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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 2 includes the number 72 which is not in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites in step a) i) “the ratio”. This should be “a ratio” for antecedent basis purposes.
With regard to claims 2 and 6, the claims each recite “the range”. This should be “a range” for antecedent basis purposes.
Appropriate corrections are 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 1-14 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 claims 3 and 4, the claims each recite “the renewable/circular feed”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis, as claim 1 recites “at least one renewable/circular feedstock”. Also, the phrasing of claim 1 states “one or more” renewable feedstock, but claims 3 and 4 each just state “the” renewable feed. As such, it is unclear whether the limitations of claims 3 and 4 apply to each renewable feedstock if there is more than one renewable feedstock, such that each renewable feedstock is fed together or separately with the fossil feedstock and each renewable feedstock comprises ethanol, or if the limitations only apply to at least one of the renewable feedstocks if there are more than one, such that at least one of the renewable feedstocks is fed together or separately with the fossil feedstock and at least one of the renewable feedstocks comprises ethanol.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification does not provide any further information. Thus, the Examiner will give the broadest reasonable interpretation that the limitation of feeding the renewable feedstock together or separately with the fossil hydrocarbons of claim 3 applies to each renewable feedstock individually if there are more than one, and that the limitation in claim 4 that the renewable/circular feedstock comprises ethanol applies to at least one of the renewable feedstocks, but not necessarily all renewable feedstocks, which are present in the mixed feedstock.
With regard to claims 12-14, the claims each recite “renewable/sustainable” and “may be ISCC Plus certified”. The recitation of “renewable/sustainable” is indefinite because “/” generally means “and/or”, but “renewable” and “sustainable” are generally used interchangeably in the art and appear to be interchangeable in the instant specification (see page 2, reciting that sustainable products are produced from renewable feeds). The recitation of “may be ISCC Plus certified” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are optional or required as part of the invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, the instant specification only refers to sustainable products as attained from the process (page 2) and does not use the term “renewable/sustainable” anywhere in the instant specification as filed, but the phrasing of sustainable products being produced from renewable and/or circular sources (page 2) implies that renewable and sustainable are interchangeable. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested. For the second issue, the intent appears to be that the product which is sustainable could then be certified by a third party such as ISCC. The Examiner suggests the phrasing could be “wherein the ethylene produced…is eligible to be ISCC Plus certified” would provide the same meaning of being capable of being certified without the relative language “may be” which caused the 112(b) issue.
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 1-3, 5, 6, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2021/0130262) as evidenced by ECHACHEM (Residues, atmospheric) and in view of Henry et al. (US 7,261,807).
With regard to claims 1 and 2, Wu teaches a method for fluidized catalytic cracking in combination with steam cracking (paragraph [0600]), comprising the following steps (see Figure 27 and corresponding paragraphs [0600]-[0614]):
a) providing a mixed hydrocarbon feedstock comprising an FCC feed comprising atmospheric resid (claimed fossil hydrocarbons instant claim 2) (paragraph [0602]) and r-pyoil (claimed circular feedstock) to a fluidized catalytic cracking process to obtain at least a catalytically cracked gas product (Figure 27). The FCC is operated at conditions and in the presence of a catalyst (paragraph [0603]). Wu further teaches that the amount of r-pyoil in the FCC feed is at least 1 to not more than 25 wt% (paragraph [0602]) which overlaps the range of 0.1 to 5.5 wt% of instant claim 1, rendering the range prima facie obvious. The boiling point of the atmospheric resid (claimed fossil hydrocarbons) is above approximately 200°C (ECHACHEM page 1), which overlaps the range of 150-760°C of instant claim 2, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
b) combining the FCC gas product with an olefin-containing steam cracking effluent as a feed to an ethylene splitter downstream of the cracking furnace (paragraph [0611]), where the ethylene splitter downstream of the cracking furnace produces an ethylene stream and an ethane stream (paragraph [0549]).
c) recycling the recovered ethane stream from the ethylene splitter to the steam cracking furnace as feedstock (paragraph [0550]) where the steam cracking furnace then produces the olefin-containing steam cracking effluent (claimed light steam cracked product) (paragraph [0611]).
d) as above, passing the olefin-containing steam cracking effluent (claimed light steam cracked product) as feed to the ethylene splitter (paragraph [0611]) where the olefin-containing steam cracking effluent includes ethylene (paragraph [0513]). Because the olefin-containing effluent includes ethylene which is separated in the ethylene splitter, it is understood that the olefin-containing steam cracking effluent produces at least a portion of the ethylene as claimed.
Wu is silent regarding the ratio of cracking catalyst to renewable feedstock in the FCC unit. However, Wu teaches that examples of suitable FCC systems are disclosed in US 7,261,807 to Henry et al, hereinafter “Henry”, where Henry is “incorporated by reference to the extent not inconsistent with the present disclosure” of Wu (paragraph [0605]). This phrasing is understood as meaning that the entire reference is incorporated by reference, other than anything inconsistent with Wu. Because Wu is silent regarding the ratio of cracking catalyst to feedstock, a catalyst to feedstock ratio disclosed by Henry is not inconsistent with Wu.
Henry teaches a fluid catalytic cracking reactor (Abstract). Henry teaches that the typical catalytic cracking conditions include a catalyst to total feed ratio of about 0.5 to 10 (column 7, lines 5-6). As the total feed of Wu includes 1 to 25 wt% r-pyoil (claimed renewable/circular feed), the catalyst to renewable/circular feed ratio is 2 to 1000 (see calculations below), which overlaps the range of about 120 to about 2000 of instant claim 1, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the ratio of Henry in the process of Wu, because Wu is silent regarding the feed rate and teaches that suitable systems as in Henry are incorporated by reference, and Henry teaches an overlapping catalyst to feed ratio which is suitable for fluidized catalytic cracking.
With regard to claim 3, Wu teaches that the FCC feed and r-pyoil (claimed renewable/circular feed) are combined (claimed together) when entering the FCC reactor (Figure 27).
With regard to claim 5, Wu teaches the ethylene stream from the ethylene splitter comprises at least 85 wt% ethylene (paragraph [0563]), which overlaps the range of at least 90 wt% ethylene of instant claim 5, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 6, Wu is silent regarding the conditions of the FCC reactor. However, Wu teaches that examples of suitable FCC systems are disclosed in US 7,261,807 to Henry et al, hereinafter “Henry”, where Henry is “incorporated by reference to the extent not inconsistent with the present disclosure” of Wu (paragraph [0605]). This phrasing is understood as meaning that the entire reference is incorporated by reference, other than anything inconsistent with Wu. Because Wu is silent regarding the conditions, the conditions disclosed by Henry are not inconsistent with Wu.
Henry teaches a fluid catalytic cracking reactor (Abstract). Henry teaches that the typical catalytic cracking conditions include a contact time of preferably 1-5 seconds, a temperature of most preferably 482-621°C, and a pressure of 5-60 psi (34 to 413 kPa) (column 7, lines 1-5). These are within the ranges of 0.1-5 seconds and 475-750°C of instant claim 6 and overlaps the range of 40 to 400 kPa of instant claim 6, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the conditions of Henry in the process of Wu, because Wu is silent regarding the conditions and teaches that suitable systems as in Henry are incorporated by reference, and Henry teaches a catalyst to feed ratio which is suitable for fluidized catalytic cracking.
With regard to claim 10, Wu teaches that the steam cracking and FCC separation train also includes a propylene splitter (paragraph [0606]) which produces a propylene product stream (paragraph [0552]).
With regard to claim 11, Wu teaches that the steam cracking and FCC separation train also includes a debutanizer (paragraph [0606]) which produces a stream comprising butenes, butanes, and butadienes (claimed crude C4 product stream) (paragraph [0554]).
With regard to claims 12-14, Wu teaches the separation above which produces ethylene, propylene, and a stream comprising C4 (crude C4 product stream) (paragraph [0606]). Wu also teaches that the feed contains the r-pyoil (paragraph [0602]) and that any product containing recycle content (r-content) has associated with it a recycle content allotment (paragraph [0096]) which verifies that the product is obtained from recycled waste (paragraphs [0127])-[0137]). Thus, the products from the FCC cracker are considered renewable/sustainable and are expected to be able to be ISCC Plus certified, as claimed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2021/0130262) as evidenced by ECHACHEM (Residues, atmospheric) and in view of Henry et al. (US 7,261,807) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of de Resende Pinho et al. (US 2008/0156692).
With regard to claim 4, Wu teaches the process above where the feed to the FCC includes r-pyoil as a renewable feed (paragraph [0602]).
Wu fails to teach that the feed to the FCC unit can also include ethanol fed separately from the FCC feed.
de Rezende Pinho teaches a method for fluidized catalytic cracking of hydrocarbons and ethanol separately to produce ethene (Abstract). De Rezende Pinho teaches that the addition of ethanol to the process provides increased economy and yield of ethene to meet the demands of the petrochemical industry (paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add ethanol to the process of Wu, because each of Wu and de Resende Pinho teach a method of fluidized catalytic cracking of hydrocarbons and renewable feeds, and de Rezende Pinho teaches that the addition of ethanol provides increased economy and yield of ethene to meet the demands of the petrochemical industry (paragraph [0019]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2021/0130262) as evidenced by ECHACHEM (Residues, atmospheric) and in view of Henry et al. (US 7,261,807) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Al-Ghamdi et al. (US 2018/0142167).
With regard to claims 7 and 8, Wu teaches the method above. Wu further teaches that additional products including naphtha and heavy oils are also produced from the fluidized catalytic cracking process (paragraph [0606]).
Wu does not teach obtaining naphtha and gas oil, hydrotreating the naphtha and gas oil, and then passing hydrotreated products to the steam cracking step.
Al-Ghamdi teaches a method for integration of fluidized catalytic cracking and steam cracking (Abstract). Al-Ghamdi teaches that the process comprises obtaining a naphtha fraction 406 and a gas oil fraction 408 from the fluidized catalytic cracking reactor 400, passing the naphtha 406 to hydrotreater 500 and passing the gas oil 408 to hydrotreater 220, and then passing the product 502 from hydrotreater 500 and product 222 from hydrotreater 220 to the steam cracking unit 700 (Figures 1 and 3, corresponding paragraphs [0008]-[0010] and [0068]-[0076]). Al-Ghamdi further teaches that the integration allows for increased efficiencies and reduced overall operating costs (paragraph [0298]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain naphtha and gasoil fractions, hydrotreat each fraction, and then pass the hydrotreated products to the steam cracking zone, as claimed, because Wu and Al-Ghamdi each teach integrations of FCC units and steam cracking units, and Al-Ghamdi teaches that hydrotreating and cracking the naphtha and gasoil fractions and passing to the steam cracker allows for increased efficiencies and reduced overall operating costs (paragraph [0298]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2021/0130262) as evidenced by ECHACHEM (Residues, atmospheric) and in view of Henry et al. (US 7,261,807) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Al-Ghamdi et al. (US 2018/0142167) and Pradeep et al. (US 2023/0227738).
With regard to claims 7 and 8, Wu teaches the method above. Wu further teaches that additional products including heavy oils are also produced from the fluidized catalytic cracking process (paragraph [0606]).
Wu does not specifically teach obtaining a slurry product as one of the heavy oils.
Al-Ghamdi teaches a method for integration of fluidized catalytic cracking and steam cracking (Abstract). Al-Ghamdi teaches that the process comprises obtaining a slurry product 410 from the fluidized catalytic cracking reactor 400 (Figure 1, corresponding paragraphs [0008]-[0010] and [0068]-[0076]). Thus, Al-Ghamdi teaches that it is known to obtain a slurry product from fluidized catalytic cracking.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a slurry product from the process of Wu, because each of Wu and Al-Ghamdi teaches fluidized catalytic cracking to obtain heavy oils, and Al-Ghamdi teaches that the heavy oils can include slurry product 410.
Wu in view of Al-Ghamdi does not specifically teach thermally cracking the slurry product followed by steam cracking a product of the thermal cracking.
Pradeep teaches integration of FCC, naphtha cracking, and delayed coking (claimed thermal cracking) (Abstract). Pradeep teaches the process comprises passing FCC clarified oil (slurry oil) to a delayed coker unit to generate coker naphtha (paragraph [0042]). Pradeep further teaches that the process includes a steam naphtha cracker unit (paragraph [0057]) which cracks naphtha boiling below 350°C (paragraph [0032]) and that the coker naphtha has a boiling point range of C5 to 140°C (paragraph [0087]).
Pradeep does not specifically teach steam cracking the coker naphtha from the delayed coking of the clarified (slurry) oil. However, because Pradeep teaches obtaining the coker naphtha having a boiling point range of C5-140°C and also teaches steam cracking of naphtha having a boiling point range of less than 350°C, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to steam crack the coker naphtha, as claimed, because the process would produce additional desirable olefins from streams which are not further used in the process.
Pradeep additionally teaches that the integration allows for extraction of value-added products from heavy residue by the delayed coking (paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of delayed coking (thermal cracking) of the slurry oil of Wu in view of Al-Ghamdi as taught by Pradeep, because each of Al-Ghamdi, and Pradeep teach an FCC slurry oil is obtained from fluidized catalytic cracking, and Pradeep teaches that using the clarified (slurry) oil in the delayed coking allows for extraction of value-added products from heavy residue by the delayed coking (paragraph [0013]).
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