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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a process for catalytically cracking hydrocarbons, classified in C10G11/182.
II. Claims 15-20, drawn to an apparatus for catalytically cracking hydrocarbons, classified in B01J8/006.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process, such as a hydroforming process.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with James Paschall on 10 August 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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: Fig. 2 recites the character “77” which is not described 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0033] recites obtaining a liquid stream in “overhead line 103”. However, it is clear from Fig. 1 that the line 103 is not an overhead line, but instead is obtained from the bottom of the vessel 99.
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 3 and 4 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the filter vessel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the “filter vessel” of claim 3 is the same as the filter of claim 1, or if the filter of claim 1 is instead contained inside the filter vessel of claim 3. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, instant claim 11 recites “filtering…in a filter vessel through a filter…” Thus, claim 3 will be interpreted as also referring to a vessel containing the filter of claim 1. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hedrick et al. (US 6,110,356).
With regard to claim 1, Hedrick teaches a method for recovery of fine solid particles from a slurry of a fluidized catalytic process (Abstract) comprising the following steps (See Figure 2 and corresponding columns 4-7):
a) cracking a hydrocarbon feed stream from conduit 18 in riser 20 with catalyst from conduit 16 to produce cracked hydrocarbon vapor products (column 4, lines 54-67).
b) separating (claimed disengaging) spent catalyst from the cracked hydrocarbon vapor products (claimed cracked stream) in reactor 12 (claimed reactor vessel) (column 4, line 55), where the separation takes place initially outside of riser outlet 44 and further continues using cyclones 46 (column 5, lines 1-5 and Figure 2).
c) stripping the spent catalyst in stripping vessel 14 to remove hydrocarbons (column 5, lines 13-20).
d) passing the cracked vapors (claimed cracked stream) to a main column (claimed main fractionation column) 67 to obtain products including a heavy hydrocarbon bottoms stream in line 72 (column 5, lines 50-67) where the bottoms stream is a stream comprising the catalyst fines (claimed slurry oil stream) (column 7, lines 1-5)
e) passing the stream in line 72 to filter system 90 to remove the fine particles and produce a clarified bottom stream 91 (claimed filtered slurry oil stream) (column 7, lines 35-43).
f) passing a portion of light cycle oil stream (claimed hydrocarbon stream) from line 70 to the filter to purge the fine particles from the filter element (claimed backflushing) to obtain a light cycle oil comprising the fine particles 96 (claimed backflushed hydrocarbon stream comprising catalyst fines) (column 7, lines 50-53).
g) passing the stream comprising light cycle oil and fines 96 through line 66 to bed 52 which is located inside reactor vessel 12 (column 7, lines 53-55; column 5, lines 10-15; and Figure 2).
With regard to claim 2, Hedrick teaches using naphtha as an alternative to the light cycle oil (claimed hydrocarbon stream) for purging the filter (claimed backflushing) and passing the catalyst fines to the stripper (column 2, lines 62-64).
With regard to claim 5, Hedrick teaches recycling the stream 66, which comprises the light cycle oil and fines from line 96, to the upper portion of bed 52 which is present in reactor 12 (Figure 2 and column 5, lines 10-15). This is the claimed passing to the reactor vessel in a catalyst bed in the reactor vessel.
With regard to claim 6, Hedrick teaches that the system comprises a riser reactor 20 communicating with reactor vessel 12, where the reactor vessel 12 comprises cyclones 46, outlet 44, and catalyst bed 52 (Figure 2 and column 5, lines 1-15). Hedrick further defines the stripper 14 as a separate vessel from the reactor 12 (column 4, lines 55-56). However, the stripper 14 is connected to the reactor vessel 12 through catalyst bed 52 (column 3, lines 10-15) in the same manner that the claimed stripping section is connected to the claimed disengaging section (see instant Figure 1 and Fig. 2 of Hedrick where the cyclones and catalyst bed are in the same locations as instant Figure 1). The reactor vessel 12 is thus equivalent to the claimed disengaging section that is in fluid communication with riser 20. Hedrick further teaches that the stripper 14 (claimed stripping section) in fluid communication with the reactor vessel 12 (claimed disengaging chamber) (Fig. 2).
With regard to claims 7 and 8, Hedrick teaches passing the cycle oil comprising catalyst fines through line 66 (claimed distributer) to the upper part of catalyst bed 52, which is present in reactor vessel 12 (claimed disengaging chamber). (column 5, lines 12-15 and Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 10, Hedrick teaches recycling a portion of the clarified stream 91 (claimed filtered slurry oil stream) to the riser reactor 20 (Fig. 2 and column 7, lines 45 and 49-50).
With regard to claim 11, Hedrick teaches a method for recovery of fine solid particles from a slurry of a fluidized catalytic process (Abstract) comprising the following steps (See Figure 2 and corresponding columns 4-7):
a) cracking a hydrocarbon feed stream from conduit 18 in riser 20 with catalyst from conduit 16 to produce cracked hydrocarbon vapor products (column 4, lines 54-67).
b) separating (claimed disengaging) spent catalyst from the cracked hydrocarbon vapor products (claimed cracked stream) in reactor 12 (claimed reactor vessel) (column 4, line 55), where the separation takes place initially outside of riser outlet 44 and further continues using cyclones 46 (column 5, lines 1-5 and Figure 2).
c) stripping the spent catalyst in stripping vessel 14 to remove hydrocarbons (column 5, lines 13-20).
d) passing the cracked vapors (claimed cracked stream) to a main column (claimed main fractionation column) 67 to obtain products including a heavy hydrocarbon bottoms stream in line 72 (column 5, lines 50-67) where the bottoms stream is a stream comprising the catalyst fines (claimed slurry oil stream) (column 7, lines 1-5)
e) passing the stream in line 72 to filter system 90 to remove the fine particles and produce a clarified bottom stream 91 (claimed filtered slurry oil stream) (column 7, lines 35-43).
f) passing a portion of light cycle oil stream from line 70 to the filter to purge the fine particles from the filter element (claimed backflushing) to obtain a light cycle oil comprising the fine particles 96 (claimed backflushed hydrocarbon stream comprising catalyst fines) (column 7, lines 50-53).
g) passing the stream comprising light cycle oil and fines 96 through line 66 to bed 52 which is located inside reactor vessel 12 (column 7, lines 53-55; column 5, lines 10-15; and Figure 2).
Hedrick further teaches using naphtha (claimed naphtha stream) as an alternative to the light cycle oil for purging the filter (claimed backflushing) and passing the catalyst fines to the stripper (column 2, lines 62-64).
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 3, 4, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedrick et al. (US 6,110,356).
With regard to claims 3 and 4, Hedrick teaches the process above, which uses light cycle oil to purge (claimed backflush) the filter (column 7, lines 50-53), where the light cycle oil is the washing fluid of instant claim 4.
Hedrick does not specifically teach washing and backflushing. The instant specification defines “washing” as a pre-backflushing step which removes some of the deposited residual matter on the filter before the second back-flushing step which removes the remainder of the material and recycles the material to the reactor, and shows that the “washing fluid” enters the reactor from the same direction as the “backflush stream” (paragraph [0048] and Figure 2). Thus, the steps of washing and backflushing as claimed in instant claims 1, 3, and 4 can be understood as a duplication of steps, because claims 1, 3, and 4 only define the backflushing stream as a hydrocarbon stream and light cycle oil is a hydrocarbon stream.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the step of Hedrick to perform the backflushing with light cycle oil twice, as claimed, because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious absent any evidence of criticality or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
With regard to claims 9 and 13, Hedrick teaches the method above, wherein the naphtha (claimed hydrocarbon stream) is used as an alternative to the light cycle oil for purging the filter (claimed backflushing) and passing the catalyst fines to the stripper (column 2, lines 62-64).
Hedrick does not specifically teach that the naphtha used in the purging and passing the catalyst fines is obtained from the main fractionator column. However, Hedrick teaches that naphtha is obtained as a product from the fractionator (column 8, line 57), and Hedrick teaches that when the light cycle oil is used as the oil for the purging and passing the catalyst fines, the light cycle oil is obtained from the fractionator (column 6, lines 40-41 and column 7, lines 50-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the naphtha obtained from the fractionator as the naphtha for purging and passing the catalyst fines, as claimed, because Hedrick teaches light cycle oil and naphtha as alternatives for the oil and Hedrick also teaches that when the light cycle oil is used, it is obtained from the fractionator (column 6, lines 40-41 and column 7, lines 50-53).
With regard to claim 12, Hedrick teaches the method above, wherein the naphtha (claimed hydrocarbon stream) is used as an alternative to the light cycle oil for purging the filter (claimed backflushing) and passing the catalyst fines to the stripper (column 2, lines 62-64).
Hedrick does not specify whether the naphtha is light, heavy, or full naphtha. However, Hedrick teaches that the fractionation column provides both a light and heavy naphtha fraction (column 5, lines 60-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select heavy naphtha as the naphtha stream for passing the catalyst fines to the stripping section, because Hedrick teaches the use of naphtha but does not specify what type of naphtha, Hedrick further teaches obtaining light and heavy naphtha, and selecting the heavy naphtha as the oil stream is merely a selection from a finite list of options with a reasonable expectation of success, which is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2143(I)E).
With regard to claim 14, Hedrick teaches the method above, where the oil for purging the filter (claimed backflushing) can be light cycle oil or naphtha (column 2, lines 62-64).
Hedrick fails to teach i) using a mixture of light cycle oil and naphtha or ii) performing both the claimed washing and the claimed backflushing of the filter with the mixture.
With regard to i), Hedrick teaches that naphtha and light cycle oil are both effective streams for collecting the fines (claimed backflushing) and being passed to the stripper (column 2, lines 62-64). It is known that “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form this composition to be used for the very same purpose... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” See MPEP 2144.06(I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use naphtha and light cycle oil together as the purging (backflushing) liquid, because this is merely combining compositions useful for the same purpose of backwashing a filter and recycling the fines to a stripper to obtain a composition useful for the same purpose, and the combination of two compositions used for the same purpose is prima facie obvious, absent any evidence of criticality or unexpected results from the combination.
With regard to ii), the instant specification defines “washing” as a pre-backflushing step which removes some of the deposited residual matter on the filter before the second back-flushing step which removes the remainder of the material and recycles the material to the reactor, and shows that the “washing fluid” enters the reactor from the same direction as the “backflush stream” (paragraph [0048] and Figure 2). Thus, the steps of washing and backflushing as claimed in instant claim 14 can be understood as a duplication of steps, because if a mixture of light cycle oil and naphtha are used as the fluid, flushing twice with this liquid meets the claimed limitations of washing with the light cycle oil followed by washing with the naphtha, as claimed.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the step of Hedrick to perform the backflushing with a mixture of naphtha and light cycle oil twice, as claimed, because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious absent any evidence of criticality or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
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