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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The instant specification defines a “%CA content” as an “n-d-m method value (aromatic content)” which is calculated in equations a2 and s3 from various values including an alpha value calculated in equation a1 and an average molecular weight M (instant specification paragraph [0016]). However, there are multiple issues with the calculations and explanation in the spec that make it impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the %CA value.
1) The equations a1, a2, and a3 are listed as ending with “…” It is unclear what further amounts and/or variables are present in the potential further extension of the equation. Thus, even if one of ordinary skill in the art has access to the specific gravity and refractive index, it is not clear that the alpha value can actually be calculated as there is no clarity on what is potentially missing from the equation as it continues in the “…”
2) The average molecular weight M is not listed with units. One of ordinary skill in the art will get different values if using different units such as kilograms vs grams, and as such the lack of units makes it so the value of %CA cannot be properly calculated.
3) The alpha value can be negative or positive, and different equations are used to calculate the %CA based on whether the value is negative or positive. However, it does not appear from the description in the specification that %CA can be negative (see paragraph [0030] which only lists values of %CA which are 0 or positive values. Thus, it is unclear what to do if the alpha value is negative such that the equation would give a negative overall value of %CA. It is possible that the missing information in the “…” would fix this issue but there is no way one of ordinary skill in the art can determine this from the presented information.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot calculate the %CA value from what is presented in the specification, as it is unclear how the calculations are made in full.
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.
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 1-5 are 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.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites in the preamble “A method for producing a hydrocarbon…” However, the step of the method only includes subjecting a feedstock to fluid catalytic cracking, but does not teach what product is produced. Thus, it is unclear where in the process the hydrocarbon is obtained, and the preamble is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the FCC step produces hydrocarbons, as described in paragraph [0046] of the instant specification. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 2 and 4, the claims each recite a “%CA content”. This term is defined in the specification as an “n-d-m method value (aromatic content)” which is calculated from various values including an alpha value calculation and an average molecular weight M (instant specification paragraph [0016]). However, there are multiple issues with the calculations and explanation in the spec that make it impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the %CA value.
1) The equations a1, a2, and a3 are listed as ending with “…” It is unclear what further amounts and/or variables are present in the potential further extension of the equation. Thus, even if one of ordinary skill in the art has access to the specific gravity and refractive index, it is not clear that the alpha value can actually be calculated as there is no clarity on what is potentially missing from the equation as it continues in the “…”
2) The average molecular weight M is not listed with units. One of ordinary skill in the art will get different values if using different units such as kilograms vs grams, and as such the lack of units makes it so the value of %CA cannot be properly calculated.
3) The alpha value can be negative or positive, and different equations are used to calculate the %CA based on whether the value is negative or positive. However, it does not appear from the description in the specification that %CA can be negative (see paragraph [0030] which only lists values of %CA which are 0 or positive values. Thus, it is unclear what to do if the alpha value is negative such that the equation would give a negative overall value of %CA. It is possible that the missing information in the “…” would fix this issue but there is no way one of ordinary skill in the art can determine this from the presented information.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot calculate the %CA value, as it is unclear how the calculations are made in full, and the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification recites a limited list of feedstocks which have a higher %CA value than a Fischer-Tropsch feed, including desulfurized atmospheric residue, desulfurized vacuum gas oil, and clarified oil (paragraph [0033]). The examiner will consider that any process which has one of those feeds meets the “higher %CA” limitation. Appropriate clarification and amendment are respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 3 and 5, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dean et al. (US 2013/0137909).
With regard to claim 1, Dean teaches a method for fluidized catalytic cracking (Abstract) comprising providing a paraffinic naphtha to a fluidized catalytic cracking reactor (paragraph [0032]) wherein the paraffinic naphtha is from Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (claimed FT synthetic oil) (paragraph [0013]) and wherein the catalytic cracking reactor is connected to a regenerator (paragraph [0032]).
Dean further teaches the feed temperature of the preheated feed is 150-315°C (claimed element x in Inequality Expression (1)) (paragraph [0032]) and the catalyst to naphtha ratio (claimed element z) is 25-80 (paragraph [0032]). Dean is silent regarding the flow rate of the feed (claimed element y1) and the catalyst flow rate (claimed element z1). However, the Inequality Expression (1) uses z=z1/y1 to calculate z, but z is taught explicitly by Dean. Thus, y1 and z1 are not necessary for the calculation of z. Dean additionally teaches in some embodiments, fuel oil is added to the regenerator, but is silent regarding the flow rate (claimed element y2) (paragraph [0049]), thus implicitly teaching that the flow rate of the fuel oil (claimed y2) is 0 when the fuel oil is not used and is a positive number when the fuel oil is used, as the flow rate cannot be negative. As such, the value of y=y2/y1 is 0 (when fuel oil is not used) or a positive number greater than 0 (when fuel oil is used).
Using the minimum values of Dean of a temperature x of 150°C, a y value of 0, and a catalyst to oil ratio z of 25, the claimed Inequality Expression (1) is calculated as:
1
575
150
+
3
23
0
+
9
184
25
-
1
=
0.48
. Any other amounts from the teachings of Dean would be greater than this minimum value. Thus, the range of values of Dean are all within the required greater than or equal to 0 range, and the Inequality Expression (1) is met by the process of Dean.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 105567299, machine translation provided herein) in view of Koveal et al. (US 6,199,768).
With regard to claims 1, 4, and 5, Xie teaches a method of catalytic cracking a hydrocarbon raw material which is formed by mixing heavy distillate oil and Fischer-Tropsch synthetic oil (instant claims 1 and 4) (Abstract and paragraph [0025]), where the heavy distillate oil is slurry oil produced by catalytic cracking (claimed clarified oil having a higher %CA than the FT synthetic oil instant claims 4 and 5) (paragraph [0047]) and the reactor is connected to a regenerator (paragraph [0050]).
Xie further teaches the catalyst-to-oil ratio (claimed element z) is preferably 10-30 (paragraph [0043]). Xie is silent regarding the flow rate of the feed (claimed element y1) and the catalyst flow rate (claimed element z1). However, the Inequality Expression (1) uses z=z1/y1 to calculate z, but z is taught explicitly by Xie. Thus, y1 and z1 are not necessary for the calculation of z. Xie does not teach the addition of a fuel oil into the regenerator, so the feed rate of the fuel oil (claimed element y2) is 0, and using the formula y=y2/y1, claimed element y is also 0 and the value of y1 is also not necessary for the calculation of y. Thus, the values of z1 and y1 are moot as unnecessary for the calculation to be made.
Xie is silent regarding the temperature of the feed before introducing it into the reactor (claimed element x). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related art to determine a suitable temperature for the feed before entering the reactor.
Koveal teaches a method for catalytic cracking of a feed comprising a medium oil and a heavy oil in an FCC reactor (column 16, lines 26-31). Koveal teaches that the feed is typically preheated to up to 850°F (454°C) (column 16, lines 49-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the temperature of Koveal in the process of Xie, because each of Xie and Koveal teaches FCC of a feed comprising a medium and heavy oil, Xie is silent regarding the preheating temperature, and Koveal teaches that up to 850°F (454°C) is a suitable preheating temperature (column 16, lines 49-51).
Using the maximum values of Xie in view of Koveal of a temperature x of 454°C, a value y of 0, and a catalyst to oil ratio z of 30, the claimed Inequality Expression (1) is calculated as:
1
575
454
+
3
23
0
+
9
184
30
-
1
=
1.26
. All other possible values of Xie in view of Koveal are less than this value. Thus, the range of values of Xie in view of Koveal overlaps the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0, and renders the range prima facie obvious.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 105567299, machine translation provided herein) in view of Koveal et al. (US 6,199,768) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marri et al. (US 2021/0284921).
With regard to claims 2 and 3, Xie in view of Koveal teaches the method above, where the feed includes a heavy distillate oil with the Fischer-Tropsch synthetic oil (Abstract).
Xie in view of Koveal does not teach the heavy distillate feed can be desulfurized atmospheric residue.
Marri teaches a process for production of olefins from crude oil in FCC reactor (Abstract). Marri further teaches that the process of FCC includes a contaminant removal step such as ARDS (atmospheric residue desulfurization having a higher %CA than the FT synthetic oil instant claims 2 and 3) before passing the hydrocarbon feed to the FCC unit (paragraph [0075]) where the hydrocarbon feed can include Fischer-Tropsch products and atmospheric residuum (paragraph [0050]). Marri teaches that the integration makes a high severity FCC process which maximizes light olefins (paragraph [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use desulfurized atmospheric residuum in the process of Xie because each of Xie and Marri teaches FCC of a feed including Fischer-Tropsch products and heavy distillate oil and Marri teaches that desulfurized atmospheric residue is a suitable heavy feed which is useful in the process to maximize light olefins (paragraph [0075]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights