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 .
This communication is in response to the Reply filed 2/19/2026.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-13, 21-30 are allowed.
Previous rejections of the claims are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues Aittamaa merely discloses the use of a side column reboiler on the distillation column but not motivation to modify the distillation column of Guillevic to include a reboiler.
In response, Guillevic teaches a stripping column which requires heat for separation. Aittamaa teaches heat may be added to the column using a bottoms or side reboiler. Adding a reboiler to the column in Guillevic merely provides an alternative means of controlling the temperature of the column using known method. Given Guillevics desire to utilize the single heat exchanger to heat multiple process streams/services, one would have been motivated to heat the reboiler where used to add heat to the column, using the single exchanger of Guillevics for the same benefits of energy efficiency and decreased plot space and capital cost.
Applicant argues claim 28 was rejected over Hoehn (US 2013/0043161) in view of Seidler (US 10,065,908). Applicant traverses the rejection. Claim 28 recites separating the stripped hydroprocessed liquid stream in a preflash drum into a preflash overhead vapor stream and a preflash bottoms liquid stream; splitting said preflash bottoms liquid stream between a feed preflash bottoms liquid stream and a process stream; and heating said process stream taken from said preflash drum to provide a heated process stream and returning said heated process stream to the preflash drum.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not replace the prefractionation drum 112 of Hoehn with a multi-trayed fractionation column 110 of Seidler.
In response, Hoehn merely states “the hot stripped stream in hot bottoms line 106 may be separated in a separator 112” to obtain “vaporous hot stripped stream in overhead line 114” and “liquid hot stripped stream in bottoms line 116”. There is no indication a prefractionation column with reboiler could not be substituted for the separator of Hoehn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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, 5-7, 9-13, 21-27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aittamaa (EP 0,794,241) in view of Guillevic (US 2019/0194557).
With respect to claims 1, Guillevic teaches a method for improving hydrotreating processes in terms of energy efficiency and operating cost (0005). Guillevic teaches:
hydrotreating or hydroprocessing in R-1;
separation of the effluent in a series of separators to obtain at least a vapor stream and a liquid stream;
stripping in distillation column C-1 the liquid stream (Figure 3; 0183+); and
optional distillation of stream 42 in a distillation column (0189; not shown in figure).
Guillevic teaches utilizing a single spiral exchanger to provide heating and cooling to various process streams (Figure 3; 0189; 0102; 0107 (par. [0107] “coil-wound heat exchanger S-1 is suitable for carrying out one or more additional exchange services . . . by distributing the various services in the tubes of the bundle without there being mixing of the various services and by distributing and collecting the various services separately.”). Guillevic teaches using a single exchanger to replace multiple trains allows heating to a higher temperature, saving in cost and plot space with one exchanger rather than multiple trains, and reducing pressure drop across the exchangers (0155-0158; 0189).
Guillevic is silent regarding heating a process stream, taken from side of said separation vessel through an inlet, to provide a heated process stream and returning said heated process stream to the separation vessel through an outlet above the inlet, wherein said hydrocarbon feed stream and said process stream taken from side of said separation vessel are simultaneously heated in a single heat exchanger with said hydroprocessed effluent stream.
Aittamaa is also in the field of hydroprocessing. Aittamaa teaches a process for:
hydrogenation using two hydrogenation reactors in series;
separating the effluent in separator 28 to obtain a first liquid and a first vapor;
distilling the first liquid in column 23 to obtain a second vapor and additional liquid (page 6; Figure 3). “The distillation column is provided with a reboiler (heater) 35 at the bottom and another in the middle 31.” (page 6). The reboil stream is returned above the draw (Figure 3).
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the column of Guillevic by utilizing a side reboiler as taught in Aittamaa to control the temperature of the stripper column and to heat the stream using the single coil exchanger because Guillevic teaches heating multiple process streams with the single coil exchanger, including the column bottoms which would be at a higher temperature than a side draw.
With respect to claim 5, Guillevic teaches splitting the feedstream into two streams, passing each of the streams through the heat exchanger for heating against the effluent, combining the heated feed and passing to the reactor (Figure 1; 0077-0082). The split heating allows operational flexibility and control, including bypassing one train when offline and allows adjusting the flow through or around exchangers to enable reaction temperature of the hydroprocessing reaction section to be adjusted (0082).
With respect to claim 6, Guillevic teaches wherein the exchanger is single coil-wound exchanger (abstract), i.e. a spiral tube heat exchanger.
With respect to claim 7, Guillevic teaches stripping the liquid effluent with steam (0186; 0189).
With respect to claim 9, Guillevic teaches separating the hydroprocessing effluent with a series of separators and stripping and then sending to distillation (0134).
With respect to claim 10, Aittamaa teaches a side and bottom reboiler (page 6). Guillevic teaches heating the bottoms stream in the coil exchanger.
With respect to claim 11, Guillevic teaches sending the stripped bottoms to fractionation (0189).
With respect to claim 12, Guillevic teaches separating the hydroprocessing effluent with a series of separators, striping distillation column, and fractionator (0134; 0189).
With respect to claim 13, Aittamaa teaches a side reboiler (page 6), which draws a stream that lies between the overhead and bottoms.
With respect to claims 21, Guillevic teaches a method for improving hydrotreating processes in terms of energy efficiency and operating cost (0005). Guillevic teaches:
hydrotreating or hydroprocessing in R-1, the temperature of the reactor is between 200-460C (0137);
separation of the effluent in a series of separators to obtain at least a vapor stream and a liquid stream;
stripping in distillation column C-1 the liquid stream (Figure 3; 0183+); and
optional distillation of stream 42 in a distillation column (0189; not shown in figure).
Guillevic is silent regarding heating a process stream taken from side of said separation vessel to provide a heated process stream and returning said heated process stream to the separation vessel.
Aittamaa is also in the field of hydroprocessing. Aittamaa teaches a process for:
hydrogenation using two hydrogenation reactors in series;
separating the effluent in separator 28 to obtain a first liquid and a first vapor;
distilling the first liquid in column 23 to obtain a second vapor and additional liquid (page 6; Figure 3). “The distillation column is provided with a reboiler (heater) 35 at the bottom and another in the middle 31.” (page 6). The reboil stream is returned above the draw (Figure 3).
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the column of Guillevic by utilizing a side reboiler as taught in Aittamaa as an alternative means to control the temperature to the required operating temperature.
With respect to claim 22, Guillevic teaches utilizing a single spiral exchanger to provide heating and cooling to various process streams (Figure 3; 0189; 0102; 0107 (par. [0107] “coil-wound heat exchanger S-1 is suitable for carrying out one or more additional exchange services . . . by distributing the various services in the tubes of the bundle without there being mixing of the various services and by distributing and collecting the various services separately.”), including e.g. the feed and the liquid bottoms from the column. Guillevic teaches using a single exchanger to replace multiple trains allows heating to a higher temperature, saving in cost and plot space with one exchanger rather than multiple trains, and reducing pressure drop across the exchangers (0155-0158; 0189).
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate a side reboiler in a modified process of Guillevic in view of Aittamaa to utilize the single spiral exchanger S-1 for heating the side reboil stream to achieve the befits of Guillevic for single exchanger including reduced capital cost and plot space.
With respect to claim 23, Guillevic teaches splitting the feedstream into two streams, passing each of the streams through the heat exchanger for heating against the effluent, combining the heated feed and passing to the reactor (Figure 1; 0077-0082). The split heating allows operational flexibility and control, including bypassing one train when offline and allows adjusting the flow through or around exchangers to enable reaction temperature of the hydroprocessing reaction section to be adjusted (0082).
With respect to claim 24, Guillevic teaches stripping the liquid effluent with steam (0186; 0189).
With respect to claim 25, Guillevic teaches sending the stripped bottoms to fractionation (0189).
With respect to claim 26, Guillevic teaches separating the hydroprocessing effluent with a series of separators, striping distillation column, and fractionator (0134; 0189).
With respect to claim 27, Aittamaa teaches a side reboiler (page 6), which draws a stream that lies between the overhead and bottoms.
With respect to claim 30, Guillevic teaches utilizing a single spiral exchanger to provide heating and cooling to various process streams (Figure 3; 0189; 0102; 0107 (par. [0107] “coil-wound heat exchanger S-1 is suitable for carrying out one or more additional exchange services . . . by distributing the various services in the tubes of the bundle without there being mixing of the various services and by distributing and collecting the various services separately.”).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoehn (US 2013/0043161) in view of Seidler (US 10,065,908).
With respect to claims 28, Hoehn teaches hydroprocessing residue feeds followed by separating in a series of separation vessels for separating vapor and liquid, a stripper for stripping a vapor from the liquid, a preflash column for fractionation of the stripped liquid, and a fractionation column for fractionating the preflash column liquid. Hoehn at par. [0003], [0026]+, [0057]-[0061], and Figure 1. “Illustrative hydrocarbon feedstocks include hydrocarbonaceous streams having components boiling above about 288° C (550° F), such as atmospheric gas oils, vacuum gas oil (VGO) boiling between about 315° C (600° F) and about 565° C (1050° F), deasphalted oil, coker distillates, straight run distillates, pyrolysis-derived oils, high boiling synthetic oils, cycle oils, hydrocracked feeds, catalytic cracker distillates, atmospheric residue boiling at or above about 343° C (650° F) and vacuum residue boiling above about 510° C (950° F).” Hoehn par. [0028].
Hoehn is silent regarding splitting said preflash bottoms liquid stream between a feed preflash bottoms liquid stream and a process stream; and heating said process stream taken from said preflash drum to provide a heated process stream and returning said heated process stream to the preflash drum.
Prefractionation columns having reboilers for controlling temperature are known in the art as shown in Seidler. Seidler is directed to separation of hydrocarbons streams. Seidler teaches prefractionation in a first column followed by fractionation in a second column () and teaches using the duty of the reboiler to control the separation in the column.
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hoehn by adding a reboiler on the prefractionation column as taught in Seidler because both are directed to separation of hydrocarbons a preflash column upstream of fractionation column, adding a reboiler would allow alternative means of controlling the temperature in the flash column, and it is obvious to combine or substitute known elements to achieve predictable results.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoehn in view of Seidler as applied to claim 28, further in view of Guillevic.
With respect to claim 29, the art fails to teach heating the feed and the reboiler stream simultaneously. Guillevic teaches utilizing a single spiral exchanger to provide heating and cooling to various process streams (0102,0107). Guillevic teaches wherein the single exchanger with multiple services allows heating to a higher temperature, having only one exchanger rather than multiple trains resulting in capital and plot space savings; and reducing pressure drop across the exchangers (0155-0158).
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined process by utilizing a spiral exchanger of Guillevic for heating multiple services including the reactor feedstream and separator reboil because both Hoehn and Guillevic are directed to hydroprocessing and separation of hydrocarbons, Guillevic teaches using a single exchanger for multiple services for minimizing capital costs and plot space, and it is obvious to combine or substitute known elements to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights