Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the application and preliminary amendment filed 9/13/2024.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17 are pending. Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9, 13, 16, and 18-27 are canceled.
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, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 17 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.
Regarding claims 2, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 17, the phrases "preferably”, “more preferably, and “even more preferably" render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein the fluidized bed regenerator sequentially passes through a regenerator stripper. . . . ." in line 5. The limitation of the regenerator passing through a regenerator stripper is unclear and thus indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "wherein the fluidized bed reactor sequentially passes through a reactor stripper. . . . ." in line 2. The limitation of the reactor passing through a reactor stripper is unclear and thus indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
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 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.
(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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 10-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (US 3928172).
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Davis (US 3928172).
In the rejections below, each phrase following preferably, more preferably, even more preferably, is considered optional and not required by the claim. Therefore the limitations are not all discussed herein.
With respect to claim 1, Davis (see Figure III reproduced below) teaches a device for preparing aromatic hydrocarbons (“separating the product of said heavy naphtha fraction cracking operation in a zone separate from the gas oil product separation under conditions to recover gasoline boiling range material rich in aromatics and lighter hydrocarbon”, see claim 1) from naphtha (73), wherein the device comprises a fluidized bed reactor (67) and a riser reactor (53). Davis, Figure III. An outlet of the riser reactor is connected to the fluidized bed reactor. Id. at Figure III and col. 15, lines 68-col. 16, lines 6 (“Catalyst particles separated by cyclonic means 57 and 59 are conveyed to a dense fluid bed of catalyst 67 by diplegs 69 and 71. A virgin naphtha fraction is introduced to the collected bed of catalyst discharged from riser 53 by conduit 73 for conversion thereof to higher octane product and olefin constituents as described above.”).
With respect to the remaining limitations of the claim the first is intended use (“the fluidized bed reactor is used for . . . “) and the remaining are process limitations treating the product gas stream downstream of the reactor. Given claim 1 is a device claim, neither of the limitations provide any patentable weight to claim 1, directed to the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
675
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
US 3928172 to Davis, Jr.
With respect to claim 2, Davis teaches inlets for introducing feed and catalyst into the riser reactor. Id. at Figure III (see items 51 and 55 entering riser). The outlet of the riser is fluidly connected to the inlet of the fluidized bed for passing the effluent from the riser to the fluidized bed. Id. (see items 57 59 where riser discharges in fluidized bed reactor through cyclones). Similar to claim 1, the limitations of claim 2 are written as intended use and method limitations.
With respect to claim 5, Davis teaches wherein an inlet of the riser reactor is connected with a fluidized bed regenerator. Id. (see 51 flowing regenerated catalyst to riser through a secondary cracking zone). The catalyst introduced into the riser reactor is a regenerated catalyst generated by the fluidized bed regenerator and passed through intermediate bed.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Davis exemplified in Figures I and II that the third reactor may be eliminated and the regenerator connected directly to the riser through a regenerated catalyst line as an alternative embodiment wherein a third cracking step for cracking gasoline feed were not desired. Elimination of the intermediate reactor and corresponding function would have been obvious where a gasoline stream cracking process was not desired and the remaining two reactors would still operate as intended.
With respect to claim 8, Davis teaches wherein the fluidized bed reactor 67 comprises a reactor shell, an area enclosed by the reactor shell is divided into a first gas-solid separation zone (see area above catalyst bed with 57 and 59) and a reaction zone (67) from top to bottom. Id. at Figure III. A gas-solid separation device (57 59) and a reactor gas collection chamber (65) are provided in the first gas-solid separation zone. Id. The reactor gas collection chamber (65) is located on an inner top portion of the reactor shell and an inlet of the reactor gas collection chamber is communicated with a gas outlet (89 91) of a reactor gas-solid separation device (81 83). Id. An outlet of the reactor gas collection chamber (65) is communicated with a product gas conveying pipe (54) . Id. A reactor distributor is provided on a lower portion of the reaction zone (67) for introducing the naphtha raw material (73 V. Naphtha). Id.
With respect to claim 10, Davis teaches a fluidized bed regenerator (99) connected with the fluidized bed reactor (67) through pipe (79). Id. The fluidized bed regenerator is used for introducing regeneration gas (103 duplicate number) to convert the spent catalyst into a regenerated catalyst. Id.
With respect to claim 11, Davis teaches the catalyst from the fluidized bed reactor sequentially passes through a reactor stripper (75), a spent slide valve (97) and a spent agent conveying pipe to be connected with a fluidized bed regenerator (95 and 101). Id. An inlet of the reactor stripper 75 extends into the fluidized bed reactor shell and is located below a catalyst outlet end of the reactor gas-solid separation device. Id.
With respect to claim 12, Davis teaches wherein the fluidized bed regenerator comprises a regenerator shell, and an area enclosed by the regenerator shell is divided into a second gas-solid separation zone (above riser outlet) and a regeneration zone (riser 95 and dense bed 101) from top to bottom. Id. The regenerator gas-solid separation device (plate and 103 105) and a regenerator gas collection chamber (115) are provided in the second gas-solid separation zone. Id. The regenerator gas collection chamber (115) is located on an inner top portion of the regenerator shell and a flue gas conveying pipe (117) is provided on the regenerator gas collection chamber (99). Id. A gas outlet (111 113) of the regenerator gas-solid separation device (103 105) is communicated with the regenerator gas collection chamber (115). Id. A regenerator distributor (after 103) is arranged on an inner lower portion of the regeneration zone (99) for introducing regeneration gas (103). Id.
With respect to claim 14, Davis teaches a method comprising reacting a hydrocarbon such as gas oil in a riser reactor with a catalyst. Id. at col. 15-16. The reactor effluent is discharged to a fluidized bed reactor, reacted with additional naphtha feed to produce aromatic hydrocarbons. Id.
With respect to claim 17, Davis teaches a virgin naphtha enters a reaction zone of the fluidized bed reactor through a reactor distributor to make contact with the catalyst from the riser reactor to generate a product gas stream. Id. at Figure III; col. 15, lines 31+. The catalyst acquires coke and would be considered spent. Id. at col. 16, lines 32-34. The catalyst is stripped for transfer to the regeneration operation. Id. at col. 16. Product gas stream to enter a reactor gas-solid separation device to remove a spent catalyst contained in the product gas stream. Id. at col. 16, lines 14+. The product gases enter gas collection chamber and enter a downstream working section through a product gas conveying pipe. Id. at col. 16, lines 18+. The riser effluent (which would include unreacted riser reactor raw material, product aromatic hydrocarbons and the catalyst) to enter the fluidized bed reactor from the outlet of the riser reactor. Id. at Figure III; col. 15, lines 65+.The flue gas enters a regenerator gas-solid separation device to remove a regenerated catalyst contained in the flue gas, then enters a regenerator gas collection chamber, and enters the downstream working section through the flue gas conveying pipe. Id. at Figure III, col. 16, lines 23-42.
With respect to the product gas, Davis teaches producing a product comprising C4-, including propylene and butene (Table II), and which is expected to also include ethane, propane, ethylene; dry gas; aromatics. Davis does expressly teach wherein the aromatics includes BTX and heavy aromatics having carbon greater than 9, unconverted naphtha, hydrogen and methane and carbon monoxide. However, the same reactions with the same feeds are taking place over zeolite based catalysts and produce the same range of products. While the specific concentration of each may vary by process conditions and feed, it is expected that the same BTX, C9+ aromatics, and other components would be present in the reaction effluent.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 14, further in view of Long (US 2009/0288985).
With respect to claim 15, Davis teaches wherein the catalyst is e.g. ZSM-5 or zeolite Y (col. 3 – col. 4, lines 6; see also col. 16. Iines 43+), which are molecular sieve catalyst. Davis is silent regarding metal bifunctional catalysts. However, such catalysts are well known in the art of fluidized cracking.
Long, directed to FCC processes for producing aromatics and olefins, teaches catalyst cracking catalyst known for carrying out the desired reactions to aromatics and olefins. Long, at [0031]-[0036]. The catalyst is preferably a zeolite such as ZSM-5 or Y zeolite. “The intermediate pore size zeolite is selected from ZSM series zeolites and/or ZRP zeolites, or ZSM and ZRP zeolites modified with nonmetal elements such as phosphor and/or transition metal elements such as iron, cobalt, and nickel.” Id.
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select as the catalyst of Davis a known FCC catalyst for producing olefins and aromatics as taught in Long because both are directed to FCC processes for converting hydrocarbon feed to aromatics and light olefins, Long teaches catalyst known for such process, and it is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143.
Double Patenting
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 1-2, 5, 8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 19/132,862. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims merely overlap in scope and the copending claims recite an additional reactor/reaction step not required by but not excluded by the instant application.
Claim 1-2, 5, 8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14, 16-17, 20, 22-23 and 30 of copending Application No. 19/132,867 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims teach the same apparatus and process with overlapping scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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 Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights