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 .
Office Action Summary
This is the initial office action for application 18644774 filed 04/24/2024.
Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PRETZ (USPGPUB 2020/0197891).
PRETZ teaches reactor systems for fluid recycling.
The system is taught in paragraphs 4-5 and 23 to be non-limited to producing light olefins from hydrocarbon streams. Fig 1 details one such hydrocarbon conversion system designed to produce light olefins.
Product stream 380 is taught in paragraph 48 to be passed to a product processing system 500. Product stream 380 is taught in paragraph 26 to be gaseous. Product stream 380 is taught in paragraph 32 to include unreacted materials, intermediate materials and byproducts. The product processing system 500 is taught in paragraph 32 to remove catalyst fines and other particulate solids from product stream 380. (providing a reaction product comprising a hydrocarbon gas and solids)
PRETZ teaches a venturi contactor 612 in paragraph 61. In some embodiments, the inlet to the venturi contractor 612 may be the product stream inlet 520 of the product processing system 500, which receives the product stream 380. PRETZ further teaches in paragraph 69 that examples of gas/fluid contactors include particulate scrubbers. (introducing the reaction product into a venturi-style scrubber)
Liquid phase quench fluids, such as riser quench liquid 386 and product quench fluids 510 are pumped to the Venturi contractor. Particulate solids from a gaseous product stream are transferred to the liquid phase of the quench fluid. (introducing a scrubbing liquid into the Venturi-type scrubber)
PRETZ teaches in paragraph 62 that quench fluid introduced into the Venturi contractor 612 has a temperature lower than that of the product stream 380. (scrubbing liquid is at a lower temperature than the reaction product)
PRETZ teaches in paragraph 62 that contacting and mixing of the product stream 380 with quench liquid in the Venturi contractor 612 transfers particulate solids from the gaseous phase of the product stream 380 to the liquid phase of the quench liquid. The mixture of product stream 380 and the quench fluid are sent to a quench tower 528. (producing form the Venturi-type scrubber a multi-phase product comprising a scrubbed reaction product and a spent scrubbing liquid, the scrubbed reaction product comprising the hydrocarbon gas and the spent scrubbing liquid comprising the scrubbing fluid and the solids)
PRETZ teaches in paragraphs 48 and 68 that a portion of the quench fluid can be separated in product processing section 500 and passed out in stream 514. (separating the hydrocarbon gas from the multi-phase liquid)
Processed product stream 512 exits product processing section 500 and is taught in paragraph 50 to be substantially free of particulate solids, having less than 0.1wt% of particulate solids.
Although having less 0.1 wt% of particulate solids, do not necessarily indicate that 90% or more of the solids in the product stream 380 was transferred to the quench liquids, it would suggest that substantially all of the particulate solids are removed from the product stream 380 by the product processing section 500 and 90% or more would be within the ranges of outcomes. For example, a product stream comprising 1 wt% of particulate solids would have 90% or more of the solids transferred if the processed product stream 512 comprises 0.1 wt% of particulate solids.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the invention a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 21, PRETZ teaches in paragraph 25 and Fig 1 a reactor system 102 with a reactor portion 200. Product stream 380 exits from the top of reactor system 102 through a pipe 420. (reactor having an overheads outlet)
PRETZ teaches a venturi contactor 612 in paragraph 61. In some embodiments, the inlet to the venturi contractor 612 may be the product stream inlet 520 of the product processing system 500, which receives the product stream 380. PRETZ further teaches in paragraph 69 that examples of gas/fluid contactors include particulate scrubbers. (Venturi-type scrubber comprising a first inlet fluidly connected to the overheads outlet via an overhead line)
A Venturi loop 610 is taught in paragraph 61 to supply liquid phase quench fluids into venturi contractor 612. (second outlet fluidly connected to a scrubbing fluid line)
Venturi contractor 512 output a mixture of product stream 380 and quench fluid. (an outlet for a multi phase stream) The venturi contractor 612 is taught in paragraph 62 to be fluidly coupled to the product inlet 580 of the quench tower 528. (a separation tower configured to receive the multi-phase stream after at least a partial removal of solids)
The quench fluid is taught in paragraphs 34 and 44 to include liquid hydrocarbons. (scrubbing fluid comprising a hydrocarbon)
Regarding claim 15, the product stream 380 is taught in paragraph 32 to comprise unreacted materials, as well as intermediate species and byproducts formed. The product stream is taught in paragraph 24 to include light olefins or other chemical products. The feed stream is taught in paragraph 24 to include at least one of propane, butane and ethane.
Regarding claim 16, PRETZ teaches in paragraph 29 that the catalyst may be contaminated with coke. The catalyst fines that may be present in product stream 380 would also be expected to be contaminated with coke.
Regarding claim 6, the product stream 380 is taught in paragraph 32 to comprise unreacted materials, as well as intermediate species and byproducts formed. The product stream is taught in paragraph 24 to include light olefins or other chemical products. The feed stream is taught in paragraph 24 to include at least one of ethylbenzene.
Regarding claim 9, the product stream 380 is taught in paragraph 32 to comprise catalyst fines.
Regarding claim 7, the processed product stream 512 is taught in paragraph 48 to be at a temperature of from 50 C to 500 C lower than the temperature of the product stream 380. The range of temperature drops overlap those of from about 410 C to about 450 C.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, the quench fluids are taught in paragraphs 34 and 44 to include liquid hydrocarbons from 6 to 20 carbon atoms. A range of liquid hydrocarbons from 6 to 20 carbon atoms overlap those of hydrocarbons having 7 or more carbon atoms.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, PRETZ teaches in paragraphs 61-62 wherein a mixture of the product stream 380 and quench fluid is sent to a quench tower 528. PRETZ teaches in paragraph 56 product stream 380 flows upward through the quench tower 528 to gas outlet 582. PRETZ teaches in paragraph 56 to comprise a liquid outlet 590 that allows for recycling quench fluid to the Venturi contractor.
Regarding claim 13 and 19, PRETZ teaches in paragraph 9, that generally, a portion of the catalyst may be separated from the product stream in a catalyst separation section downstream of the reactor system. Although PRETZ teaches in paragraph 8 that the catalyst separation section may be before the product process system 500, it is recognized by PRETZ in paragraph 93 that various modifications may be made.
Adding a catalyst separation section after Venturi contractor 612 and before quench tower 528 would be an obvious modification to further remove catalysts.
Regarding claims 12, 14, 18, and 20, PRETZ also teaches in paragraph 56 a liquid outlet 584 wherein stream 514 exits. Stream 514 is taught in paragraph 45 to comprise a liquid and a portion of the rise quench liquid recovered from product stream 380. Stream 514 is taught in paragraph 54 to be fed into a product-side solids concentrator 504 to separate catalyst particles to produce catalyst fines 516 and stream 518.
Although PRETZ teaches in paragraph 55 recycling stream 518 comprising a portion of the riser quench fluid to the reactor 202, PRETZ also teaches in paragraph 56 the quench tower 528 comprises a quench fluid recycle outlet 586 and quench fluid recycle inlet 588.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle a portion of stream 518 to quench fluid recycle inlet 588 or to add a product side solids concentrator between the quench fluid recycle outlet 586 and quench fluid recycle inlet 588 to improve the recycling of the quench fluid.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PRETZ (USPGPUB 2020/0197891) as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11-21 above, and further in view of MACHON et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0275166).
The above discussion of PRETZ is incorporated herein by reference.
PRETZ teaches a Venturi contactor that may be a scrubber. A Venturi scrubber operates by having accelerating through a restricted throat section.
MACHON et al. teach general information on Venturi scrubbers in paragraphs 51, 109, and 145-152.
Venturi scrubbers are taught in paragraph 152 to generally be operated at a gas velocity at the throat of between 100 to 400 ft/s.
Given that the general range for operating a gas velocity at the throat of a Venturi scrubber is known, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a gas velocity of the throat between about 175 ft/s to about 225 ft/s.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PRETZ (USPGPUB 20200197891) as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11-21 above, and further in view of BRAEMER (U.S. 3638925)
The above discussion of PRETZ is incorporated herein by reference.
BRAEMER teaches an adjustable annular Venturi scrubber.
BRAEMER teaches in Fig 1, and lines 1-20 of column 3, the setup of the adjustable annular Venturi scrubber. The Venturi scrubber comprises an approach section which is defined by the inverted frustoconical baffle. Dirty gas stream enters through the vertical oriented conduit 2. One or a plurality of horizontal pipes 6 that are oriented adjacent to the upper inner surface of baffle 5 may be used to discharge a scrubbing liquid. An additional scrubbing liquid stream 7 may pass into the approach section via pipe 8.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the to adopt details of the Venturi scrubber such as the plurality of horizontal pipes 6 and an additional scrubbing liquid stream 7 to the Venturi contactor in PRETZ.
BRAEMER teaches in lines 1-44 of column 2 that advantages of using the adjustable annular Venturi scrubber taught by BRAEMER includes better distribution of scrubbing liquid.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, dirty gas stream enters through the vertical oriented conduit 2 (first inlet at entry portion). One or a plurality of horizontal pipes 6 that are oriented adjacent to the upper inner surface of baffle 5 (second inlet at entry portion) may be used to discharge a scrubbing liquid.
Regarding claims 3 and 23, dirty gas stream enters through the vertical oriented conduit 2 (first inlet at entry portion). An additional scrubbing liquid stream 7 may pass into the approach section via pipe 8. (second inlet at a converging cone portion)
Regarding claim 4, one or a plurality of horizontal pipes 6 that are oriented adjacent to the upper inner surface of baffle 5 may be used to discharge a scrubbing liquid. (first inlet at entry portion). An additional scrubbing liquid stream 7 may pass into the approach section. (second inlet at a converging cone portion)
Regarding claim 5, BRAEMER teaches that scrubbing liquid may enter through pipes 6 or via pipe 8.
A ratio of 1:99 to 99:1 covers a very broad range and it appears well within one of ordinary skill in the art to use a ratio within the claimed range given that BRAEMER also does not place limits on the ratio of scrubbing liquid that enters through pipes 6 or via pipe 8.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HEGARTY (US 4542114) teaches a process for the recovery and recycle of effluent gas from the regeneration of particulate matter with oxygen and carbon dioxide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771