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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18634148 filed 4/12/24.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 4/9/25 and 5/24/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 4/12/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOURANE ET AL. (US 11760945 B2) in its entirety. Hereby referred to as BOURANE.
Regarding claims 1-20:
BOURANE teaches passing the hydrocarbon feedstock (Figure 2(102)) to a first separation unit (Figure 2(104)) and separating the condensate feedstock into at least a light fraction stream (Figure 2(108)) and a heavy fraction stream, wherein (Figure 2(106)).
BOURANE teaches that the contents of the lesser boiling point fraction stream 108 may have a boiling point of at least 180° C. and less than or equal to 400° C., less than or equal to 350° C., less than or equal to 300° C., less than or equal to 250° C., or less than or equal to 200° C. The contents of the greater boiling point fraction stream 106 may have a boiling point of less than or equal to 400° C. and at least 180° C., at least 200° C., at least 250° C., at least 300° C., or at least 350° C. The greater boiling point fraction stream 106 may also be equal to or greater than 3 wt. % micro carbon residues (MCR). The greater boiling point fraction stream 106 may have a specific gravity of equal to or greater than 0.88. See col 8 ln 47-58).
BOURANE teaches it should further be understood that streams may be named for the components of the stream, and the component for which the stream is named may be the major component of the stream (such as comprising from 50 weight percent (wt. %), from 70 wt. %, from 90 wt. %, from 95 wt. %, from 99 wt. %, from 99.5 wt. %, or even from 99.9 wt. % of the contents of the stream to 100 wt. % of the contents of the stream). It should also be understood that components of a stream are disclosed as passing from one system component to another when a stream comprising that component is disclosed as passing from that system component to another. For example, a disclosed “flue gas stream” passing from a first system component to a second system component should be understood to equivalently disclose “flue gas” passing from a first system component to a second system component (col. 6 ln 33-48). In other words, BOURANE teaches at least 90 wt.% of the hydrocarbon feedstock is contained in the combination of the light fraction stream and the heavy fraction stream; cracking the light fraction stream in a light fraction FCC reactor to form a first FCC effluent (Figure 2(142)(146)).
BOURANE teaches cracking the heavy fraction stream in a heavy fraction FCC reactor to from a second FCC effluent, wherein the light fraction FCC reactor operates with more severe cracking conditions than the heavy fraction FCC reactor (Figure 2(122) (126)).
BOURANE teaches passing the first FCC effluent and the second FCC effluent to a second separation unit and forming a plurality of downstream separated streams (Figure 2(112)).
BOURANE teaches light crude oil as possible feedstock – {col. 6 ln 56-60 teaches - In certain embodiments the crude oil feedstock is a minimally treated light crude oil to provide a crude oil feedstock having total metals (Ni+V) content of less than 5 ppm and Conradson carbon residue of less than 5 wt %.}
BOURANE teaches a system for producing at least one petrochemical product from a hydrocarbon material, the system comprising: a first cracking reaction zone; a first separation zone downstream of the first cracking reaction zone; a first regeneration zone downstream of the first separation zone; a first stripping zone downstream of the first separation zone; a first riser positioned between the first stripping zone and the first regeneration zone; a second cracking reaction zone in parallel with the first cracking reaction zone; a second separation zone downstream of the second cracking reaction zone; a second regeneration zone downstream of the second separation zone, where the second regeneration zone is physically separated from the first regeneration zone; a second stripping zone downstream of the second separation zone; a second riser positioned between the second stripping zone and the second regeneration zone; and a flue gas flow path extending from the first regeneration zone to the second regeneration zone, the flue gas flow path comprising a particulate barrier for preventing a transfer of one or more spent catalysts between the first regeneration zone and the second regeneration zone. (claim 1 of BOURANE; also see Figure 2 and 3)
BOURANE teaches that the residence time of the mixture of first catalyst 124 and the greater boiling point fraction stream 106 in the first cracking reaction zone 122 may be from 0.2 seconds (sec) to 3 sec, from 0.2 sec to 2.5 sec, from 0.2 sec to 2 sec, from 0.2 sec to 1.5 sec, from 0.4 sec to 3 sec, from 0.4 sec to 2.5 sec, or from 0.4 sec to 2 sec, from 0.4 sec to 1.5 sec, from 1.5 sec to 3 sec, from 1.5 sec to 2.5 sec, from 1.5 sec to 2 sec, or from 2 sec to 3 sec. (col. 12 ln 3-10)
BOURANE does not explicitly teach condensate feedstock, however it is well within the scope of BOURANE teachings; as one skilled in the art would recognize BOURANE to disclose that choosing an alternative feedstock, would include the use of a condensate feedstock instead of a light crude feedstock, if said skilled oil formulator so desired.
Therefore, from the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
In addition, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that performing specific test or recognizing additional instrumentation for analysis or additional analysis or adding duplicate / repeating process steps would not have been expected to confer any particular desirable property on the final product. Rather, the final product obtained according to the claim limitations would merely have been expected to have the same functional properties as the prior art product; thereby meeting said claim limitations of claims 1-20.
Further, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Additionally, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 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 on 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 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.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771