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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 22 October 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-17 are pending. The previous rejections have been maintained. The rejections follow.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier (US 6,641,715) in view of Al-Ghamdi (US 2018/0346827).
Regarding claims 1 and 11-13, Gauthier teaches a process for cracking to produce light olefin products (column 1, line 1-column 2, line 65). feeding LCO feed to a dropper reactor (column 8, lines 45-65) with a first catalyst and separating the gas from the catalyst (column 6, lines 1-65). Spent catalyst from the dropper is sent to the riser reactor (column 4, lines 130) in combination with regenerated catalyst and heavy/fresh feed (column 6, lines 10-45). The gaseous effluents are separated from the catalyst, and the spent catalyst from the riser is sent to regenerator (column 6, lines 1-45). Recovered light products in stream 15/16 are recirculated to the cracking reactions (see figures).
Gauthier does not explicitly disclose (1) fractionation to recover the light and heavy distillate feeds (2) the relationships between the variables claimed X and R.
Regarding (1), Al-Ghamdi teaches a similar process for operating cracking units to produce light olefins and btx compounds [0003]. Al-Ghamdi teaches a feed separator prior to the reactions zones [0037]. Examiner notes that the separation temperature disclosed by Al-Ghamdi [0037] include those appropriate to obtain the LCO feed of Gauthier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the separation step of Al-Ghamdi, in order to obtain the feeds of Gauthier.
Regarding (2), the prior art teaches the same distillate feedstocks as claimed. Gauthier teaches optimizing catalyst to oil ratios and reaction conditions in each reaction zone in order to optimize the process (column 2, lines 40-65 and column 4, lines 53-67). In this regard, Examiner notes that the prior art teaches optimization of temperatures and catalyst oil ratios.
Therefore, it is expected that the same relationship as claimed would result. It is not seen where the selection of such known conditions would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, Gauthier teaches the riser temperature ranges from 500-550°C (column 5, lines 23-30), overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Al-Ghamdi teaches a separation temperature of 180-400°C [0037].
Regarding claim 4, Gauthier teaches dropper temperatures of 500-700°C residence time of 50-650 ms and catalyst to oil ratios of 7-15 (column 5, lines 1-35), overlapping with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 5, Gauthier teaches catalyst/oil ratio slightly below the claimed range (column 5, lines 1-35). However, Gauthier teaches that the catalyst oil ratio is selected with respect to the temperatures (column 5, lines 20-35). Further, Al-Ghamdi teaches that appropriate catalyst to oil ratios are selected, including those ranging from 5-40 [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected catalyst oil ratios for each zone. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claims 6-7, 14, and 16-17, Gauthier teaches stripping to separate the catalyst from the products exiting the dropper and passing the stripped catalyst to the riser reaction step (column 7, lines 1-65, see figure).
Regarding claim 8, Al-Ghamdi teaches crude oil feedstock [0034].
Regarding claim 9, Gauthier does not explicitly disclose what cracking catalyst is used.
However, Al-Ghamdi teaches silica, alumina, usy, and zsm-5 cracking catalysts [0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the well-known cracking catalysts as disclosed by Al-Ghamdi, in the process of Gauthier.
Regarding claim 10, Gauthier teaches using a mixture of fresh and regenerated catalyst (column 4, lines 1-30).
Regarding claim 15, Al-Ghamdi teaches that the feedstock may be subject to conventional purification prior to introduction to the process [0034]. Examiner notes that the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize desalination/dehydration as a conventional first step purification, prior to further refining.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have connected a desalination/dehydration unit to pretreat the feed prior to the claimed refining steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments to be:
The prior art does not disclose the claimed relationship of catalyst ratio and temperature in order to optimize the production of light olefins and btx.
Regarding Applicant’s first argument, Examiner notes that as discussed in the rejection, Gauthier teaches selecting appropriate catalyst/oil ratios and temperatures in both the dropper zone and the riser zone (column 5, lines 1-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the catalyst oil ratios and temperatures in each zone, in order to optimize the products desired. Please see MPEP 2144 drawn to obviousness of ranges. Examiner notes that the relationship claimed is based on the same variables of catalyst ratios, and temperatures. In this regard, it is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the claim language, as it appears that the same optimization of catalyst ratio and temperatures is claimed as disclosed by Gauthier. Examiner further notes that in the apparatus claims, the relationship is simply an intended use, and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pontier (US 7,220,351) – teaches a dropper and a riser to treat LCO and resid feedstocks (column 3, lines 40-67)
Muldowney (US 5,468,369) – teaches fcc with upflow and downflow reactors
Abba (US 2013/0248421) – teaches fractionation followed by two stages of downflow cracking reactors
Johnson (US 5,435,906) – teaches catalytic cracking with downflow or riser reactors
Mukthiyar (US 2013/0172173) – teaches FCC with multiple stages
Dean (US 2008/0011644) – teaches combining downflow and riser reaction stages
Bourane (US 2014/0110308) – teaches fractionation of feed an multiple cracking stages
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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 C 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights