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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herbst et al (US 4,814,068).
With respect to claim 1, Herbst a method for forming light olefins (see col 3 lines 45-60), the method comprising:
reacting a feed stream in the presence of a catalyst in a reactor to form a product stream (see col 7 lines 50-68);
separating at least a portion of the product stream from the catalyst (see col 8 lines 5-25);
passing the catalyst (26) to a catalyst processing portion (30) of the reactor system and processing the catalyst to produce a processed catalyst and a flue gas (40), wherein the catalyst is heated, coke is removed from the catalyst, or both, in a combustor in the catalyst processing portion (see col 8 lines 5-68 and col 9 lines 1-15);
separating the catalyst from the flue gas (see col 9 lines 1-15);
passing the flue gas (40) though a heat exchanger system (42) to cool the flue gas, wherein heat is exchanged from the flue gas to an oxygen-containing gas (air) in an inlet stream (see col 9 lines 1-15),
wherein the oxygen- containing gas exits the heat exchanger system in a first stream (18) and a second stream (36), and wherein the oxygen-containing gas in the first stream (18) has a temperature greater than that of the oxygen- containing gas in the second stream (Examiner notes, first stream 18, is heated by a secondary heat exchanger, 24)(see col 8 lines 25-50 and col 9 lines 1-15);
passing the oxygen-containing gas in the first stream directly to the combustor (8) (see col 8 lines 20-40); and
passing the oxygen-containing gas in the second stream to an oxygen treatment zone (30) (see col 9 lines 1-30).
With respect to claim 3, Herbst discloses the limitation of claim 1. Herbst further discloses wherein the heat exchanger system comprises a first heat exchanger (24) and a second heat exchanger in series (42), wherein the first heat exchanger is upstream of the second heat exchanger relative to the flow direction of the flue gas (first portion (20) and second portion (40) of flue gas), and wherein the first stream (18) of oxygen-containing gas is discharged from the first heat exchanger (24) and the second stream of oxygen-containing gas (36) is discharged from the second heat exchanger (42) (see figure 1, see col 8 lines 1-68 and col 9 lines 1-15).
With respect to claim 4, Herbst discloses the limitation of claim 1. Herbst further discloses further wherein the oxygen- containing gas is air (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 5, Herbst discloses the limitation of claim 1. Herbst further discloses comprising passing the oxygen-containing gas in the second stream to a catalyst transport pipe (28 and 55) as a solids transport fluid (see col 8 lines 50-60, col 9 lines 15-30).
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.
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbst as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 9, Herbst discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Herbst discloses wherein the second bed (where the second stream is routed) is above 14°C greater than the first bed (where the first stream is routed) which is at a temperature of 871°C (see col 9 lines 15-35).
Herbst does not disclose wherein the oxygen- containing gas in the second stream has a temperature of from 200°C to 500°C.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the temperature of the second stream through routine experimentation, as differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 10, Herbst discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Herbst discloses wherein the second bed (where the second stream is routed) is above 14°C greater than the first bed (where the first stream is routed) which is at a temperature of 871°C (see col 9 lines 15-35).
Herbst does not disclose wherein the oxygen- containing gas in the first stream has a temperature of from 500°C to 875°C.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the temperature of the first stream through routine experimentation, as differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 11, Herbst discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Herbst discloses wherein the second bed (where the second stream is routed) is above 14°C greater than the first bed (where the first stream is routed) which is at a temperature of 871°C (see col 9 lines 15-35).
Herbst does not disclose wherein the temperature of the oxygen-containing gas in the first stream is at least 100°C greater than the oxygen-containing gas in the second stream.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the temperature of the first and second stream through routine experimentation, as differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 12, Herbst discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Herbst discloses wherein the second bed (where the second stream is routed) is above 14°C greater than the first bed (where the first stream is routed) which is at a temperature of 871°C (see col 9 lines 15-35).
Herbst does not disclose wherein the flue gas passed to the heat exchanger system has a temperature of from 650°C to 900°C.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the expect that flue gas temperature would be at temperature at about the reactor temp which is about 871°C.
With respect to claim 13, Herbst discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Herbst discloses wherein the second bed (where the second stream is routed) is above 14°C greater than the first bed (where the first stream is routed) which is at a temperature of 871°C (see col 9 lines 15-35).
Herbst does not disclose wherein the flue gas exiting the heat exchanger system has a temperature of from 150°C to 400°C.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the temperature of the flue gas exiting the heat exchanger syste through routine experimentation, as differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 14, Herbst discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Herbst discloses wherein the second bed (where the second stream is routed) is above 14°C greater than the first bed (where the first stream is routed) which is at a temperature of 871°C (see col 9 lines 15-35).
Herbst does not disclose wherein the oxygen- containing gas in the inlet stream has a temperature of from 0°C to 200°C.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the oxygen- containing gas in the inlet stream has a temperature of the second stream through routine experimentation, as differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 15, Herbst discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Herbst discloses wherein the second bed (where the second stream is routed) is above 14°C greater than the first bed (where the first stream is routed) which is at a temperature of 871°C (see col 9 lines 15-35).
Herbst does not disclose wherein the mass flowrate of oxygen-containing gas in the first stream is from 70% to 95% of the oxygen-containing gas in the inlet stream.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the mass flowrate of oxygen-containing gas in the first stream is from 70% to 95% of the oxygen-containing gas in the inlet stream through routine experimentation, as differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6-8 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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 571 272-6381. 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights