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 .
This communication is response to the amendment and reply 8/22/2025.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-14, 18, and 20-21 are pending. Claims 10, 12-14, 18, and 20-21 are rejected. Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are withdrawn from consideration.
Previous rejection is modified in view of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The new limitations of the amended claims are now addressed in the rejections under 35 USC 103 below. With respect to the heat exchanger utilizing indirect heat with steam, this is not presently claimed.
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 13-14 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 13 and 14 claim the inlet of the heat exchanger for feeding oil gas and catalyst is connected to the outlet of the reactor. However, according to claim 10 from which the claims depend, the outlet of the reactor is connected to the inlet of the primary separator and the outlet of the primary separator is connected with the inlet of the heat exchanger (Response filed 8/22/2025, page 4, last two lines).
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) 10, 12-14, 18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 5,089,235) in view of Krambeck (US 4,978,440) and/or Buchanan (US 2012/0103870).
With respect to claim 10, Schwartz teaches an apparatus with a catalytic cracking reactor, a primary separator, downstream quenching apparatus (i.e. heat exchanger), followed by disengager connected in series (Figure 1 or 2). With respect to the limitations where the reactor is “for producing light olefins having 2 to 4 carbon atoms from crude oil by catalytic cracking,” the limitations is directed to a method of using the apparatus and not limiting in the apparatus claim. Further, the system is capable of operating to produce light olefins.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
617
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The disengaging vessel 108 includes at least one internal cyclone, stripping section, and expanding section above the stripping section (Figure 1; col. 5-6).
The heat exchanger area for quench is located outside the reactor and the disengaging vessel, an inlet of the heat exchanger is connected with an outlet of the reactor, and an outlet of the heat exchanger is connected with the disengaging vessel (Figure 1 or 2). The quench apparatus is a direct heat exchanging device. However, if a separate style heat exchanger were required by the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the direct quench with a known heat exchange device for obtaining the same result, e.g. an indirect heat exchanger with cooling fluid or steam generation, as an alternative embodiment for cooling the effluent.
The gross cut separator is a cyclone comprising an inlet connected to the reactor, outlet connected to the heat exchanger, and discharging tube below the body of the separator connected to the disengaging vessel (Figure 1; col. 6). The discharge of the primary separator includes a pipe section configured to move the discharge from the bottom of the separator into the disengaging vessel. The configuration of the connection between the separator and the disengaging vessel will necessarily depend on factors as placement of equipment, plot design, and operating conditions. It would have been obvious to configure to include a vertical and horizontal piping to reach the disengaging vessel as a matter of design choice without obtaining unexpected results or technical improvement.
Schwartz is silent regarding the discharge location being at least partially into an upper portion of the expanding section of the disengager tank. In analogous art, Krambeck teaches an FCC reactor and separation apparatus (abstract; Figure 1). The effluent leaves the reactor and enters a primary separator comprising a cyclone with an inlet, outlet, and discharge (Figure 1). A majority of the catalyst from the reaction is discharged into the disengaging vessel (claim 1). Krambeck teaches wherein “[t]he dense bed/dilute phase interface 17 may be below the catalyst diplegs, as shown in the drawing, or the dense bed level may be raised, or the diplegs extended, so that the diplegs are immersed within the dense bed of catalyst 20.” (col. 8, lines 40-44). The dense/dilute interface is above the dense bed of catalyst in the stripping section (Figure 1; col. 8). “The spent catalyst which collects as dense bed 20 in the bottom of reactor 1 is subjected to stripping to remove easily strippable hydrocarbon vapors from the spent catalyst before it is sent to a catalyst regenerator.” (col. 8, line 67 - col. 9, line 3).
Similarly, in analogous art, Buchanan teaches a process and apparatus for separation in an FCC unit wherein “one or more cyclone separators separate the reaction products from a portion of catalyst which is still carried by the vapor stream. . . . After initial separation, the spent catalyst passes through a "dipleg" attached to the lower portion of the cyclone separator and into the dilute phase zone of the reactor[, also known as the disengaging vessel]. The dilute phase zone allows for rapid disengagement of entrained hydrocarbon vapors in high flux catalyst flows exiting the cyclone dipleg in the reactor [or disengaging] vessel. In the invention herein, the bottom of the dipleg (or dipleg outlet) is located in the dilute phase zone, or area, or the FCC reactor.” Par. [0069]. The art teaches that “[i]n a conventional FCC unit, the catalyst exiting the dipleg drops as a relatively concentrated stream through the dilute phase in the reactor and is eventually flowed into the stripper section, or stripping zone, of the reactor. . . . Utilizing the baffle plate devices of this disclosure, catalyst flow is more quickly dispersed and trapped hydrocarbons released in the dilute phase zone of the reactor prior to being trapped in the dense phase zone of the reactor wherein these hydrocarbons are more difficult to remove.” Par. [0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to discharge the gross cyclone separator of Schwartz in the dilute phase to allow the catalyst to be evenly distributed over the dense bed and reduced entrainment of hydrocarbons carried into the dense bed and the stripping section as taught in Buchanan. Terminating the dipleg above the dense bed in the dilute phase or under the dense bed to create a seal are both known alternative embodiments in FCC disengaging vessels as shown in Krambeck.
With respect to claim 12, Schwartz shows an inlet of the heat exchanger is above the outlet of the reactor (Figure). Schwartz fails to show where the inlet is below the outlet. However, such configuration would merely be one of a limited number of configurations for orienting the heat exchange for cooling the effluent and thus would have been obvious configuration as one of a limited design options without providing new or unexpected results.
With respect to claims 13-14, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 112 above. Figures 1 and 2 show wherein, the inlet of the heat exchanger for feeding the oil, gas and the catalyst is located above the outlet of the reactor and connected to the primary separator through a bend (Figures). The art fails to show the inlet of the quenching section is lower than the outlet. However, such configuration would merely be one of a limited number of configurations for orienting the heat exchange for cooling the effluent and thus would have been obvious configuration as one of a limited design options without providing new or unexpected results.
With respect to claim 18, Krambeck teaches wherein the vapor from the primary separator (i.e. the gross separator of Schwartz) may be passed into the dilute phase of the disengaging vessel in an open cyclone configuration or may be connected to the secondary cyclone in the disengaging vessel in a closed configuration. Krambeck also teaches that “most noticeable improvement in operation, and the greatest drop in temperature of the hydrocarbon phase above the dense bed of spent catalyst, occurs when closed cyclones are used.” Additionally, in a closed configuration the product can be increased because “only a small portion of the vapors remain in the reactor vessel with the closed cyclone (3 wt %).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to pass quench vapors from the primary cyclone of Schwartz directly to the secondary cyclone of the disengaging vessel as taught in Krambeck to improve temperature of the dense bed and product yield.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 5,089,235) in view of Krambeck (US 4,978,440) and/or Buchanan (US 20120103870).
With respect to claims 20-21, shows fluidizing gas in the primary separator. “An aeration steam line 138 can be connected to the upper vertical section 130. A fluidizing steam line 139 can be connected to the lower angle section 134.” The upper vertical section is “near the discharge”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the placement of the upper and lower gas distributors, including in the lower end of the cyclone, maximizing aeration or stripping of gas from catalyst.
Alternatively, claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 5,089,235) in view of Krambeck (US 4,978,440) and/or Buchanan (US 20120103870) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Niccum (US 8,192,614).
With respect to claims 20 and 21, Schwartz teaches the limitations of the gross cyclone separator as discussed above. Schwartz is silent regarding wherein the distributor is located in the separator body, near the discharge and includes a pipe. Niccum (US 8,192,614) is in the analogous art of FCC separation using cyclone separators (abstract). Stripping is integrated with cyclonic separation to diffuse residual carrier fluid away from particulates as the particulates are disentrained from the suspension (col. 2, lines 30+). The stripping gas passes up through holes in the bottom of the body of the cyclone (). The distributor disclosed is a plate, however, plate, pipe, ring and other shaped discharges are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select an alternative shape without unexpected results or effect.
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