DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/659,201 application filed 9 May 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/210,818, now U.S. Patent No. 12,018,216, filed 16 June 2023, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/045,314, now U.S. Patent No. 11,692,141, filed 10 October 2022. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-29 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification” [In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322]. In the instant case, a FCC unit has been interpreted as comprising “two main components-a reactor and a regenerator” [see paragraph 0003 of the instant specification].
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the last step of the claim recites “separating the coked FCC catalyst from the one or more FCC hydrocarbon products the FCC unit.” It appears that the phrase in italics is missing a preposition. Perhaps the claim should recite “separating the coked FCC catalyst from the one or more FCC hydrocarbon products in the FCC unit.” Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 4, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 4 (for instant claim 4) and 7 and 14 (for instant claim 11) and (7 and 18 for instant claim 15) of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,018,216. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-9, 13, 15-17, 19-20, 22-29, and 10-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,018,216. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims of the patent are more particular and clearly anticipate the independent claims of the instant application. The remaining claims of each recite the same or substantially the same limitations.
Claims 7-8, 10, 12-13, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7-9, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,037,548. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims of the patent are more particular and clearly anticipate the independent claims of the instant application. The remaining claims of each recite the same or substantially the same limitations.
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.
Claims 2-3, 7-15, and 27-29 are 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.
Claims 2-3 and 7 recite the limitations "the one or more FCC hydrocarbon products" in lines 3, 4, and 12, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps the claims should recite "the one or more
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. With respect to claim 27, said claim is concerned with a process (oxidation of fluidized plastic) and does not further limit the structure of the system. With respect to claims 28-29, said claims are concerned with an article worked upon by the claimed system (“the fluidized plastic”) and not the actual structure of the system. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 7-15 and 23-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradeep et al (US 2022/0041940).
With respect to claim 7, Pradeep et al discloses “[a] method for co-conversion of plastics and hydrocarbons into lighter distillate products, the method comprising of: a) spray feeding hydrocarbon feed in the bottom section of the riser reactor through the injection nozzles; b) feeding hot regenerated catalyst from the regenerator vessel into the bottom section of the riser reactor to allow contacting with hydrocarbon feed; c) feeding a lift fluidization media into the bottom section of the riser reactor; d) conveying the waste plastic from the supply vessel to the bottom section of riser, to allow thermal decomposition of plastic material into lighter molecules and catalytic cracking of the same by contacting with the catalyst particles during the upward motion through riser reactor; e) separation of catalyst and product vapors by means of riser termination devices; f) separation of hydrocarbon molecules from the catalyst by steam stripping in the stripper vessel; and g) separation of product vapors into different product fractions like Naphtha, Light cycle oil, Heavy cycle oil, clarified oil etc by fractionator column” [claim 1], wherein “[s]team used for dilution and quenching of the hydrocarbons, is maintained in the range of 3-50% of the feed depending upon the quality of hydrocarbon feedstock” [paragraph 0062]. Steam used for dilution of the hydrocarbon feed appears to be at least a component of the lift fluidization media. Pradeep et al also discloses “[t]he liquid hydrocarbon feedstock to be used in the process is selected from hydrocarbon feedstocks like fractions starting from carbon number of 5 in naphtha to vacuum gasoil, vacuum residue, atmospheric residue, deasphalted oils, shale oil, coal tar, clarified oil, residual oils, heavy waxy distillates, foots oil, slop oil or blends of such hydrocarbons having carbon Number. more than 100” [paragraph 0049]. Steps a)-d) of the preceding disclosure correspond to the introducing, mixing and injecting steps of instant claim 7. Note that the reference discloses that the addition of waste plastic is for “heat management in fluid catalytic cracking” and effective conversion of said plastic to fuel (i.e., optimization of one or more hydrocarbon product yields, specifically, those that may be utilized as a fuel) [paragraph 0007; see also paragraphs 0080 & 0081].] The recovery of different product fractions such as Naphtha, Light cycle oil, Heavy cycle oil, and clarified oil renders obvious the recited passing step wherein an outlet of the FCC unit directs products to the fractionator column. Last, Pradeep et al discloses “the physical form of waste plastic is selected from the group consisting of granules, powder, crushed chunks, slurry, melt or combination thereof” [paragraph 0024].
With respect to claim 8, Pradeep et al discloses “[t]he process of the present invention is exemplified by, but not limited to FIG. 1. In the process described in FIG. 1, the waste plastics granules are supplied to the plastic supply vessel (34) through a pneumatic conveying system, or a mechanical conveying system used typically for transport of waste plastic granules from a storage vessel. Waste plastics from plastic supply vessel (34) are supplied to the riser bottom section through a pipe (38) under the flow rate controlled by a rotary airlock valve (37). An option for inert gas injection by means of a gas supply ring (36) is provided in the plastic supply vessel (34) to avoid any choking. The plastic supply vessel is kept at desired pressure in the range of 1 to 2 Kg/cm2g, to enable pressure balance of the whole unit in operation by means of a pressure control valve (40) provided in the gas line (39). The hydrocarbon feed (30) enters the bottom of the riser reactor (32) through the injection nozzles (31) and sprayed inside the riser bottom section into micron sized droplets. These are contacted by the hot regenerated catalyst supplied to the riser bottom section through a regenerated catalyst standpipe (46) & slide valves (47) from a regenerator vessel (45). A lift fluidization media (33) is also supplied to the riser bottom. When the waste plastics enter the high temperature environment of the riser bottom section, initially the plastic material is thermally decomposed into lighter molecules. Then these molecules generated from thermal decomposition are catalytically cracked into further lighter hydrocarbon molecules by contacting with the catalyst particles during the upward motion of the catalyst and vapors in the riser. The catalyst and product vapors are separated at the end of the riser reactor by means of riser termination devices such as closed coupled cyclones well known in the art of FCC and the entrained hydrocarbon molecules are separated from the catalyst further by steam stripping in the stripper vessel (41). The product vapors (42) from top of the stripper vessel are routed to the main fractionator column for separation into different product fractions like naphtha, light cycle oil, heavy cycle oil, clarified oil etc. The steam stripped catalyst is sent to the regenerator vessel (45) through a spent catalyst standpipe (43), flow of which is controlled by the spent catalyst slide valve (44). The coke laden catalyst is regenerated in the regenerator vessel (45) by burning off the coke in the presence of air (49) supplied through distributor such as sparger systems well known in the art of FCC at the bottom section” [paragraph 0064]. From the description above, it is clear that the waste plastics enter the riser through a nozzle located above (or downstream of) the
PNG
media_image1.png
558
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
hydrocarbon (gasoil) feed injection point [see also figure below].
With respect to claims 9 and 12-13, since the process of Pradeep et al is the same or similar as that of the instant application, it is expected that the results of the process are the same or similar as well such as increasing a regenerator temperature.
With respect to claim 10, the inlet for pipe 38 corresponds to the recited pre-stripping steam inlet.
With respect to claim 11, Pradeep et al discloses “the waste plastic is selected from the group consisting of polystyrene, polypropylene, [and] polyethylene” [paragraph 0023]. The teaching of polyethylene renders obvious LDPE and HDPE. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that, for example, polypropylene has a density less than 1.0 g cm-3, such as 0.9 g cm-3.
With respect to claim 15, given that Pradeep et al teaches that the addition of waste plastic is for “heat management in fluid catalytic cracking” and effective conversion of said plastic to fuel, it would have been obvious to use a controller to ensure proper heat management and effective conversion of plastic to fuel while via the delivery of waste plastic.
With respect to claim 23, the location where the hydrocarbon feed (30) enters the bottom of the riser reactor (32) through the injection nozzles (31) and sprayed inside the riser bottom section into micron sized droplets; the hot regenerated catalyst is supplied to the riser bottom section through a regenerated catalyst standpipe (46) & slide valves (47); and the lift fluidization media (33) is supplied to the riser bottom corresponds, at least in part, to the riser of the instant claim. The riser reactor 32 corresponds to the reactor of the instant claim. The teaching that “[t]he product vapors (42) [exiting] from [the] top of the stripper vessel are routed to the main fractionator column” corresponds to the first outlet stream (iii), and the teaching that “[t]he catalyst and product vapors are separated at the end of the riser reactor by means of riser termination devices such as closed coupled cyclone” corresponds to the separation zone (ii) of the instant claim. The regenerator vessel 45 corresponds to the recited regenerator, wherein regenerator 45 has two inlets and two outlets.
With respect to claim 24, see prior discussion of stripping vessel 41.
With respect to claim 26, Pradeep et al discloses “there is a bottleneck being faced in the operation of regenerator at high temperature while operating the unit at high severities and higher coke yields. This problem is mainly due to the excess heat generated in the regenerator while burning off the excessive coke which is generated while processing of heavy feeds. This excess heat in the regenerator results in reduction in the hot regenerated catalyst flow into the riser reactor, since the set point of the riser outlet temperature controls the flow rate of the regenerated catalyst withdrawn from the regenerator vessel. When the fluid catalytic cracking unit is desired to be operated at high severities, this excess heat is desired to be removed by means of installing a ‘catalyst cooler’ in the regenerator. In view of these, it is desired to have a process which can address the issue of heat management in fluid catalytic cracking as well as enable effective conversion of waste plastic to fuel within the petroleum refinery…Another objective of the present invention is to utilize the excess thermal energy of hot regenerated catalyst in high severity FCC units to enable thermal and catalytic cracking of the waste plastics to valuable lighter hydrocarbons like light olefins, LPG, gasoline etc.” [paragraphs 0007 & 0012]. The determination of excess heat generated in a regenerator renders obvious the recited temperature sensor positioned in the regenerator. The recited controller would have been obvious as discussed above. Note that since the claims are not necessarily in fluid communication with, say, fluidized plastic, the fluidized plastic is not considered a part of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
17 December 2025