DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/738,300 application filed 10 June 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial No., 18/210,778, now U.S. Patent No. 12,037,548, 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 1-28 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 cyclones, riser(s) and/or reactors [see column 2, lines 38 and 48-49; column 4, lines 60-62 of ‘141], and a regenerator [see column 7, lines 49-50; column 8, lines 63-64 of ‘141]. Additionally, a lighter hydrocarbon product has been interpreted as comprising “one or more of naphtha or liquefied petroleum gas” [see, e.g., paragraphs 0008 & 0046 of the instant specification]. Otherwise the term “lighter” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite since the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not otherwise provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 18-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 20-30 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,037,548. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “passing the FCC hydrocarbon products to a regenerator of the FCC unit” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The requirement of “passing the FCC hydrocarbon products to a regenerator of the FCC unit” in instant claim 1 does not appear to have support in U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/210,778. Applicant has argued that support for the amendment may be found in the “as-filed application at least at paragraphs [0045], [0046], [0052], and [0056]” [see remarks filed 21 March 2025]. It does not appear that support for the limitation may be found in the aforementioned paragraphs. However, the instant application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/210,778 [see paragraph 0001 of the instant specification] and, therefore, support must be found in the ‘778 application, not the as-filed application. If support for the limitation may only be found in the as-filed application, then the as-filed application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/210,778 and the priority date for claim 1 and its dependents is the filing date of the instant application.
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) 15 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freel et al (WO 2018/017664 A1) alone or as evidenced by Bollas et al in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research (2002, vol 41, issue 22, pp 5410-5419) and Voutetakis et al in Computers & Chemical Engineering (1996, vol 20 suppl., pp S1601-S1606).
With respect to claim 15, Freel et al discloses “catalytically preparing liquid fuel products with an improved product mix by co-processing a plurality of reactants in in refinery or field- upgrading operations. The reactants may include, for example, petroleum fraction and a biocrude oil having an alcohol additive” [abstract], wherein “[c]ertain embodiments, for example, may comprise a fluidized catalytic cracker unit wherein steam and/or a vaporized component additive is injected to lift cracking catalyst as well provide dilution media for residence time control. In certain embodiments, for example, lift steam may enter a fluidized catalytic cracker riser unit from the bottom of the unit and/or through nozzles on the side of the reactor. In certain further embodiments, for example, the nozzles may be located below, above, or co-located with the injection point of the biocrude oil, the petroleum fraction, or a combination of the petroleum fraction and the biocrude oil” [paragraph 0221]. The aforementioned petroleum fraction may be a vacuum gas oil [paragraphs 0159 & 0186]. The reference further discloses “[c]ertain embodiments, for example, may comprise injecting the biocrude oil and one or more component additives into a riser of a fluid catalytic cracking unit where the injected biocrude oil and one or more component additives may contact a catalyst” [paragraph 0218]. Freel et al further discloses “a biocrude oil may be introduced below a reactor riser, such as an FCC reactor riser, during conversion of the petroleum fraction feedstock. For example, a biocrude oil may be injected via a quench riser system upstream, downstream, or proximate, from the introduction point of the petroleum fraction feedstock. In certain embodiments, a biocrude oil may be injected via a quench riser system located above, below, or proximate, a petroleum fraction feedstock injection nozzle” [paragraph 0237], which corresponds to the injecting step of instant claim 15.
Freel et al does not appear to explicitly disclose the cracking and passing step. However, said steps are obvious steps in a fluid catalytic cracking process. Alternatively, Freel et al discloses “[a] series of vacuum gas oil (VGO)/biocrude oil (BCO) co-processing experiments were performed in a fluid catalytic cracking pilot plant (modeled in-line with the teachings presented in Bollas, et al., "Modeling Small-Diameter FCC Riser Reactors and Hydrodynamic and Kinetic Approach,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 41: 5410-19 (2002)” [example 1, paragraph 0255]. Bollas et al discloses the cracking step as evidenced by the conversion equation 1 on page 5413. Bollas et al further discloses “[t]he model developed in this study was based on the experiments performed in the CPERI FCC pilot-plant unit” [see 1st paragraph under the heading “Experimental Set-up” on page 5411]. Said pilot plant unit is described in Voutetakis et al as follows: “[t]he liquid feed is introduced in the riser reactor inlet where it is vaporized. The reactor is a two phase flow reactor where the one phase is the feed vapours and the other phase is the catalyst phase. The feed injected inside the reactor comes in contact with the catalyst which is controlled through the slide valve SV-101 (Fig. 1). In the riser the reactions take place and subsequently at the reactor exit the mixture is driven to the stripper vessel. In the stripper the separation (stripping) of gases from the solid catalyst occurs. The solids through the slide valve SV-401 and the lift line (Fig. 1) return to the reactor bottom after passing through the regenerator…The reaction products, from the stripper exit, flow through a heat exchanger and then their temperature is reduced to 20°C, for the condensation of heavier products. Then the gaseous mixture is led to a stabilizer column for the better separation of liquid and gaseous products where the gases are cooled down to -30°C.…The mixture of gasoline [a transportation fuel—Examiner’s insertion], Light Cycle Oil (LCO) and Heavy Cycle Oil (HCO) is obtained through the bottom of stabilizer” [see last paragraph on page S1601] The mixture of gasoline, LCO, and HCO correspond to the FCC hydrocarbon products of instant claim 15, while the aforesaid reactions correspond to the cracking. Voutetakis et al further discloses “[t]he fluid bed regenerator reactor is used to bum the coke which is deposited on the catalyst. The coke is produced as a by-product of the cracking process” [see 1st paragraph under heading “The regenerator reactor” on page
PNG
media_image1.png
572
923
media_image1.png
Greyscale
S1602].
Freel et al further discloses “[c]ertain embodiments, for example, may comprise controlling the addition rate of a biocrude oil (inclusive of a biocrude oil that has been contacted with one or more component additives) to a conversion unit at least partially independently of the addition rate of a petroleum fraction and/or a further one or more component additives. In certain further embodiments, for example, at least a portion of the biocrude oil may be introduced through the same injection nozzle as the petroleum fraction. In certain embodiments, for example, at least a portion of the biocrude oil may be introduced through a different injection nozzle than the petroleum fraction” [paragraph 0226]. The disclosure of the conversion unit renders obvious the yield, conversion, or selectivity. Additionally, Freel et al discloses “[i]n certain embodiments…a method of preparing a fuel may comprise: i) processing a petroleum fraction feedstock with a biocrude oil feedstock in the presence of a catalyst; ii) adjusting feed addition rates of the petroleum fraction feedstock, the biocrude oil feedstock, or both, to target a particular fuel product profile, riser temperature, or reaction zone temperature; and iii) optionally, adjusting catalyst to combined petroleum fraction feedstock and biocrude oil feedstock ratio (catalyst: oil ratio) to target a particular fuel product profile, riser temperature, or reaction zone temperature; wherein the catalystoil ratio may be a weight ratio or a volume ratio…For example, the method may include increasing or decreasing the vol.% or vol.% of the biocrude oil to favor a particular fuel product profile, such as favoring an increased yield of gasoline, diesel fuel, liquefied petroleum gas, heating oil, jet fuel, or light cycle oil, such as gasoline, light cycle oil, or gasoline and light cycle oil” [paragraph 0243]. To further such a method, a controller (control system) would have been obvious. Freel et al discloses a control system in paragraph 0039: “the invention relates to refinery system comprising…an installed, re-calibrated, or modified or independent control or control system.” See also paragraph 0051: “[c]ertain embodiments may provide, for example, a computer system configured to monitor an amount of throughput in an FCC unit (for example, monitoring an amount of one or more pre-determined liquid fuel products produced relative to production targets for the one or more liquid fuel products) and controlling the amount of a biocrude oil and/or a further component additive to introduce for co-processing with a petroleum feedstock.” The disclosure renders obvious the limitations of claims 27 and 28.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not appear anticipate or render obvious the recited second selected amount of one or more renewable feedstocks into the regenerator and the combusting of the same in the regenerator.
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
7 August 2026
Prosecution Insights