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 18652185 filed 5/1/24.
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 7/24/25 and 5/20/24 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 5/1/24 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 1-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOYAL ET AL. (US 4832823) in its entirety. Hereby referred to as GOYAL.
Regarding claims 1-12 and 14-21:
GOYAL teaches in the abstract - An improved coking process is described wherein a feedstock comprising residual oil is passed into a coking zone along with a highly aromatic oil such as pyrolysis tars or a decanted oil produced from a fluidized catalytic cracking zone in a concentration resulting in the feedstock having from about 5 to about 20 percent by weight of highly aromatic oil. The yield of coke is thereby reduced.
GOYAL teaches a delayed coking process for production of coke wherein a feedstock comprising residual oil boiling in a range of from about 850 F. to about 1250 F. is passed into a coking drum at coking conditions to effect the production of fuel grade or anode grade coke, liquid and gaseous products from said feedstock, an improvement wherein said feedstock is mixed with decanted oil having above about 60 percent of its carbon atoms as aromatic carbon and boiling in a range of from about 400 F. to about 1150 F., the resulting feedstock mixture contains from above about 5 to about 20 percent by weight of said decanted oil, and said coking conditions include a coke drum temperature of less than about 950 F., to thereby reduce the yield of coke from said feedstock compared to the yield of coke if said decanted oil were not present in the feedstock. Thus it is further characterized in that said highly aromatic oil comprises decanted oil derived from a bottom fraction from a fluidized catalytic cracking process fractionation column. (see claims 1 and 3 of GOYAL)
GOYAL teaches in FIGURE 1 - In FIG. 1 a gas oil passes through line 6 into catalytic cracking zone 1, which normally is a fluidized catalytic cracking process operation, in which the gas oil contacts a fluidized catalyst and is projected through a riser-type reactor after which the spent catalyst is separated from reaction products and regenerated by contact with air and reused in the reaction zone. Hydrocarbon products which generally constitute lighter materials are removed from the catalytic cracking zone 1 via line 7 and pass into fractionator 2, called a main column in the refining industry.
(2) From fractionator 2, gaseous materials comprising C4 - materials are removed through line 8. Gasoline is removed via line 9, and light and heavy cycle oils can be removed from via lines 10 and 11 respectively. The light and heavy cycle oils may be recycled together with the fresh feed passing through line 6.
(3) From the bottom of fractionator 2 there is removed a heavy bottoms fraction through line 12. This heavy bottom fraction passes into settler 3. The heavy bottoms fraction passing through line 12 is generally called slurry oil. Slurry oil generally contains up to a few weight percent of entrained catalytic cracking catalyst which is carried over from the cracking zone 1 into the fractionator 2. The slurry oil generally boils within a boiling range of from about 450 F. to about 1150 F. From settler 3, a stream comprising a very high concentration of catalyst can be removed via line 14 and a decanted oil stream is removed via line 13. The decanted oil is essentially the same as the slurry oil except that it contains much less entrained catalyst. Typically a decanted oil will contain up to about two weight percent of fluidized catalytic cracking catalyst solids.
(4) In this specification, slurry oil and decanted oil can be characterized as the same material, namely the heavy fraction which is derived from the bottom of the fractionator receiving the fluidized catalytic cracking zone reaction products.
(5) In cases where the slurry oil is passed into a settler or a side reboiler on fractionator 2, the material passing into the coking zone can be characterized as a decanted oil. The function of slurry oil or the decanted oil is the same in the coking zone, namely, to decrease coke production and help increase liquid production from the coking zone.
(6) Coking zone 4 can comprise a fluidized bed coker or a delayed coker. Passing into the coking zone through line 16 is a residual oil feedstock. A highly aromatic oil, as defined hereinafter, passes through line 25 into line 16 along with the residual oil and into coking zone 4. The highly aromatic oil can comprise decanted oil and, in such case, can pass directly from settler 3 via line 13 into line 16 and into coking zone 4. In instances where heavy oil from fractionator 5 is recycled to coking zone 4 through line 15 it can be blended with the residual oil feedstock passing through line 16.
(7) From coking zone 4 a solid coke product can be removed via line 17 and upgraded liquid and gaseous vapor products can be removed through line 18 which passes into fractionator 5 (referred to in the industry as a combination tower). From fractionator 5 a C4 - gaseous stream is removed via line 19. Through line 20 and other lines as are needed on the fractionator, the other liquid products produced from the coker can be removed. These include gasoline, distillates, gas oil and heavier residual-type materials. The heaviest materials from fractionator 5 can be removed through the bottom line 21. If this material is to be recycled to the coking zone through line 15, valve 23 can be opened. If no recycle to the coking zone of the heavy materials from fractionator 5 is desired these materials can be removed through open valve 24 via line 22.
(8) Sometimes distillate recycle materials from fractionator 5 can pass through line 26 and be added to the feed in line 16 passing into the coking zone.
GOYAL teaches in col. 7 ln 16-26 - The term "highly aromatic oil' as used herein, means a liquid derived from cracking or conversion of crude oil, tar sands, coal, shale or other hydrocarbon sources including pyrolysis tar from ethylene and propylene cracking furnaces which contains above about 60 percent of its carbon atoms as aromatic carbon and boils within a boiling range from about 400 F. to about 1150 F. when measured using the standard ASTM D-1160 test method at 1 millimeter mercury pressure.
From the teachings of the reference 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.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process by varying the claimed ranges; however, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary. Especially, 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).
Furthermore, 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. Moreover, 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)
Still, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Additionally, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable
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