the temperature of the cooled regenerated catalyst is controlled which produces low temperature contact in the downer reactor (paragraph [0050]). Thus, Chen teaches controlling the temperature in the reactor by controlling the temperature of the cooled catalyst, as claimed.
With regard to claims 22 and 35, Chen teaches that the hydrocarbon feed to the downer reactor 13 is catalytically cracked gasoline (paragraph [0096]).
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.
Claims 16, 20, 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 103540345).
With regard to claims 16 and 28, Chen teaches that the reaction conditions in the downer reactor 13 include a temperature of 480-600°C, a pressure of 0.15 to 0.4 MPa, a reaction time (contact time) of 0.2 to 2.5s, and a catalyst to oil ratio of 3-35 (paragraph [0043]). These are within the ranges of 460-660°C and 0.11 to 0.4 MPa of instant claims 16 and 28, and overlap the ranges of 0.1 to 1.5 s and ratio of 8 to 40 of instant claims 16 and 28, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
With regard to claims 20 and 31, Chen teaches that the temperature of the regenerated catalyst is controlled by the external cooler to achieve a desired temperature in the reactor to provide the benefits of inhibiting thermal cracking and reducing device energy consumption (paragraph [0050]). Chen also teaches that the flow rate of the regenerated catalysts is controlled by flow regulating valves (paragraph [0093]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to control the temperature of the cooled regenerated catalyst by adjusting the flow rate of the cold catalyst, as claimed, because Chen teaches that the flow rate is controlled and that controlling the temperature provides the benefits of inhibiting thermal cracking and reducing device energy consumption (paragraph [0050]).
Claims 14, 17, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 103540345, machine translation provided 10/26/2023) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Green et al. (US 4,991,521).
With regard to claim 14, Chen teaches that downstream of the external cooler 32 is a catalyst mixing tank 8 (catalyst mixing and buffering space) (paragraph [0018], Fig. 1). Chen also teaches that the superficial velocity of the mixing bed is generally 0.3 to 1 m/s (paragraph [0102]). While this range does not overlap the range of a low-velocity of less than 0.3 m/s of instant claim 14, the ranges are close. Close ranges are prima facie obvious when the difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Chen does not explicitly teach that the mixing tank is a dense-phase fluidized bed.
Green teaches that a superficial vapor velocity of 0.2 to 2 m/s is sufficient to maintain dense phase fluidized bed conditions (column 12, claim 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the mixing tank of Chen comprises a dense-phase fluidized bed, as claimed, because Chen teaches a bed comprising a superficial velocity of 0.3 to 1 m/s, and Green teaches that a superficial velocity of 0.2 to 2 m/s is sufficient to maintain a dense phase fluidized bed.
With regard to claim 17, Chen teaches that the reaction conditions in the downer reactor 13 include a temperature of 480-600°C, a pressure of 0.15 to 0.4 MPa, a reaction time (contact time) of 0.2 to 2.5s, and a catalyst to oil ratio of 3-35 (paragraph [0043]). These are within the ranges of 460-660°C and 0.11 to 0.4 MPa of instant claim 17, and overlap the ranges of 0.1 to 1.5 s and ratio of 8 to 40 of instant claim 17, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 29, Chen teaches that the temperature of the regenerated catalyst is controlled by the external cooler to achieve a desired temperature in the reactor to provide the benefits of inhibiting thermal cracking and reducing device energy consumption (paragraph [0050]). Chen also teaches that the flow rate of the regenerated catalysts is controlled by flow regulating valves (paragraph [0093]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to control the temperature of the cooled regenerated catalyst by adjusting the flow rate of the cold catalyst, as claimed, because Chen teaches that the flow rate is controlled and that controlling the temperature provides the benefits of inhibiting thermal cracking and reducing device energy consumption (paragraph [0050]).
With regard to claim 30, Chen teaches that the temperature of the cooled regenerated catalyst is controlled which produces low temperature contact in the downer reactor (paragraph [0050]). Thus, Chen teaches controlling the temperature in the reactor by controlling the temperature of the cooled catalyst, as claimed.
Claims 23, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 103540345, machine translation provided 10/26/2023) as applied to claims 13, 14, and 15 above, respectively, and further in view of Wei et al. (CN1371960A, cited on IDS 5/12/2023, machine translation provided by Examiner herein).
With regard to claims 23, 26, and 27, Chen teaches the method above, where the reactor 13 is a downer reactor (Figure 1).
Chen does not teach the reactor can be a gas-solid co-current down-flow and up-flow coupled riser reactor
Wei teaches a process for catalytic cracking comprising the use of a gas-solid co-current downward and upward coupled reactor (paragraph [0008]) where the downer reactor is coupled to a riser reactor immediately following the downer reactor (paragraph [0010]). Wei further teaches that such a coupled reactor setup fully utilizes cracking characteristics of different reaction stages in the catalytic cracking process, reducing secondary cracking and improving the yield and quality of light oil (paragraph [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the coupled reactor apparatus of Wei in the process of Chen, because each of Chen and Wei teach catalytic cracking of oils to produce light oils in a downer reactor, and Wei teaches that coupling the riser to the downer reactor fully utilizes cracking characteristics of different reaction stages in the catalytic cracking process, reducing secondary cracking and improving the yield and quality of light oil (paragraph [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 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, 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772