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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structural differences. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”) (emphasis in original). Likewise, the “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1963).
It is firmly rooted that because an apparatus is a structure, an apparatus must be distinguished from prior art on the basis of its structure, and where a prior art structure is inherently “capable of” performing the claimed function of the apparatus, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. See, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-25, 27-32, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Acikgoz (US 2012/0138509). Alternatively, claims 21-25, 27-32, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Acikgoz (US 2012/0138509) as evidenced by Keady (US 6271433).
With respect to claims 21, 27, 34, and 35, Acikgoz discloses an olefin production system (see Acikgoz, drawing) comprising a fluid catalytic cracking unit comprising a riser reactor (12) and a regenerator (60); a fractionator (100) in fluid communication with the cracking unit (see Acikgoz, drawing); and a gas plant section (see Ackikgoz, drawing) (portion downstream and fluidly connected to overhead line (94)) in fluid communication with the fractionator (100). The gas plant section comprises a gas concentration unit (or vapor recovery unit), such unit comprising: an overhead condenser (96) in fluid communication with the fractionator (100); a chiller (96) in fluid communication with the overhead condenser (96) (see Acikgoz, drawing; and paragraph [0034]) (“[t]he overhead product stream in overhead line 94 is condensed in a condenser and perhaps cooled in a cooler both represented by 96”); a receiver (98) in fluid communication with the chiller (96); and a wet gas compressor (122) in fluid communication with the receiver (98). Thus, Acikgoz clearly anticipates claims 21, 27, 34, and 35. The remaining claim limitations are process limitations which do not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from that of Acikgoz (see paragraphs 2 and 3 supra). Alternatively, Keady evidences that the apparatus of Acikgoz does in fact satisfy all of the process limitations or, at the very least, is capable of satisfying all of the process limitations (see Keady, Fig. 1 and accompanying text).
With respect to claim 22, Acikgoz discloses a stripper (72) in communication with the regenerator (60); and a conduit (14) to supply regenerated catalyst to the riser reactor (12).
With respect to claims 23, 24, and 28-31, the claims do not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from that of Acikgoz (see paragraphs 2 and 3 supra).
With respect to claims 25 and 32, Acikgoz discloses wherein the riser reactor (12) may be configured to receive two or more feedstock streams (see Acikgoz, paragraph [0022]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 26 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acikgoz (US 2012/0138509) in view of Harandi (US 2021/0009903) and Dean (US 2011/0240520). Alternatively, claims 26 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acikgoz (US 2012/0138509) as evidenced by Keady (US 6,271,433) in view of Harandi (US 2021/0009903) and Dean (US 2011/0240520).
With respect to claims 26 and 33, see discussion supra at paragraphs 6 and 7.
Acikgoz does not explicitly disclose wherein the system additionally comprises a quench line.
However, it is readily known in the art to use a quench line in systems such as that of Acikgoz in order to avoid excess cracking, minimize fouling, control cracking severity, and increase process flexibility (see Harandi, paragraphs [0010] and [0048]) (see Dean, paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Acikgoz to provide a quench line in order to achieve the same benefits noted by Harandi and Dean.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights