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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to for minor informalities.
With respect to claim 7, the language “comprises comprising” is improper English grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “the FCC.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 5 wt% to about 50 wt% based on the total weight of the ethanol and the hydrocarbon feed (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]).
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 2-4, 9-11, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2008/0314799).
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Pinho (US 7,867,378); Wu (US 8,273,930); and Henning (US 2016/0160133). The cited art discloses methods and associated apparatus for reacting ethanol with a hydrocarbon to produce an ethylene product (see respective Abstracts for each cited reference).
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