DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 11 June 2026 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
The previous objection and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained. In addition, new grounds for rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims, is entered for claims 1, 5-8, 12-16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103. The rejection follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2008/0314799).
With respect to claims 1, 5-8, 12-16, 18, and 19, Li discloses a system and associated method of ethanol conversion and cracking hydrocarbons (see Li, Fig. 2), the method comprising: (a) introducing a hydrocarbon feed into a riser of a fluid catalytic cracking reactor (see Li, Fig. 2; and paragraph [0010]); (b) introducing ethanol into a stripper of the fluid catalytic cracking reactor (see Li, Fig. 2; and paragraph [0016]); and (c) reacting at least the hydrocarbon feed and the ethanol in the presence of one or more fluid catalytic cracking catalysts in the fluid catalytic cracking reactor to produce at least cracked products and ethylene (see Li, paragraph [0009]). The hydrocarbon feed may comprise vacuum gas oil (see Li, paragraph [0010]). The hydrocarbon feed may be fed to the reactor at a concentration of about 50 wt% to about 95 wt% based on a total weight of the ethanol and the hydrocarbon feed, and wherein the ethanol is fed to the reactor at a concentration of about 15 wt% (see Li, paragraph [0021]). The ethanol reacts in the stripper in the presence of one or more fluid cracking catalysts, the one or more catalysts comprising spent catalyst flowing downwardly from a separator section (see Li, paragraph [0017]). The reactor comprises a riser and reaction vessel, wherein the reaction vessel comprises a separator section and the stripper (see Li, Fig. 2; and paragraph [0017]). The one or more catalysts may comprise a zeolite component (see Li, paragraph [0011]). The method further comprises removing a cracked effluent from the reactor, wherein the effluent comprises the cracked products and ethylene; separating a light hydrocarbon product from the cracked effluent, wherein the light hydrocarbon product comprises hydrocarbons having 4 or fewer carbons (see Li, paragraph [0033]).
Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the ethanol is fed to the fluid catalytic cracking unit at a concentration of between 20 wt% and 50 wt%.
However, Li clearly discloses that the ethanol may be fed at a concentration of 15 wt% (see Li, paragraph [0021]), i.e. only a 5 wt% difference from that being claimed. Moreover, Li discloses that use of higher concentrations of inhibitor results in increases in propylene yield (see Li, Table 3).
Therefore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize from the disclosure of Li that a higher inhibitor concentration would be expected to deliver a higher propylene yield. Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art, seeking to increase or maximize propylene yield, would have been motivated to use a slightly higher concentration of inhibitor in the fluid catalytic cracking unit.
With respect to claims 2-4, 9-11, 14, 17, and 20, see discussion supra at paragraph 9. Li discloses wherein the ethanol may be fed to the stripper or at any of various injection sites, e.g. using steam atomizing nozzles (see Li, paragraphs [0017]-[0022] and [0038]). With respect to ethylene yield, inasmuch as Li discloses the exact method steps and associated apparatus as currently specified in the claims, then it follows that the ethylene yield of Li would be expected to likewise be within the same range as recited in the claims, otherwise the claims would be determined to be lacking enablement for failure to recite the critical elements/conditions necessary to achieve such specified yields. “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be:
Li fails to disclose or teach the specified ethanol concentration. Li only teaches use of ethanol in relatively small quantities.
Li teaches away from the specified ethanol concentration.
Li fails to describe, teach, or suggest the features of claim 14. Rather, Li describes a process and system in which steam and inhibitor are injected together into stripper via line 5 as shown in Fig. 1, which also shows inhibitor being injected into the very bottom portion of stripper 6.
With respect to Applicant’s first and second arguments, However, Li clearly discloses that the ethanol may be fed at a concentration of 15 wt% (see Li, paragraph [0021]), i.e. only a 5 wt% difference from that being claimed. Moreover, Li discloses that use of higher concentrations of inhibitor results in increases in propylene yield (see Li, Table 3). Therefore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize from the disclosure of Li that a higher inhibitor concentration would be expected to deliver a higher propylene yield. Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art, seeking to increase or maximize propylene yield, would have been motivated to use a slightly higher concentration of inhibitor in the fluid catalytic cracking unit.
With respect to Applicant’s third argument, Li discloses that “[t]he injection site for the inhibitor of the present invention includes any part of a feed line for the hydrocarbon oil feedstock, a delivery line for the regenerated catalyst, the reaction zone of the reactor, a disengager for separating the reactant vapor from the coke deposited catalyst and a stripper for stripping the coke deposited catalyst” (see Li, paragraph [0017]) (emphases added).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax 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.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights