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 23 January 2026 comprising 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 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, 7-9, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Towler (US 2009/0163351) in view of Owen (US 5,128,109).
Regarding claims 1, Towler teaches regenerating spent catalyst 23 from stripper 18 in a first regeneration stage 36 to produce a partially regenerated catalyst, regenerating the partially regenerated catalyst in second regeneration stage 32 to produce a fully regenerated catalyst 20 and providing a first portion of the fully regenerated catalyst 20 to riser reactor 16; generating the spent catalyst 23 with the riser 16 and providing the spent catalyst to stripping vessel 18 (see figure 2, [0031-0044].
Towler does not explicitly disclose sending a second portion of the fully regenerated catalyst to the stripper vessel to mix with the spent catalyst.
However, Owen teaches sending regenerated catalyst to mix with spent catalyst in stripping zone, in order to improve heat transfer and stripping (column 5, line 15-column 6, line 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Owen mixing of regenerated catalyst with spent catalyst, for the benefit of improving the stripping.
Regarding claims 2-5, Owen teaches stripping temperatures of up to about 1500°F, regenerated: spent ratios of 1:10 to 10:1 (column 13, lines 1-20) and residence times of 1-7 minutes (column 7, lines 50-56). Examiner further notes it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected stripping pressures, as is known in the art, for the benefit of obtaining the desired separations. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claims 6-13 and 18-20, Towler teaches using oxygen, steam, carbon dioxide, or mixtures thereof in the regeneration/gasification zones [0018], [0035]. Towler teaches the two stage regeneration provides improved syn gas 38 [0040]. Examiner notes that Towler disclosure includes transfer lines to convey the materials as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used appropriate control valves, in order to transfer the appropriate amounts of materials, as is well known in the art.
Regarding claims 15-17, Owen teaches the conditions as discussed with respect to claims 2-5 above. Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have implemented appropriate temperature control equipment, as known in the art, for the benefit of obtaining the desired temperatures.
Claims 11, 14-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Towler (US 2009/0163351) in view of Owen (US 5,128,109) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gulec (Progress in the CO2 capture technologies for fcc units).
Regarding claims 11, 14, and 21-23, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not teach separate gas outlets for the synthesis gas and flue gas.
However, Gulec teaches a two stage regeneration process for an FCC reactor with two separate gas outlets, so that CO may be recovered and supplied to different processes (see page 8, figure 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a two stage regeneration unit, as described by Gulec, in order to recover the separate gases and route as appropriate.
Regarding claims 15-17, Owen teaches the conditions as discussed with respect to claims 2-5 above. Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have implemented appropriate temperature control equipment, as known in the art, for the benefit of obtaining the desired temperatures.
Regarding claims 19-20, Towler teaches using oxygen, steam, carbon dioxide, or mixtures thereof in the regeneration/gasification zones [0018], [0035]. Towler teaches the two stage regeneration provides improved syn gas 38 [0040]. Examiner notes that Towler disclosure includes transfer lines to convey the materials as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used appropriate control valves, in order to transfer the appropriate amounts of materials, as is well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments to be:
The prior art does not teach a synthesis gas outlet and a flue gas outlet, wherein the synthesis gas outlet is separate from the flue gas outlet.
In response to Applicant’s first argument, Examiner notes that only claims 11, 14-17, 19-23 require separate outlets. The rejections of these claims have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
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