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 .
This communication is in response to the amendment and reply filed 7/1/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 103. The rejections have been withdrawn.
A new rejection under 35 USC 103 is provided below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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) and Palmas (US 2016/0168051).
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; 0010);
regenerating the spent catalyst (0010);
separating said first cracked product stream in a main column (0006; 0016);
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 rich in olefins (0006; 0014), 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. The temperature required in each reactor depends on the feed to the reactor, with lighter molecules typically requiring higher temperature to sustain the reaction. Par. [0012]. The coke on the second and third catalyst will not always be sufficient to provide the heat needed. Par. [0012]. “Should additional heat be required to maintain heat balance, coke forming agents can be added to the feed to increase the amount of coke formed, and subsequently combusted. Alternatively, fuel can be added to the regeneration process.” Par. [0012].
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 catalyst. . . . 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 affects the product.
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.
Pillai is silent regarding wherein the first stream of cool catalyst and second stream of cool catalyst are heated in a catalyst heater separate from the regenerator.
In analogous art fluidized catalytic cracking, including multiple risers with heavy oil feedstock and light feedstock in separate reactors, Palmas discloses wherein cooled catalyst cooled in an endothermic reaction in a secondary reactor may be heated and returned to the reactor without regeneration. Par. [0043]. Th secondary feed to the secondary reactor may comprise C4 and C5 hydrocarbons, including effluent from the first reactor, and may include olefins. Par. [0035], [0037]. The second reactor may utilize ZSM-5 catalyst. Par. [0040]. The endothermic reactor cools the catalyst. Par. [0038]. The cooled catalyst is returned to the reactor without regeneration. Par. [0043]. In such case, additional heat is provided to the catalyst. Par. [0043]. In one embodiment, the hot flue gas from the regenerator may be used to increase heat of the cooled second catalyst. Par. [0043], Figures 1-3. In another embodiment, the cooled second catalyst may be passed through the tube side of a heat exchanger and is indirectly heated with the regenerated catalyst and combustion gases. Figures 3-4, par. [0055]-[0056]. With respect to indirect heat transfer with the regenerated catalyst, the second catalyst stream from the reactor 61 is passed 71 through a heating tube positioned in the regenerator shell. Par. [0055]-[0056]. The cooled catalyst and regenerated catalyst remain segregated. Par. [0056].
Both Pillai and Palmas teach reacting heavy oil in traditional FCC unit, followed by reacting a light feed stream in a second reactor in an endothermic reaction, wherein heat may be insufficient for the reaction and must be provided by an additional source. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the catalyst outlet from the second and third reactors for processing light feedstocks in Pillai by passing the cooled catalyst through a heat exchanger for heating the cooled catalyst with indirect heat from the hot regenerated catalyst and gases and return to the reactor as taught in Palmas because both are directed to cracking light feeds in a secondary FCC reactor and recognize coke on the light feed catalyst may be insufficient to provide heat of reaction and Palmas teaches the benefit of providing heat of reaction for the light feed reactors using a number of methods, including using indirect heat from the regenerator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the heating step with the process of Pillai to obtain the predictable result of providing heat needed for reaction from indirect heating by regenerated catalyst.
Although Palmas does not explicitly disclose wherein the catalyst heater is “a catalyst heater separate from the regenerator” physically, the Examiner gives extremely little weight to the apparatus limitation because it does not appear that the claimed invention would function substantially different than a catalyst heater integrated with the regenerator physically for indirectly heating the cooled catalyst with regenerated catalyst using a heat exchanger. It has been held that apparatus limitations are not entitled to patentable weight in method claims and do not support the patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the criticality and superior results of the limitations. See Ex Parte Norio Akamatsu (BPAI 1992) and In re Gelnovatch, 595 F.2d 32, 37, 210 USPQ 136, 141 (CCPA 1979). Therefore, the heat exchanger is merely used to heat the cooled catalyst using indirect heat from the regenerated catalyst and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to reasonably expect a heat exchanger configured with the tubes through the regenerator shell configuration would be suitable for indirect heat exchange of the cooled catalyst using the regenerated catalyst shell side, absent a showing of criticality and superior 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 maximize 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);
regenerating the spent catalyst (0010);separating said first cracked product stream in a main column (0006);
separating the product stream into multiple streams from the main column including 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. The temperature required in each reactor depends on the feed to the reactor, with lighter molecules typically requiring higher temperature to sustain the reaction. Par. [0012]. The coke on the second and third catalyst will not always be sufficient to provide the heat needed. Par. [0012]. “Should additional heat be required to maintain heat balance, coke forming agents can be added to the feed to increase the amount of coke formed, and subsequently combusted. Alternatively, fuel can be added to the regeneration process.” Par. [0012].
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.
Pillai is silent regarding wherein the first stream of cool catalyst and second stream of cool catalyst are heated in a catalyst heater separate from the regenerator.
In analogous art fluidized catalytic cracking, including multiple risers with heavy oil feedstock and light feedstock in separate reactors, Palmas discloses wherein cooled catalyst cooled in an endothermic reaction in a secondary reactor may be heated and returned to the reactor without regeneration. Par. [0043]. Th secondary feed to the secondary reactor may comprise C4 and C5 hydrocarbons, including effluent from the first reactor, and may include olefins. Par. [0035], [0037]. The second reactor may utilize ZSM-5 catalyst. Par. [0040]. The endothermic reactor cools the catalyst. Par. [0038]. The cooled catalyst is returned to the reactor without regeneration. Par. [0043]. In such case, additional heat is provided to the catalyst. Par. [0043]. In one embodiment, the hot flue gas from the regenerator may be used to increase heat of the cooled second catalyst. Par. [0043], Figures 1-3. In another embodiment, the cooled second catalyst may be passed through the tube side of a heat exchanger and is indirectly heated with the regenerated catalyst and combustion gases. Figures 3-4, par. [0055]-[0056]. With respect to indirect heat transfer with the regenerated catalyst, the second catalyst stream from the reactor 61 is passed 71 through a heating tube positioned in the regenerator shell. Par. [0055]-[0056]. The cooled catalyst and regenerated catalyst remain segregated. Par. [0056].
Both Pillai and Palmas teach reacting heavy oil in traditional FCC unit, followed by reacting a light feed stream in a second reactor in an endothermic reaction, wherein heat may be insufficient for the reaction and must be provided by an additional source. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the catalyst outlet from the second and third reactors for processing light feedstocks in Pillai by passing the cooled catalyst through a heat exchanger for heating the cooled catalyst with indirect heat from the hot regenerated catalyst and gases and return to the reactor as taught in Palmas because both are directed to cracking light feeds in a secondary FCC reactor and recognize coke on the light feed catalyst may be insufficient to provide heat of reaction and Palmas teaches the benefit of providing heat of reaction for the light feed reactors using a number of methods, including using indirect heat from the regenerator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the heating step with the process of Pillai to obtain the predictable result of providing heat needed for reaction from indirect heating by regenerated catalyst.
Although Palmas does not explicitly disclose wherein the catalyst heater is “a catalyst heater separate from the regenerator” physically, the Examiner gives extremely little weight to the apparatus limitation because it does not appear that the claimed invention would function substantially different than a catalyst heater integrated with the regenerator physically for indirectly heating the cooled catalyst with regenerated catalyst using a heat exchanger. It has been held that apparatus limitations are not entitled to patentable weight in method claims and do not support the patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the criticality and superior results of the limitations. See Ex Parte Norio Akamatsu (BPAI 1992) and In re Gelnovatch, 595 F.2d 32, 37, 210 USPQ 136, 141 (CCPA 1979). Therefore, the heat exchanger is merely used to heat the cooled catalyst using indirect heat from the regenerated catalyst and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to reasonably expect a heat exchanger configured with the tubes through the regenerator shell configuration would be suitable for indirect heat exchange of the cooled catalyst using the regenerated catalyst shell side, absent a showing of criticality and superior results.
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 maximize 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 and Palmas 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.
Additional Art of Record
EP 0724009 describes a shell and tube heat exchanger wherein one side receives hot regenerated catalyst from the regenerator, and the other receives cooled spent catalyst from the stripper.
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 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
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights