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 10 December 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2, 4, 6-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 11,434,437).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 13, and 16, Zhang teaches passing a heavy hydrocarbon feedstock (2nd raw material crude oil) and a first catalyst to a first reaction zone (first reaction tube) to produces a first cracked effluent and a first spent catalyst with coke deposited therein (column 3, lines 50-column 4, line 10 and column 4, lines 54-60), passing a light hydrocarbon feed (third raw material, condensate oil) to a second cracking reaction to produce a second cracked effluent and a second spent catalyst with coke deposited thereon (column 4, lines 11-30 and column 4, line 65-column 5, line 5) and passing the first and spent second catalyst to common regenerator to form spent catalyst to recycle back to the first and second stages without supplemental fuel or catalyst coolers (columns 7-8, see figures).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the API gravity of the light and heavy feedstocks.
However, Examiner notes that the Zhang heavy crude and condensate feeds would have the same or similar API gravity ranges as claimed. See Applicant’s instant specification showing gas condensate API gravity of 52.26 and heavy crude oi API gravity of 26.8 (see [0077], table 2).
Therefore, it is expected and alternatively obvious that the Zhang feeds would have the same or similar API gravities as claimed, since they are the same feedstocks as identified in Applicant’s instant specification.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches first reaction zone operated at 600-800°C and the second reaction zone is run at 500-700°C (column 4, lines 30-40), which include ranges that are within 10°C of each other. Examiner notes that it further would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate temperatures, in order to achieve the desired conversion.
Regarding claims 9, 11, and 14, the api gravity of the feedstocks are addressed as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. Zhang teaches crude oil reaction at temperatures of 500-700°C and catalyst to oil ratio of 5-30 and residence time of 0.1-5 seconds (column 8, lines 10-60). The second reaction zone is run at temperatures of 500-700°C and catalyst oil ratios of 5-30 and residence time of .01-5 seconds (column 8, lines 10-60). Examiner notes that such ranges encompass the claimed ratio.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, it is expected that the same or similar results would be achieved, since the same process steps are applied to the same feeds at the same conditions, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang teaches downflow operation (column 4, lines 5-60).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang teaches heavy crude and condensate feeds, as discussed above. Examiner notes that the claim uses “the method comprising” language, which does not exclude additional feedstocks to the process.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 11,434,437) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abba (US 2013/0248421).
Regarding claim 3, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose hydrotreatment.
However, Abba teaches a similar process for cracking crude oil feeds. Abba teaches hydrotreating the feedstocks prior to cracking in order to remove undesirable compounds [0011].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Abba hydrotreatment step prior to cracking, for the benefit of removing contaminants.
Claims 5, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 11,434,437) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, alone, or further in view of Akah (US 2022/0098493)
Regarding claims 5, 17, and 20 the previous combination teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 16, as discussed above.
Zhang teaches cracking crude oil in one zone, and condensate in another (see column 4, lines 54-column 5, line 3).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose both feeds are unfractionated.
However, Examiner notes that Zhang teaches various light and heavy crude oils are suitable for cracking (column 5, lines 20-45). Examiner additionally notes that such crude oils can be treated by the same or similar catalysts (column 5, lines 20-45).
Therefore, it would be obvious to use the dual reaction zones and common regeneration for a light crude and a heavy crude, since both feeds use the same types of catalysts, and could benefit from the use of a common regeneration zone to reduce equipment.
Further, Akah teaches similar cracking for heavy and light crude oils [0039].
Therefore, it would be obvious to use the dual reaction zones and common regeneration for a light crude and a heavy crude, since both feeds use the same types of catalysts, and could benefit from the use of a common regeneration zone to reduce equipment.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches first reaction zone operated at 600-800°C and the second reaction zone is run at 500-700°C (column 4, lines 30-40), which include ranges that are within 10°C of each other. Examiner notes that it further would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate temperatures, in order to achieve the desired conversion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments to be:
Zhang does not disclose the API gravity of the crude/condensate feed.
Zhang feeds include additional components.
Regarding Applicant’s first argument, as discussed in the rejections, Zhang teaches the same crude/condensate feeds as claimed. Therefore, it is expected that the Zhang feeds would have the same or similar api gravity.
Regarding Applicant’s second argument, Examiner notes that the claims use “comprising” language, and do not exclude additional components.
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 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