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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/09/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 1 and 6 has been amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NICCUM (USPGPUB 2011/0251046) in view of HAMMERSHAIMB et al. (US 4479870).
NICCUM teaches a method for regenerating a spent catalyst.
A hydrocarbon and a coke precursor are taught in paragraph 19 to be heated in the presence of catalyst particles to produce a cracked hydrocarbon product and coked catalyst particles.
The coked catalyst particles can be separated and introduced to a regenerator.
NICCUM teaches in paragraph 4 that the cracking of the hydrocarbons within the riser reactor produces one or more cracked hydrocarbons and small quantities carbonaceous coke which is deposited on the surface of the catalyst. The coke includes mostly carbon, but also contains hydrogen, sulfur, nitrogen, and trace amounts of other elements.
An embodiment is taught in paragraphs 60-61 where for heat balanced operation, and the coke precursor via line 637 can be present to supply sufficient coke to facilitate heat-balancing within the process or at least to reduce the amount of supplemental fuel required for heat balancing.
NICCUM teaches in paragraph 62 that the hydrocarbon feed may comprise C1 to C10 hydrocarbons.
NICCUM teaches in paragraph 60 that the hydrocarbon, coke precursor and catalyst may be fed separately to the riser.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to add the hydrocarbon and catalyst to the riser followed by the addition of the coke precursor to the riser. (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.)
NICCUM teaches in paragraph 60 that a steam feed is supplied.
The steam feed may be considered the lift gas.
HAMMERSHAIMB et al. is relied to teach that hydrogen may be present in the lift gas.
HAMMERSHAIMB et al. teach the use of a lift gas in an FCC reactor riser.
The lift gas is taught in lines 51-54 of column 4 and reference claim 2 to comprise up to 80 mol% of lift gas.
The lift gas is taught in lines 55-65 of column 4 to include H2, or hydrogen.
It would be obvious to modify the stream of steam that is used in NICCUM to include H2.
The lift gas is taught in lines 55-65 of column 4 to perform the important function of reacting with the catalyst prior to feedstock introduction so as to enhance desired and suppress undesired catalytic properties.
The hydrocarbon is added via line 635 with the steam and the coke precursor added via line 630 and 637 respectively to riser reactor 605.
The hydrocarbon stream introduced via line 635 is taught in paragraph 85 to be pre-heated to a temperature from about 370°C to about 790°C.
The hydrocarbon stream is taught in paragraph 62 to be a gas.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to send hydrocarbon via line 635 and the coked precursor via line 637 to the same reaction zone of the rise (at the bottom) that would be expected to be a high reactive zone.
As the hydrocarbons within the reaction mixture is cracked and rises, the temperature would be expected to drop. (low reactive zone with lower temperature than the temperature of high reactive zone)
Regarding claim 2, the ratio of catalyst to feed after coke precursor is added would be expected to be lower given that the coke precursor would add to the amount of feed.
The temperature in the rise is further taught in paragraph 86 to be adjusted manually or automatically to compensate for variations in hydrocarbon feed composition and to maximize the yield of preferred hydrocarbons obtained by cracking.
Regarding claim 3, after coke precursor is added, it would be obvious to expect that the amount of coke would be more than before the coke precursor is added given that the coke precursor is taught to form coke.
Regarding claim 4, the coked catalyst particles are taught in paragraph 70 to be introduced to one or more regenerators.
Regarding claim 5, regenerated catalyst particles are taught in paragraph 84 to be recycled back to the one or more risers.
Regarding claims 7-8, NICCUM teaches in paragraph 68 that the riser where the hydrocarbon is cracked is operated at a temperature from a low of about 475°C to about 720°C.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Regarding claim 9, the hydrocarbon feed is taught in paragraph 62 to include naphtha.
Regarding claim 10, coke precursor is taught in paragraphs 63 and 65 to be any hydrocarbon or other carbon containing material to form coke. One example is full range gas oil/resid fraction or a long resid fraction. Typical gas oil and long resid fractions can be derived from several refinery process sources including but not limited to a low, medium, or high Sulfur crude unit atmospheric and/or vacuum distillation tower. (vacuum residue)
Regarding claim 11, the hydrocarbon feed is taught in paragraph 62 to include mixtures of olefins, paraffins, naphthas.
Given that an example is given with about 0.1% vol to 5% vol methane; from about 0.1% vol to about 80% vol ethane; from about 0.1% vol to about 80% vol propane which comprises 3 different components in the hydrocarbon feed, it would be well within one of ordinary skill to use a mixture of 2 different feeds to form the hydrocarbon feed in NICCUM. NICCUM further teaches in paragraph 144 that one or more mixed hydrocarbon feeds may be used.
In a mixture of 2 feeds, one feed would be expected to have a higher average molecular weight than another feed. For example, ethane has a higher molecular weight than methane.
Regarding claim 12, the hydrocarbon feed is taught in paragraph 62 to include mixtures and to include naphtha.
Regarding claim 14, the hydrocarbon feed is taught in paragraph 62 to include mixtures of olefins, paraffins, naphthas.
Given that an example is given with about 0.1% vol to 5% vol methane; from about 0.1% vol to about 80% vol ethane; from about 0.1% vol to about 80% vol propane which comprises 3 different components in the hydrocarbon feed, it would be well within one of ordinary skill to use a mixture of 3 different feeds to form the hydrocarbon feed in NICCUM. NICCUM further teaches in paragraph 144 that one or more mixed hydrocarbon feeds may be used.
In a mixture of 3 feeds, there would naturally be a natural order of average molecular weight between the 3 feeds with one being highest and one being lowest and one being in the middle.
Regarding claim 15, the hydrocarbon feed is taught in paragraph 62 to include naphtha and gas from crude oil.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, NICCUM teaches in paragraph 144 that one or more mixed hydrocarbon feeds may be used.
Although NICCUM is silent to the positions of the one or more mixed hydrocarbon feeds being added relative to the other hydrocarbon feeds of the one or more mixed hydrocarbon feeds, it is noted that the one or more mixed hydrocarbon feeds are fed to the same riser and contacted with the same catalyst.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to add the one or more mixed hydrocarbon feeds as a first hydrocarbon feed, a second hydrocarbon feed downstream of the first hydrocarbon feed and a third hydrocarbon feed downstream of the second hydrocarbon feed since the location that each hydrocarbon feed relative to any other hydrocarbon feed would not be expected to result in any new or unexpected results. (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.)
Regarding claim 17, NICCUM teaches in paragraph 69 that the residence time of the reaction mixture flowing through the riser is less than about 20 seconds.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Regarding claim 18, NICCUM teaches in paragraphs 60-61 that steam is fed via line 630 into the one or more risers. (lift gas)
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NICCUM (USPGPUB 2011/0251046) in view of HAMMERSHAIMB et al. (US 4479870) as applied to claims 1-5, and 7-18 above, and further in view of ENG (USPGPUB 20140275675).
The above discussion of NICCUM in view of HAMMERSHAIMB et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
NICCUM teaches in paragraph 62 that the hydrocarbon feed can include but not limited to olefins, paraffins, naphthas, mixtures thereof.
ENG is relied on to teach coprocessing a feed of hydrocarbon and oxygenate. ENG teaches processes for cracking feeds to produce olefins using fluidized bed reactors with catalysts that become coked during cracking.
ENG teaches cracking a first feed in a first riser and a second feed in a second riser.
ENG teaches in the abstract that the first feed comprises methanol.
ENG teaches in paragraph 13 that the second feed that comprises any hydrocarbon or combination of hydrocarbons. The second feed is further taught to comprise oxygenates having from 1 to 4 carbon atoms. Methanol is known in the art as an oxygenate.
Both methanol and hydrocarbons are taught to be capable of conversion of the same products of ethylene, propylene, or a mixture thereof.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the hydrocarbon used in NICCUM may have some amount of oxygenates such as methanol with a reasonable expectation of success.
Coprocessing a feed that comprises both hydrocarbon and methanol would allow greater versatility in producing desired products.
Regarding claim 19, an oxygenate is taught by ENG to be a part of the second feed.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NICCUM (USPGPUB 2011/0251046) as applied to claims 1-5, and 7-18 above, and further in view of KEUSENKOTHEN (USPGPUB 2014/0163271).
The above discussion of NICCUM is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 19, NICCUM teaches steam being fed into the one or more risers.
KEUSENKOTHEN teach hydrocarbon and oxygenate conversion by high severity pyrolysis.
KEUSENKOTHEN teaches in paragraph 16 that the term oxygenate means (i) oxygen atoms and (ii) molecules (and mixtures thereof) which include at least one oxygen atom wherein the oxygen atoms comprise >5.0 atom 96 based on the number of atoms present in the molecule or mixture of molecules, including those molecules which further comprise hydrogen, carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen.
KEUSENKOTHEN teaches in paragraph 23 that steam may be considered as an oxygenate.
Regarding claim 20, NICCUM teaches in paragraph 66 that heat in the riser may be provided via line 630 from the steam.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art that is monitoring the apparatus and the process to regulate the temperature in the riser by adding more steam or stop the flow of steam given that heat in the riser is provided through the steam.
The temperature in the rise is further taught in paragraph 86 to be adjusted manually or automatically to compensate for variations in hydrocarbon feed composition and to maximize the yield of preferred hydrocarbons obtained by cracking.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection.
HAMMERSHAIMB et al. (US 4479870) has been added to teach that a lift gas comprising steam and H2 may be used in an FCC reactor riser. The lift gas is taught to enhance desired and suppress undesired catalytic properties.
ENG (USPGPUB 20140275675) teaches cracking a second feed that comprises hydrocarbons and oxygenates that comprises C1-C4 using a fluidized bed reactor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DAVIS (WO2012/161873) teaches a method and system for converting hydrocarbons into C2+ saturates with a hydrocarbon stream and coke/coke precursors exposed to catalytic material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771