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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase of “for disengaging catalyst from a product gas”, “reactor”, and “disengagement” is understood as being directed to and further reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which does not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claimed invention, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
Additionally, the term “riser” is interpreted as non-limiting nomenclature (mere name-calling) that does not impart structural distinction. According, “riser” is reasonably construed as a conduit or pipe.
Under this construction, the at least claim 8 has been interpreted as follows:
“An apparatus comprising: a first conduit comprising a first discharge opening, the first conduit terminating within a vessel; a second conduit comprising a second discharge opening; a first chamber located within the vessel and containing the first discharge opening; and a second chamber located within the same vessel and containing the second discharge opening.”
In dependent claim 21 is interpreted in the same manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 21 recite an apparatus for ‘disengaging’ catalyst (or removing and isolating the catalyst so it no longer contacts or reacts with the gas) from product gas; however, it is unclear which specific structural features perform the “disengaging” (removing and isolating) function.
Claims 9-20 and 22-24 depend on claims 8, 21; and hence are also rejected.
Applicant’s remark argues that a first disengagement chamber located within the reactor vessel and containing the first discharge opening; a second disengagement chamber located within the same reactor vessel and containing the second discharge opening" of claims 8 and 21 disclose the features responsible for performing the "disengagement" function. Applicant also points to paragraphs ([0029] and [0036]) of the Specification. However, it remains unclear which specific structural features are responsible for performing the “disengagement,” i.e., the act or process of separating, detaching, or withdrawing from interaction, and such features must be recited in the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 8-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh (US 20070079582).
As regarding claim 8, Oh discloses the claimed invention for an apparatus comprising: a first conduit (riser) comprising a first discharge opening, the first conduit (riser) terminating within a vessel; a second conduit (riser) comprising a second discharge opening; a first chamber located within the vessel and containing the first discharge opening; and a second chamber located within the same vessel and containing the second discharge opening (annotated fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As regarding claim 9, Oh discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Oh discloses the claimed invention for wherein the first riser is centrally located in the first disengagement chamber and the second discharge opening is located in a wall of the second disengagement chamber (annotated fig. 6).
As regarding claim 10, Oh discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Oh discloses the claimed invention for wherein the second disengagement chamber surrounds the first disengagement chamber (annotated fig. 6).
As regarding claim 11, Oh discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Oh discloses the claimed invention for wherein the second disengagement chamber is annular to the first disengagement chamber (annotated fig. 6).
As regarding claim 12, Oh discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Oh discloses the claimed invention for wherein the inner wall of the second disengagement chamber is the outer wall of the first disengagement chamber (annotated fig. 6).
As regarding claim 13, Oh discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Oh discloses the claimed invention for a first upper outlet of the first disengagement chamber located proximate to a second upper outlet of the second disengagement chamber (annotated fig. 6).
As regarding claim 14, Oh discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Oh discloses the claimed invention for wherein the first upper outlet and the second upper outlet are below a cyclone inlet (annotated fig. 6).
As regarding claim 15, Oh discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Oh discloses the claimed invention for wherein the first disengagement chamber is supported by the second disengagement chamber which is supported by the reactor vessel or the second disengagement chamber is supported by the first disengagement chamber which is supported by the reactor vessel (annotated fig. 6).
As regarding claim 18, Oh discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Oh discloses the claimed invention for wherein said second riser includes a transfer conduit for transferring catalyst and product gas to the second disengagement chamber, said transfer conduit comprising a riser outlet pipe and a disengagement inlet pipe that slide relative to each other (annotated fig. 6).
Claim(s) 8 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ni (US 20100132316).
As regarding claim 8, Oh discloses the claimed invention for an apparatus comprising: a first conduit (riser) comprising a first discharge opening, the first conduit (riser) terminating within a vessel; a second conduit (riser) comprising a second discharge opening; a first chamber located within the vessel and containing the first discharge opening; and a second chamber located within the same vessel and containing the second discharge opening (annotated fig. 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
446
533
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As regarding claim 19, Ni discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ni discloses the claimed invention for a first lower outlet of the first disengagement chamber located proximate to a second lower outlet of the second disengagement chamber (annotated fig. 7).
As regarding claim 20, Ni discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ni discloses the claimed invention for wherein the first lower outlet and the second lower outlet are above a catalyst stripper (annotated fig. 7).
Claim 21 is likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth for claim 8 above.
As regarding claim 22, Ni discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ni discloses the claimed invention for wherein the first riser is centrally located in the first disengagement chamber and the second discharge opening is located in a side wall of the second disengagement chamber (annotated fig. 7).
As regarding claim 23, Ni discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ni discloses the claimed invention for wherein the second disengagement chamber is annular to the first disengagement chamber (annotated fig. 7).
As regarding claim 24, Ni discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ni discloses the claimed invention for wherein the inner wall of the second disengagement chamber is the outer wall of the first disengagement chamber (annotated fig. 7).
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.
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) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 20070079582), as applied supra, and further in view Palmas et al (US 20150005553; hereinafter Palmas).
As regarding claim 17, Oh discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Oh discloses the claimed invention except for a third riser comprising a third discharge opening and said second disengagement chamber containing the third discharge opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a third riser comprising a third discharge opening and said second disengagement chamber containing the third discharge opening enhance cyclonic flowrate, since it was known in the cyclonic separator art as shown in Palmas (145 or 245 of fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 16 contains allowable subject matter because prior art does not teach fairly suggested a support lug extends between the first disengagement chamber and the second disengagement chamber in said second disengagement chamber; said lug is oriented radially so as to impede a mixture of catalyst and product gas from swirling in the second disengagement chamber.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While Applicant argues that neither Oh or Ni discloses a "first reactor riser" and a "second reactor riser" as recited in amended claims 8 and 21, the rejection does not rely on these references as disclosing a reactor riser in the specific context of FCC or hydrocarbon conversion. Rather, the recited references are relied upon for teaching structurally analogous conduits through which a fluid stream flows, including vertical or substantially vertical passages that convey a gas-solid mixture.
With respect to Oh, the Examiner’s mapping of the claimed “first reactor riser” and “second reactor riser” to air inflow 272 and air outlet 224, respectively, is based on their structural and functional correspondence as flow conduits. Applicant’s argument that these elements are not “reactor” is no dispositive, as the claims do not positively recite structural features that limit the “reactor riser” to a particular chemical reaction environment or require catalytic cracking to occur therein. Absent such structural limitations, the terms “reactor riser” is interpreted broadly as a conduit through which a flowing stream may undergo processing.
Further, Applicant’s assertion that the air inflow duct 272 is not vertical or does not “rise” is not supported by claim language requiring a particular orientation. As shown in Oh’s annotated fig. 6, air inflow duct 272 includes a helical structure and extends upwardly in a slanted manner from inlet 272a to outlet 272b. Such a configuration reasonably meets the broad interpretation of a “riser”, even if not strictly vertical.
Similarly, Ni is relied upon for teaching comparable flow passages within a cyclone-based separation system. Although Ni is directed to dust separation in a vacuum cleaner, it nonetheless discloses conduits that direct a fluid stream into and out of separation chambers, which are reasonably analogous to the claimed risers under a broad interpretation.
In response to applicant's argument (i.e., catalytic cracking of hydrocarbon), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Moreover, as previously noted, the claims fail to clearly recite the specific structural features responsible for performing the claimed “disengagement” function (e.g., structures imparting a swirling helical flow pattern or generating centripetal acceleration), further weakening any asserted distinction over the cited references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights