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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/23/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. New rejection is provided below.
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 4, 6-7 and 14-16 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said cracked product stream". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites a first cracked product, a second cracked product, and a third cracked product. Therefore, it is unclear which cracked product which said cracked product stream is referring.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said wash column". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The wash column is first recited in claim 4, not claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. Claim 7 is similarly rejected.
Claim 7 recites separating a depropanized compressed overhead stream into… It is not rejected as indefinite, but interpreted to include the compressed stream of claim 6 or a separate depropanized compressed stream. If the claim is intended to require to act upon the depropanized compressed overhead stream of claim 6, the should be used instead of a.
Claim 7 recites taking the second light cracked naphtha and/or the second C4 as the third stream. Note as amended the third stream comprises C4. In view of claim 1, the separated second light naphtha is interpreted as comprising C4.
Claims14-16 recite the limitation "said third hydrocarbonstream". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pillai (US 2023/0407187) (pub. 6/17/2022) in view of Leonard (US 2011/0108458).
With respect to claims 1 and 17, Pillai teaches a process for catalytic production of olefins comprising:
contacting a first hydrocarbon stream and a first stream of fluid catalyst in a first riser to produce a first cracked product stream and a spent catalyst stream (0006);
separating said first cracked product stream in a main column (0006);
separating multiple streams from the main column into one or more medium and/or light streams for recycle to the FCC unit, such as gasoline or distillates and light streams such as naphtha, C4, oxygenates rich in olefins (0006), i.e. second and third streams;
contacting said second hydrocarbon stream with a second stream of fluid catalyst in a second riser to produce a second cracked product stream and a first stream of reacted catalyst, i.e. cool catalyst (0006); and
contacting said third hydrocarbon stream with a third stream of fluid catalyst in a third riser to produce a third cracked product stream and a second stream of reacted catalyst, i.e. cool catalyst (0006).
With respect to the specific feeds, Pillai teaches a heavy feed in the first riser and light feeds including naphtha and feed containing C4 in the second and third risers. Pillai states“[f]or example, a stream enriched in naphtha and/or C4+ species may be recycled as feed to one of the risers of the reactor 202. Thus, some embodiments of the process 200 may involve cracking a heavy stream in a heavy riser to produce a first effluent stream enriched in lighter components such as fuel products, C4s, and/or naphtha, providing the first effluent stream to a fractionation system and fractionating the first effluent stream to produce one or more second streams, and recycling the one or more second streams back to one or more light/medium risers of the FCC reactor, where they are further cracked to yield light olefins.” (0016) This includes sending both naphtha and C4 back to separate risers.
With respect to the catalyst composition, Pillai teaches using a dual catalyst system including zeolite Y and ZSM-5 zeolite. Pillai, par. [0006] (“the FCC reactions in each of the risers comprise cracking using a catalyst mixture comprising a Y zeolite and a shape selective zeolite. According to some embodiments, the shape selective zeolite is ZSM-5.”). Further, Pillai teaches that the proportion of each catalyst, ZSM-5 and zeolite Y, is selected based on the specific feed and the desired products. Pillai, par. [0017] (“Embodiments of the disclosed dual riser processes described herein may use such catalysts combined with catalysts that are better configured for cracking light feeds to produce light olefins. Examples of light feed catalysts include shape-selective zeolites configured to crack naphtha-range molecules. Examples of suitable catalysts for use in the cracking of light feeds are exemplified by ZSM-5 and similar catalysts………..The proportion of Y-Zeolite catalyst and shape-selective zeolites are optimized based on the feedstock involved and product targets.”). Thus, the amount of ZSM-5 in the second stream of fluid catalyst is a result effective variable which effects the product slate.
Pillai does not specifically teach wherein the first stream of fluid catalyst includes about 4 wt% to about 10 wt% of a ZSM-5 zeolite and wherein the second stream of fluid catalyst includes at least about 20 wt% of a ZSM-5 zeolite (claim 1) or includes less than about 5% Y zeolite (claim 17).
Leonard, directed to the design of about multi-riser FCC unit and method, teaches wherein a first heavy feed is cracked in a first riser and a second medium and/or light feed taken from the first effluent is cracked in a second riser. The first catalyst is a mixture of common FCC large pore zeolite catalyst and includes X or Y zeolites, with 1-25% of a second component comprised of a medium pore zeolite such as ZSM-5 which improves selectivity to light olefins (0029-0032). The range encompasses the claimed range. Leonard teaches passing the effluent to a separation unit including fractionation column and separating various fractions including naphtha and C4 streams. Either the naphtha alone (e.g. 0083), C4 alone (e.g. 0077+), or both together (e.g. 0048) may be used as the second hydrocarbon feed to the second riser for further cracking to produce olefins. With respect to the second catalyst in the second riser for cracking the light and/or medium feed, in a preferred embodiment, the second reactor can contain less than 20% or less than 5% of the first component (i.e. less than 5% Y zeolite) (0051). In another preferred embodiment, the second reactor may contain only ZSM-5 zeolite (0051), which satisfies both claimed ranges of 100% and greater than 20%.
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply as the first and second catalyst of Pillai a first mixture having large pore zeolite and 1-25% ZSM in the first riser and a second catalyst comprised only of ZSM-5 as taught in Leonard because both arts are directed to multi riser FCC processes for cracking a heavy feed in a first riser with large pore and medium pore zeolites followed by cracking a portion of the light and/or medium product (the same or overlapping portions) in a second riser, because Pillai teaches varying the concentration of catalysts based on feed and Leonard teaches the specific concentrations ranges of the same catalyst for treating specific feeds, and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With respect to claim 2, Pillai teaches wherein the same recycle streams of naphtha and C4 may be recycled from the FCC fractionator to the additional risers. Given the same feeds treated, it would be expected to have the same relative olefin content.
With respect to claim 3, Pillai teaches wherein said second and third hydrocarbon streams may be a light cracked naphtha stream and/or a C4 hydrocarbon stream taken from one or more of the effluents (0016). In Leonard, either the naphtha alone (e.g. 0083), C4 alone (e.g. 0077+), or both together (e.g. 0048) may be used as the second hydrocarbon feed to the second riser for further cracking to produce olefins.
With respect to claim 4, Pillai teaches obtaining second and third streams from the cracked effluent but is silent regarding washing said cracked product stream in a wash column and obtaining said third hydrocarbon stream from said wash column. Leonard teaches wherein cracked effluent may be passed to a wash column (0055-0057) and Pillai teaches the third feed stream may come from cracked effluent from the first and/or second risers. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to wash cracked product in the process of Pillai in a wash column as taught in Leonard as a means for separating product and effecting heat exchange and because use of a wash column in separation of the effluents would do no more than obtain predictable results of separation of the effluent.
With respect to claim 5, Pillai teaches wherein said second and third hydrocarbon stream may be C4 hydrocarbon streams taken from one or more of the effluents (0016).
With respect to claim 6, Leonard further teaches sending the washed stream through multiples stages of compression and separation in columns, including deporopanizing for separating the effluents (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 7, Leonard teaches sending naphtha and/or C4 as feed to the downstream riser in the two riser system. Pillai teaches sending C4 and/or Naphtha to the second and third risers.
With respect to claim 9, Pillai teaches wherein the third and second reactors operate at conditions tailored for the specific feed (0007). The conditions that may be controlled within each riser include the temperature, the residence time of the feedstock within the riser, the partial pressure of the feedstock, and the ratio of catalyst to feedstock (0011). Thus, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan at the time of invention to design the temperature, pressure, catalyst density and severity such that the desired specific product 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.
Further, where the same feeds as claimed (naphtha and C4) are treated in risers having the same catalysts as claimed to maximize the same light olefin products, it is expected that the relative operating conditions between the two risers would be the same.
With respect to claims 10-11, Pillai teaches regenerating said stream of spent catalyst by combustion of coke from said spent catalyst to provide hot regenerated catalyst and controlling the heat to the risers using the hot regenerated catalyst (0010; 0012). “Balanced operation may be obtainable if sufficient quantities of heavy materials are being processed, thereby forming sufficient quantities of coke to supply the heat needed for heat balance in all the risers.” (0012)
With respect to claim 12, Pillai teaches treating a second, optionally olefinic stream in the third reactor to produce light olefins. Pillai teaches wherein the third stream may be the same C4 stream. Leonard also teaches that the overhead stream from the debutanizer comprises C3-C4 olefinic product that may be further separated and then fed to the downstream riser for cracking into light olefins. Where each riser is operated to produce light olefins, it would have been obvious to maximizes the olefins in the third stream to be cracked into lighter olefins.
With respect to claim 13, Pillai teaches wherein said second and third hydrocarbon stream to be mixed and cracked with catalyst may be a light cracked naphtha stream a C4 hydrocarbon stream taken from one or more of the effluents (0016).
With respect to claims 14 and 15, Pillai teaches a process for catalytic production of olefins comprising:
contacting a first hydrocarbon stream and a first stream of fluid catalyst in a first riser to produce a first cracked product stream and a spent catalyst stream (0006);
separating said first cracked product stream in a main column (0006);
separating multiple streams from the main column into one or more medium and/or light streams for recycle to the FCC unit, such as gasoline or distillates and light streams such as naphtha, C4, oxygenates rich in olefins (0006), i.e. second and third streams;
contacting said second hydrocarbon stream with a second stream of fluid catalyst in a second riser to produce a second cracked product stream and a first stream of reacted catalyst, i.e. cool catalyst (0006); and
contacting said third hydrocarbon stream with a third stream of fluid catalyst in a third riser to produce a third cracked product stream and a second stream of reacted catalyst, i.e. cool catalyst (0006).
With respect to the specific feeds, Pillai teaches a heavy feed in the first riser and light feeds including naphtha and feed containing C4 in the second and third risers. Pillai states“[f]or example, a stream enriched in naphtha and/or C4+ species may be recycled as feed to one of the risers of the reactor 202. Thus, some embodiments of the process 200 may involve cracking a heavy stream in a heavy riser to produce a first effluent stream enriched in lighter components such as fuel products, C4s, and/or naphtha, providing the first effluent stream to a fractionation system and fractionating the first effluent stream to produce one or more second streams, and recycling the one or more second streams back to one or more light/medium risers of the FCC reactor, where they are further cracked to yield light olefins.” (0016) This includes sending both naphtha and C4 back to separate risers.
With respect to the catalyst composition, Pillai teaches using a dual catalyst system including zeolite Y and ZSM-5 zeolite. Pillai, par. [0006] (“the FCC reactions in each of the risers comprise cracking using a catalyst mixture comprising a Y zeolite and a shape selective zeolite. According to some embodiments, the shape selective zeolite is ZSM-5.”). Further, Pillai teaches that the proportion of each catalyst, ZSM-5 and zeolite Y, is selected based on the specific feed and the desired products. Pillai, par. [0017] (“Embodiments of the disclosed dual riser processes described herein may use such catalysts combined with catalysts that are better configured for cracking light feeds to produce light olefins. Examples of light feed catalysts include shape-selective zeolites configured to crack naphtha-range molecules. Examples of suitable catalysts for use in the cracking of light feeds are exemplified by ZSM-5 and similar catalysts………..The proportion of Y-Zeolite catalyst and shape-selective zeolites are optimized based on the feedstock involved and product targets.”). Thus, the amount of ZSM-5 in the second stream of fluid catalyst is a result effective variable which effects the product slate.
Pillai does not specifically teach wherein the first stream of fluid catalyst includes about 4 wt% to about 10 wt% of a ZSM-5 zeolite and wherein the second stream of fluid catalyst includes 100% ZSM-5 (claim 14), and washing said cracked product stream in a wash column and obtaining said third hydrocarbon stream from said wash column.
Leonard, directed to the design of about multi-riser FCC unit and method, teaches wherein a first heavy feed is cracked in a first riser and a second medium and/or light feed taken from the first effluent is cracked in a second riser. The first catalyst is a mixture of common FCC large pore zeolite catalyst and includes X or Y zeolites, with 1-25% of a second component comprised of a medium pore zeolite such as ZSM-5 which improves selectivity to light olefins (0029-0032). The range encompasses the claimed range. Leonard teaches passing the effluent to a separation unit including fractionation column and separating various fractions including naphtha and C4 streams. The second reactor effluent may pass through a wash column, compression, further separation columns to produce naphtha and/or C4 streams which may be passed to the second reactor (Figure 1). Either the naphtha alone (e.g. 0083), C4 alone (e.g. 0077+), or both together (e.g. 0048) may be used as the second hydrocarbon feed to the second riser for further cracking to produce olefins. With respect to the second catalyst in the second riser for cracking the light and/or medium feed, in a preferred embodiment, the second reactor can contain less than 20% or less than 5% of the first component (i.e. less than 5% Y zeolite) (0051). In another preferred embodiment, the second reactor may contain only ZSM-5 zeolite (0051), which satisfies both claimed ranges of 100% and greater than 20%.
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply as the first and second catalyst of Pillai a first mixture having large pore zeolite and 1-25% ZSM in the first riser and a second catalyst comprised only of ZSM-5 as taught in Leonard because both arts are directed to multi riser FCC processes for cracking a heavy feed in a first riser with large pore and medium pore zeolites followed by cracking a portion of the light and/or medium product (the same or overlapping portions) in a second riser, because Pillai teaches varying the concentration of catalysts based on feed and Leonard teaches the specific concentrations ranges of the same catalyst for treating specific feeds, and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Further, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to wash cracked product, compressed, and separated C4 effluent to be further cracked in the process of Pillai as taught in Leonard as a means for separating product and effecting heat exchange and because use of a wash column in separation of the effluents would do no more than obtain predictable results of separation of the effluent.
With respect to claim 16 and 19, Pillai teaches treating a second, optionally olefinic stream in the third reactor to produce light olefins. Pillai teaches wherein the third stream may be the same C4 stream. Leonard also teaches that the overhead stream from the debutanizer comprises C3-C4 olefinic product that may be further separated and then fed to the downstream riser for cracking into light olefins. Where each riser is operated to produce light olefins, it would have been obvious to maximizes the olefins in the third stream to be cracked into lighter olefins.
With respect to claim 18, Pillai teaches wherein the same streams may be treated in the second and third reactors, thus, they would have the same relative olefinic content and crackability.
With respect to claim 20, Pillai teaches wherein the third and second reactors operate at conditions tailored for the specific feed (0007). The conditions that may be controlled within each riser include the temperature, the residence time of the feedstock within the riser, the partial pressure of the feedstock, and the ratio of catalyst to feedstock (0011). Thus, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan at the time of invention to design the temperature, pressure, catalyst density and severity such that the desired specific product 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pillai in view of Leonard as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-20, further in view of or evidenced by WO 2011/121613.
With respect to claim 8, Pillai teaches cracking in the second and third reactors light feeds including e.g. naphtha or C4. Pillai is silent regarding the coke deposit on the catalyst after cracking.
WO 2011/121613 also directed to FCC process for treating light hydrocarbons teaches wherein the light hydrocarbons of Pillai produce low coke, including less than 0.35wt% (e.g. claim 1 and 11). Thus, it is expected that the coke produced cracking the light feeds of Pillai will produce a similar coke deposit given the same feed is being processed.
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