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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without partially-regenerated catalyst and fully-regenerated catalyst and , which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Claim 1 broadly recites a hydrocarbon cracking system comprising a multi-stage catalyst regenerator that provides "partially-regenerated catalyst and/or fully-regenerated catalyst" to the primary riser reactor. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim encompasses systems providing only partially regenerated catalyst or only fully regenerated catalyst.
The specification, however, consistently describes the invention as utilizing both partially regenerated catalyst and fully regenerated catalyst. The partially regenerated catalyst is supplied to the secondary riser reactor while the fully regenerated catalyst is supplied to the primary riser reactor in order to achieve the disclosed increase in olefin production.
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 11-13 recite “the recycle feed” or “recycle feed stream,”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said spent catalyst" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the word “if” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the secondary riser" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is indefinite because it recites: “A hydrocarbon cracking system … utilizing a method of method … said method comprising” and therefore does not clearly establish whether the claimed subject matter is a system, a method, or a system defined by method steps. The phrase “partially cracked” in step (e) also lacks a recited object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kukade et al. (US 2018/0223193 A1).
Kukade discloses an FCC apparatus including a first reactor, a second reactor, and a regenerator assembly connected to both reactors (¶¶ [0015]-[0025]). The regenerator vessel is divided by a partition into first and second subunits operated to generate fully regenerated catalyst and partially regenerated catalyst, which are directed through separate outlets to the respective reactors (¶¶ [0022]-[0032]; claims 6 and 10).
Kukade discloses a first reactor comprising an up-flow riser terminating in a dense-bed reactor located at the top of the riser (¶ [0016]; claim 12). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the dense-bed reactor constitutes the claimed bed cracking reaction zone because additional catalytic cracking occurs within the dense catalyst bed after discharge from the riser.
Kukade further teaches that the partition may comprise internal vessels or baffles, thereby providing separate regeneration zones (¶ [0030]; claim 6), meeting claims 2 and 5. Kukade teaches stripping the spent catalyst prior to regeneration (¶ [0029]) and directing the spent catalyst to the regenerator subunits (¶¶ [0030]-[0032]), meeting claims 15, 16 and 18.
Kukade further teaches first-reactor operating temperatures of about 550–600°C (¶ [0028]), corresponding to approximately 1022–1112°F, overlapping the claimed outlet temperature range of claim 14. It is reminded that claims 1-20 drawn to an apparatus system which includes a mannerof operating disclosed system, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material orarticle worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiateapparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP §2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do nothave a patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Exparte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd.App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intendedoperation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.
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.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukade in view of Kerby et al. (US 5,447,622).
The process of Kukade is as discussed above.
Kukade does not expressly disclose two separate regenerator vessels operating in series or in parallel.
Kerby teaches staged regeneration utilizing a plurality of regenerators arranged in series or parallel (col. 5, lines 23-36; col. 6, lines 25-41).
It would have been obvious to provide Kukade’s partial- and full-regeneration zones as separate vessels arranged in series or parallel, as taught by Kerby, because both arrangements were known alternatives for independently controlling catalyst coke removal, catalyst residence time, regeneration severity, and catalyst delivery to different reactors. Selection between series and parallel arrangements would have constituted a predictable design choice based on the desired catalyst circulation and heat balance.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kukade in view of Leonard et al., (US 2011/0110825 A1), and Letzsch, (US 7,479,218 B2).
Kukade discloses separate partially and fully regenerated catalyst streams but does not expressly state the claimed catalyst temperatures.
Leonard discloses a multizone FCC regenerator in which the lower chamber operates at approximately 1100–1300°F, while the upper chamber operates at approximately 1200–1400°F. These ranges overlap the ranges of claims 7 and 8 and establish that catalyst associated with the lower or partial-regeneration zone is cooler than catalyst associated with the upper or more complete-regeneration zone.
Letzsch likewise discloses partial regeneration below approximately 1300°F followed by second-stage regeneration above approximately 1300°F to obtain substantially complete carbon removal.
It would have been obvious to operate Kukade’s partial- and full-regeneration subunits at the known overlapping temperature ranges because regeneration temperature is a recognized result-effective variable affecting coke combustion, catalyst activity, catalyst circulation, and FCC heat balance. Optimization within the disclosed overlapping ranges would have required no more than routine experimentation.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kukade (US 2018/0223193) in view of Leonard (US 2011/0110825 A1).
Kukade discloses a second reactor for contacting cracked hydrocarbon feedstock with partially regenerated catalyst to produce light olefins. Kukade does not expressly describe the precise termination arrangement of the second riser.
Leonard discloses a second riser reactor discharging upgraded products and catalyst into a second reactor vessel. The catalyst drops into a dense catalyst bed while gases pass through the dilute phase and cyclones for separation.
It would have been obvious to terminate Kukade’s secondary riser in a dense-bed reaction region or in the dilute phase above that bed, as taught by Leonard, because those were known alternative riser-termination arrangements for providing additional contact, disengaging catalyst from product vapors, and controlling secondary cracking severity.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kukade in view of Leonard and Kerby.
Kukade discloses:
a first riser reactor terminating in a dense-bed reaction zone;
a second reactor;
a shared multistage regenerator;
fully regenerated catalyst supplied to the first reactor;
partially regenerated catalyst supplied to the second reactor;
cracking hydrocarbon feed in the first reactor;
recracking cracked hydrocarbon feedstock in the second reactor;
stripping spent catalyst; and
returning spent catalyst to separate regeneration subunits.
Kukade does not expressly disclose that the recycle feed is a separated portion of the first-reactor product recovery system or that a portion of the partially regenerated catalyst is transferred to the full-regeneration stage.
Leonard discloses a first catalytic reactor and a second riser reactor in which the second hydrocarbon feed is preferably a fractionated portion of the first reactor’s cracked product, particularly a C4-C7 or light-naphtha fraction, for further conversion to ethylene and propylene. Leonard also discloses that the two reactors may share the same catalyst regenerator.
Kerby discloses a first-stage regenerator producing partially regenerated catalyst, directing one portion of that catalyst to a satellite reactor, and directing another portion to a second-stage regenerator for further coke removal and full catalyst reactivation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Kukade by:
separating and recycling a cracked-product fraction from the first reactor to the second riser, as taught by Leonard, to increase conversion of light naphtha or C4–C7 material to valuable light olefins; and
splitting Kukade’s partially regenerated catalyst so that one portion is supplied to the secondary reactor and another portion is further regenerated in the full-regeneration zone, as taught by Kerby, to provide catalyst having different activity and coke levels for the different cracking duties while maintaining overall catalyst activity and heat balance.
The resulting system would possess the conduits, separation equipment, risers, reactor vessel, regenerator zones, catalyst-transfer paths, and recycle-feed paths required by claim 20. The remaining recitations describing cracking, recovering products, and producing olefins state the intended operation or expected results of the structurally recited apparatus and do not patentably distinguish the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights