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
This is a first action on the merits for this regular application filed on 08/18/2023
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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the catalyst separation vessel" in line3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The same applies to claim 15, line 2.
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 1-5 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomas et al. (US 2004/0104148 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lomas et al. discloses a method for controlling the catalyst flow ([0002] and [0047]; the space velocity in Lomas et al. method is equivalent to the amount present in a fluidized catalytic bed) in a fluidized catalytic processing system. Lomas et al. also teaches that the catalytic reactor (Fig.1:10) and the catalytic regenerator (Fig.1:66) may be shared with another fluidized catalytic system and another reactor [0042]. This means, and based on Figures 1-2 and 4, that there are several catalytic reactors and several catalyst regenerators (Fig.1:10, Fig.2:10’, Fig.1:66 and Fig.2:66) each reactor includes catalytic beds (Fig.1:22, 52) and each catalyst regenerator (Fig.1:66 and Fig.2:66) includes (the unlabeled catalytic beds in 66) a catalytic bed, and all the catalytic bed are connected to each other (Fig.1:62 and 24).
Lomas et al. further teaches that the method comprising:
determining the amount ([0031] controlling space velocity in a fluidized catalytic reactor is equivalent to determining the amount of catalyst present in the bed) of catalyst present in a catalyst bed of the fluidized catalytic processing system, wherein the fluidized catalytic processing system comprises a first catalyst bed, a second catalyst bed, a third catalyst bed, and a fourth catalyst bed, wherein:
the first catalyst bed (Fig.1:22; [0041-0042]) is in fluid communication (Fig.1:44 and 54) with the second catalyst bed (Fig.1:52);
the second catalyst bed (Fig.1:52; [0042]) is in fluid communication (Fig.1:62) with the third catalyst bed (unlabeled catalytic bed in Fig.1:66);
the third catalyst bed (Fig.2:22’; [0051-0053]) is in fluid communication (Fig.2:44 and 54) with the fourth catalyst bed (Fig.2:52);
the fourth catalyst bed (Fig.2:52) is in fluid communication (Fig.2:62 and [0042] the spent catalyst may deliver spent catalyst to another reactor) with the first catalyst bed (Fig.1:36 and 22);
the catalyst circulates [0042-0042] from the first catalyst bed (Fig.1:22) to the second catalyst bed (Fig.1:52), from the second catalyst bed (Fig.1:52) to the third catalyst bed (unlabeled catalytic bed in Fig.1:66), from the third catalyst bed (unlabeled catalytic bed in Fig.1:66) to the fourth catalyst bed (Fig.2:52), and from the fourth catalyst bed (Fig.2:52) to the first catalyst bed (Fig.1:22); and
flow (Fig.1:62) from the second catalyst bed (Fig.1:52) to the third catalyst bed (unlabeled catalytic bed in Fig.1:66) is regulated (Fig.1:64) to adjust the amount of catalyst in the second catalyst bed ([0042] part of the spent catalyst in second catalyst bed 52 is moved to catalyst regenerator 66 and some are recycled to the first catalyst bed 22 via 26);
comparing [0048] the amount of catalyst present in the first catalyst bed (Fig.1:22) with a threshold catalyst amount; when the amount of catalyst present in the first catalyst bed is greater than or equal to the threshold catalyst amount;
As to the limitation that regulating the flow of catalyst from the second catalyst bed to the third catalyst bed such that a normal operating target amount of catalyst is maintained in the second catalyst bed, Lomas et al. teaches controlling the amounts of catalysts throughout the reactor system. And also teaches maintaining the amounts of catalysts in the catalyst beds according to a set point [0048]. Therefor, Lomas et al. teaches maintaining and controlling the amounts of catalysts in all the catalyst beds, including the second catalyst bed, the third catalyst bed and the fourth catalyst bed. And
when the amount of catalyst present in the first catalyst bed [0047-0048] is less than the threshold catalyst amount,
As to the limitation that regulating flow of catalyst from the second catalyst bed to the third catalyst bed such that an increased target amount of catalyst is maintained in the second catalyst bed; Lomas et al. teaches controlling the amounts of catalysts throughout the reactor system. And also teaches maintaining the amounts of catalysts in the catalyst beds according to a set point [0048] where the catalyst amount can either be increased or decreased [0048]. Therefor, Lomas et al. teaches increasing or decreasing the amounts of catalysts in all the catalyst beds, including the second catalyst bed, the third catalyst bed and the fourth catalyst bed.
Lomas et al. appears silent to explicitly number the catalyst beds (Fig.1:22, 52 and in 66) as catalyst bed 1 through catalyst bed 4.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would place numbers on Lomas et al. catalyst beds in order to insure and identify that a thorough mixing of fluid reactants and particulate catalyst occurs in each numbered catalyst bed [0036]. 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 to assign a number to each of one Lomas et al. catalyst beds in order to insure and identify that a thorough mixing of fluid reactants and particulate catalyst occurs in each numbered catalyst bed.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Lomas et al. teaches lowering or increasing the space velocity (amount of catalyst in the catalyst bed) in the catalyst bed [0048] as compared to a set point. Lomas et al. also teaches recycling some of the spent catalyst ([0042] and Fig.1:26).
As to the limitations that an insufficient amount of catalyst is passed from the fourth catalyst bed to the first catalyst bed and an insufficient amount of catalyst is recycled from the second catalyst bed to the first catalyst bed; Lomas et al. teaches controlling and correcting the amounts of catalysts flowing (including recycled spent catalysts) throughout the reactor system. And also teaches maintaining the amounts of catalysts in the catalyst beds according to a set point [0048] where the catalyst amount can either be increased or decreased [0048]. Therefore, Lomas et al. teaches increasing or decreasing the amounts of catalysts in all the catalyst beds, including the second catalyst bed, the third catalyst bed and the fourth catalyst bed.
Regarding claim 3, Lomas et al. teaches lowering or increasing the space velocity (amount of catalyst in the catalyst bed) in the catalyst bed [0048] as compared to a set point. Lomas et al. also teaches adjusting controllable valve (Fig.1:18 and [0043) that is in a conduit fluidly coupling the fourth catalyst bed (unlabeled catalytic bed in Fig.1:66) and the first catalyst bed (Fig.1:22).
Regarding claim 5, Lomas et al. teaches that the amount of catalyst present in a first catalyst bed of the catalytic processing system is determined [0031 and 0047] by a differential pressure spanning a height of the first catalyst bed.
Regarding claim 8, Lomas et al. discloses regulating the flow of catalyst from the second catalyst bed (Fig.1:52; [0042]) to the third catalyst bed (Fig.2:22’; [0051-0053]) comprises adjusting a valve (Fig.1:64 and 18; [0042-0043]) positioned in a conduit (Fig.1:62 and 24) fluidly coupling the second catalyst bed and the third catalyst bed.
Regarding claim 9, Lomas et al. discloses that the second catalyst bed (Fig.1:52; [0042]) comprises a dense fluidized bed.
Regarding claim 10, Lomas et al. discloses that the third catalyst bed (Fig.2:22’; [0051-0053]) is in a catalyst treatment vessel ([0054]; preventing catalyst from falling out of entrainment with the product vapor).
Regarding claim 11, Lomas et al. discloses that the fourth catalyst bed (Fig.2:52) is in a second catalyst separation vessel (Fig.2:10’).
Regarding claim 12, Lomas et al. discloses that the second catalyst bed (Fig.1:52; [0042]) is in a first catalyst separation vessel (Fig.1:10).
Regarding claim 13, Lomas et al. discloses that the first catalyst separation vessel ([0038—0039 and 0042]; Fig.1:10) comprises a cylindrical section (Fig.1:12) and a frustoconical section ( the frustoconical section of separation section 16 as shown in Fig.1), where the frustoconical section (Fig.1:16) is positioned above the cylindrical section (Fig.1:12), and where the frustoconical section (Fig.1:16) has an average cross-sectional area larger than a cross- sectional area of the cylindrical section (Fig.1:12).
Regarding claim 14, Lomas et al. teaches that the flow of the catalyst from the second catalyst bed (Fig.1:52; [0042]) to the third catalyst bed (Fig.2:22’; [0051-0053]) is regulated such that an upper surface of the second catalyst bed (unlabeled upper surface of 52 where outlet conduits 78 are located as shown in Fig.1) does not pass below the frustoconical section (the frustoconical section of separation section 16 as shown in Fig.1) of the catalyst separation vessel.
Regarding claim 15, Lomas et al. teaches that the catalyst separation vessel ([0038—0039 and 0042]; Fig.1:10) comprises a cyclone (Fig.1:70; [0042]) having dipleg (Fig.1:72) extending into the frustoconical section and the flow of the catalyst from the second catalyst bed (Fig.1:52; [0042]) to the third catalyst bed (Fig.2:22’; [0051-0053]) is regulated such that an upper surface of the second catalyst bed (Fig.1:74 and [0042]) does not pass above the dipleg (Fig.1:72) of the cyclone.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art found (Lomas et al.) does not teach or fairly suggest that the increased target amount of catalyst is within 10% of the sum of an adjustment factor. And regarding claim 7, the closest prior art found (Lomas et al.) does not teach or fairly suggest that the adjustment factor is within 10% of a difference between the amount of catalyst in the first bed and the threshold catalyst amount in the first bed when the amount of catalyst in the first bed is less than the threshold catalyst amount in the first bed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798