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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 April 2026 has been entered.
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 1, 4, 5, 7- 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strother (US 3,948,757).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Strother discloses a process for carrying out reactions on preheated particles, comprising:
(a) providing particles in a buffer container (2, 26) (see col. 4, lines 19-20; Fig. 1);
(b) feeding the particles from the buffer container into a reactor (1) via a feed line (29, 4), which is not directly connected to an entrance of the reactor (see col. 3, lines 30-44; col. 5, lines 16-48; Figs. 1, 2), and feeding reactants via a reactant feed (3), which is connected to the entrance of the reactor (see col. 5, lines 53-58; Figs. 1, 2); and
(c) withdrawing the particles from the reactor (1) (see col. 3, lines 57-61; Fig. 1), wherein: the particles are heated in the feed line (29, 4) (see col. 5, lines 16-48); for heating the particles a combustible and an oxidant are added and the particles are heated by combustion of the combustible and the oxidant (col. 5, lines 16-48); and the particles are regenerated in the buffer container (2, 26) (see col. 4, lines 36-44; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the reference Strother discloses the process, wherein the oxidant is an oxygen comprising gas (see col. 9, lines 50-57).
Regarding claim 5, the reference Strother discloses the process, wherein the oxygen comprising gas is air, diluted air, oxygen enriched air, oxygen or a mixture of oxygen and an inert gas (see col. 9, lines 50-57).
Regarding claim 7, the reference Strother discloses the process, wherein the combustible and the oxidant are fed into the feed line (29, 4) in counter current to the flow direction of the particles (see col. 5, lines 16-39; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the reference Strother discloses the process, wherein the particles are heated in the feed line to a temperature in the range from 680 to 820 oC (1250 to 1500 oF) (see col. 12, lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 9, the reference Strother discloses the process, wherein after being withdrawn from the reactor (1) , the particles are recycled into the buffer container (2, 26) (see col. 4, lines 10-21; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the reference Strother discloses the process, wherein the temperature of the particles in the buffer container is in the range from 620 to 760°C (1150 to 1400 oF) (see col. 12, lines 28-30).
Regarding claim 12, the reference Strother discloses the process, wherein the reaction on preheated particles is a catalytic cracking reaction (see col. 7, lines 59-68).
Regarding claim 13, the reference Strother discloses the process, wherein the reaction on preheated particles is a pyrolysis reaction (see col. 10, lines 34-42).
Regarding claim 14, the reference Strother discloses the process, wherein: the reactor (1) is a tubular reactor; and the reactant feed (3) is connected to the entrance of the reactor (1) in such a way that the particles and the reactants flow in co-current wherein the buffer container (2, 26) and the feed line (29, 4) are not integral parts of the tubular reactor (1) (see col. 3, lines 30-58; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the reference Strother discloses the process, wherein: the process comprises heating the particles in the feed line (29, 4) to a temperature above a temperature at which a reaction in the reactor is carried out (see col. 8, lines 1-28; col. 10, lines 14-20); and the particles are introduced to the reactor at a temperature high enough to supply energy necessary for carrying out the reaction (see col. 10, lines 21-41).
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roetheli (US 2,422,501).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Roetheli discloses a process a process for carrying out reactions on preheated particles, comprising:
(a) providing particles in a buffer container (29) (see col. 5, lines 22-40; Fig. 1-2);
(b) feeding the particles from the buffer container (29) into a reactor (11) via a feed line (35) (see col. 6, lines 1-5; Figs. 1-2), which is not directly connected to an entrance of the reactor (11), and feeding reactants via a reactant feed (10), which is connected to the entrance of the reactor (11) (see col. 4, lines 23-30; Figs. 1-2); and
(c) withdrawing the particles from the reactor (11) (see col. 4, lines 41-46; Figs. 1-2),
wherein: the particles are heated in the feed line (35)(see col. 6, lines 1-5; Figs. 1-2); for heating the particle a combustible and an oxidant is added and the particles are heated by combustion of the combustible and the oxidant (see col. 5, lines 35-58; col. 6, lines 3-5); and the particles are regenerated in the buffer container (29) (see col. 5, lines 35-58).
Regarding claim 4, the reference Roetheli discloses the process, wherein the oxidant is an oxygen comprising gas (see col. 5, lines 35-58).
Regarding claim 5, the reference Roetheli discloses the process, wherein the oxygen comprising gas is air (see col. 5, lines 35-58).
Regarding claim 8, the reference Roetheli discloses the process, wherein the particles are heated in the feed line to a temperature in the range from 400 to 1200 oC (see col. 4, lines 38-41).
Regarding claim 9, the reference Roetheli discloses the process, wherein after being withdrawn from the reactor, the particles are recycled into the buffer container (col. 4, lines 41-46; col. 5, lines 22-40; Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, the reference Roetheli discloses the process, wherein the reaction on preheated particles is a catalytic cracking reaction (see col. 4, lines 6-12).
Regarding claim 13, the reference Roetheli discloses the process, wherein the reaction on preheated particles is a pyrolysis reaction (see col. 4, lines 6-12).).
Regarding claim 14, the reference Roetheli discloses the process, wherein: the reactor (11) is a tubular reactor (see col. 4, lines 23-51; Fig. 1-2); and the reactant feed (10) is connected to the entrance of the reactor (111) in such a way that the particles and the reactants flow in co-current wherein the buffer container (29) and the feed line (35) are not integral parts of the tubular reactor (12) (see col. 4, lines 23-51; Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, the reference Roetheli discloses the process, wherein: the process comprises heating the particles in the feed line (35) to a temperature above a temperature at which a reaction in the reactor is carried out (see col. 2, lines 11-15; col. 3, lines 9-16); and the particles are introduced to the reactor at a temperature high enough to supply energy necessary for carrying out the reaction (see col. 2, lines 11-15; col. 3, lines 9-16).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strother (US 3,948,757).
Regarding claim 3, the claim depends from claim 1 such that the reasoning applied to claim 1 is applied herein for the dependent portion of the claim. The reference Strother does not specifically state that the combustible is selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, methane, ethane, propane and butane. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combustible selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, methane, ethane, propane and butane because the reference Strother teaches that the combustible can suitably be fuel gas which encompasses fuel gases including hydrogen, methane, ethane, propane and butane (see col. 5, lines 16-19).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strother as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steffens et al. (US 6,558,531).
Regarding claim 6, the reference Strother does not specifically disclose wherein the oxidant is added sub stoichiometrically. The reference Steffens et al. teaches that heat balance may be restored in a fluidized bed catalytic cracking (FCC) unit by injecting fuel and air at one or more points along a catalyst transfer within the FCC unit in order to provide distributed combustion of the fuel along the transfer line (see col. 1, lines 11-19; col. 6, lines 13-18; Fig. 2). The reference Steffens et al. further teaches that when the amount and temperature of the fuel, the air, and the catalyst are regulated to produce autoignition of the fuel in the bulk phase of the transfer line, distributed burning of the fuel will occur in the transfer line so that heat is supplied to the catalyst below the catalyst deactivation temperature (see col. 3, lines 16-20 and lines 39-47). The reference Steffens et al. further teaches that the amount of oxygen-containing gas in zones containing a significant amount of CO should be regulated to provide conditions including sub-stoichiometric, stoichiometric, and super-stoichiometric combustion conditions, depending on the amount of un-combusted fuel in the zone (see col. (see col. 5, line 62 to col. 6, line 3). The reference Steffens et al. further teaches that, generally, sub-stoichiometric conditions are preferred when the zone contains a substantial amount of uncombusted fuel (see col. 6, lines 3-7). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the oxidant sub stoichiometrically in the process of Strother, since the reference Steffens et al. teaches that the amount of oxygen-containing gas should be regulated in zones containing a significant amount of CO to provide sub stoichiometric combustion conditions to facilitated distributed combustion along the transfer line (see col. 3, lines 6-20; col. 5, line 62 to col. 6, line 12).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roetheli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steffens et al. (US 6,558,531).
Regarding claim 7, the reference Roetheli discloses that the combustible is fed into the feed line (35) in counter current to the flow direction of the particles in the feed line (35) (see col. 6, lines 3-6; Figs. 1-2). The reference Roetheli is, however, silent with respect to having an oxidant fed into the feed line (35) in counter current to the flow direction of the particles in the feed line (35).
The reference Steffens et al. teaches that heat balance may be restored in a fluidized bed catalytic cracking (FCC) unit by injecting fuel and air at one or more points along a catalyst transfer within the FCC unit in order to provide distributed combustion of the fuel along the transfer line (see col. 1, lines 11-19; col. 6, lines 13-18; Fig. 2). The reference Steffens et al. further teaches that when the amount and temperature of the fuel, the air, and the catalyst are regulated to produce autoignition of the fuel in the bulk phase of the transfer line, distributed burning of the fuel will occur in the transfer line so that heat is supplied to the catalyst below the catalyst deactivation temperature (see col. 3, lines 16-20 and lines 39-47).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in addition to the combustible in the process of Roetheli, to add an oxidant into the feed line (35) in counter current to the flow direction of the particles because, as evidenced by the reference Steffens et al. (see col. 1, lines 11-19; col. 6, lines 13-18; Fig. 2), it is known in the art to add a combustible fuel as well as air at one or more points along a catalyst transfer line within an FCC unit in order to provide distributed combustion of the fuel along the catalyst transfer line so that heat is supplied to the catalyst below the catalyst deactivation temperature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights