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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 24 September 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (US 2009/0054716) in view of Mitchell (US 5,746,908) and McCoy (US 3,692,668) and McCoy ‘08 (US 2008/0207974).
Regarding claims 1, Baumgartner teaches desalting crude oils prior to treatment in pyrolysis steam crackers [0003-0004].
Baumgartner does not explicitly disclose (1) the configuration of the desalting, or (2) recycle of desalted feed to be combined with the hydrocarbon feed (3) regulating the flow rate of desalted feed recycled by an automatic valve that maintains the flow or pressure of the portion of the desalted feed sent to the steam cracker (4) the prior art does not explicitly disclose the order of heating followed by recycling.
However, Mitchell teaches a process for desalting heavy hydrocarbons (column 2, lines 15-25). Mitchell teaches heating and pressurization in the desalting zone (column 3, lines 29-45) as well as electric field (column 3, lines 54-65). MItchell teaches combining the hydrocarbon with water (column 3, lines 1-65). Mitchell teaches sending the salt reduced hydrocarbon from the first stage of desalting to a second stage of desalting with water and separating salt reduced hydrocarbon from water (column 4, lines 1-30). Mitchell teaches that desalted oil leaving the second stage may be recycled back to the feed tank, and fed through the first stage again, until the desired salt level in the crude is achieved (column 4, lines 30-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Mitchell desalting steps, in order to obtain the desired desalted steam cracker feed of the Baumgartner process.
Regarding (2), McCoy teaches a similar process for separating heavy hydrocarbon fractions from water, salts, and other solids. McCoy teaches recycle of a portion of the desalted oil to act as diluent for the feed (column 1, lines 1-35, see figure). McCoy teaches a feed-effluent heat exchanger for the desalting unit to preheat the feed and cool the effluent (column 3, lines 55-75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the McCoy preheat configuration and recycling of a portion of the desalted product as diluent, in order to obtain the desired desalting temperature and dilution, as well as cool the desalted effluent. Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have separated desalted feed into portions so it may be used for desired purpose or stored accordingly.
Regarding (3), McCoy ‘08 teaches and automatic valve flow meter is utilized in order to achieve the desired flow rate of hydrocarbon feed to a steam cracker [0049]. McCoy ‘08 teaches decreasing the flow rate to the steam cracker during decoking steps [0038], which is the same adjustment discussed by the instant specification [0052]. In this regard, Examiner notes that McCoy ’08 teaches the same varying of flow rate to the steam cracker, which would also result in more/less feed to recycle line.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately adjusted the flow rate to the steam cracker, to allow for decoking steps, which would also result in the same adjustments to the amount of feed to recycle. It is not seen where such a modification would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding (4), Examiner notes that the selection of order of process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. It is not seen where the order of preheating and mixing would impact the process, as long as the desalting reaction is operated at the desired temperature. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, C – regarding the selection of any order of mixing ingredients.
Regarding claim 2, Mitchell teaches desalter pressures of 1-40 atm (column 3, lines 29-45).
Regarding claim 3, Mitchell teaches desalting temperatures of 50-250°C (column 3, lines 29-45).
Claims 4, 29-30, 33, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (US 2009/0054716) in view of Mitchell (US 5,746,908) and McCoy (US 3,692,668) and McCoy ‘08 (US 2008/0207974) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alozery (US 2,745,794).
Regarding claim 4 , the previous combination teaches the limitations of claims 1, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose a surge drum connected to the desalted hydrocarbon feed.
However, Examiner notes that such storage tanks are known in the art to hold feedstocks until further processing is available. Alozery teaches feeding dry crude 119 from desalter 117 to a surge tank 120 prior to further treatment (column 5, lines 15-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the well-known surge tank, as disclosed by Alozery, in order to hold the dry desalted crude before further treatment or transportation.
Regarding claims 29-30, 33, and 39, Examiner notes that the steam cracked effluent is “oleaginous” in that it is a hydrocarbon oil. As discussed above with respect to McCoy preheat configurations, it is well-known in the art to use hot process streams to heat cooler process feeds and cool the hot streams. It is not seen where such a modification would result in any new or unexpected results.
Claims 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (US 2009/0054716) in view of Mitchell (US 5,746,908) and McCoy (US 3,692,668) and further in view of Cho (US 2017/0107432).
Regarding claims 27, Baumgartner teaches desalting crude oils prior to treatment in pyrolysis steam crackers [0003-0004].
Baumgartner does not explicitly disclose (1) the configuration of the desalting, or (2) recycle of desalted feed to be combined with the hydrocarbon feed (3) disclose a recycle line from the steam cracker upgrading unit to the first desalter/or storage tank.
However, Mitchell teaches a process for desalting heavy hydrocarbons (column 2, lines 15-25). Mitchell teaches heating and pressurization in the desalting zone (column 3, lines 29-45) as well as electric field (column 3, lines 54-65). MItchell teaches combining the hydrocarbon with water (column 3, lines 1-65). Mitchell teaches sending the salt reduced hydrocarbon from the first stage of desalting to a second stage of desalting with water and separating salt reduced hydrocarbon from water (column 4, lines 1-30). Mitchell teaches that desalted oil leaving the second stage may be recycled back to the feed tank, and fed through the first stage again, until the desired salt level in the crude is achieved (column 4, lines 30-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Mitchell desalting steps, in order to obtain the desired desalted steam cracker feed of the Baumgartner process.
Regarding (2), McCoy teaches a similar process for separating heavy hydrocarbon fractions from water, salts, and other solids. McCoy teaches recycle of a portion of the desalted oil to act as diluent for the feed (column 1, lines 1-35, see figure). McCoy teaches a feed-effluent heat exchanger for the desalting unit to preheat the feed and cool the effluent (column 3, lines 55-75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the McCoy preheat configuration and recycling of a portion of the desalted product as diluent, in order to obtain the desired desalting temperature and dilution, as well as cool the desalted effluent. Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have separated desalted feed into portions so it may be used for desired purpose or stored accordingly.
Examiner considers the process steps discussed as applied to the claims above to include the claimed apparatus elements, involving two desalters in fluid communication with steam cracker, storage tank (surge tank) and recycle line for desalter effluent to the initial desalter start/storage line. It is noted that Mitchell teaches electric fields in the desalter (column 3, lines 55-65).
Regarding (3), Cho teaches a process for removing salt from crude oil prior to a thermal cracking oil upgrading unit [0024], [0026]. Cho teaches recycling upgraded oil product back to the stage where desalting takes place, in order to increase the throughput of the initial feed [0016], [0024], [0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have recycled pyrolysis (thermal cracker) effluent to the desalting stage, in order to increase throughput, as disclosed by Cho. Examiner additionally considers the location of desalter inlet/storage tank/or recycle line to be an obvious selection by the person having ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that each of these locations would achieve the desired dilution of the feed, and increased input.
Examiner considers the steam cracker effluent to include emulsion, since it is formed by the same steps as claimed. Further, it is noted the emulsion feed is suitable for desalting, since the desalter separates the oil and water phases.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (US 2009/0054716) in view of Mitchell (US 5,746,908), Alozery (US 2,745,794), McCoy (US 3,692,668), McCoy ‘08 (US 2008/0207974) and Alozery (US 2,745,794)as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Srivastava (US 2016/0376511).
Regarding claim 31, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 30, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose recovering oil from a bottoms pump around from a primary fractionator.
However, Srivastava teaches that steam crackers use bottoms pump arounds in primary fractionators to provide temperature control [0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have implemented well known primary fractionator bottoms pump around into the process, in order to control the temperature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 40 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 8, 10, 15-16, 32, and 40 are drawn to allowable subject matter.
The prior art teaches the limitations as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 27 as discussed above.
Feimer (US 6,579,444), Fletcher (US 5,320,742), Fletcher (US 4,039,389), and Kurukchi (US 2009/0036727) teach methods for recovering disulfide products using caustic treatment and oxidation. The prior art does not teach sending the recovered disulfide products back to the desalting stage.
Cho (US 2017/0107432) - Cho teaches a process for removing salt from crude oil prior to a thermal cracking oil upgrading unit [0024], [0026]. Cho teaches recycling upgraded oil product back to the stage where desalting takes place, in order to increase the throughput of the initial feed [0016], [0024], [0026]. Cho does not disclose sending disulfide oil recovered from caustic/oxidation treatment of thermal cracked effluent to the desalter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments to be:
Examiner states that the order of process steps is prima facie obvious. However, the combination of desalted feed with hydrocarbon feedstock increases the efficiency of the process.
The prior art does not teach that the desalted recycle stream is the same composition as the feedstock.
Regarding Applicant’s first argument, Examiner notes that as discussed in the rejections, Mitchell teaches recycling desalted feed to be combined with the hydrocarbon feedstock, and thus is expected to result in the same increased efficiency as claimed. In this regard, it is not seen where Applicant has shown that the order of preheat/mixing steps is what results in the new or unexpected results.
Regarding Applicant’s second argument, Mitchell teaches recirculation of the same desalted oil feedstock. Thus, it is expected that the Mitchell desalted oil would have the same composition as claimed, since it is obtained from the same desalting step as claimed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alozery (US 2,745,794) - Alozery teaches feeding dry crude 119 from desalter 117 to a surge tank 120 prior to further treatment (column 5, lines 15-65)
McCoy (US 2007/0004952) – teaches desalting feeds prior to steam cracking [0014-20].
Hart (US 5,271,841) – teaches two stage desalting of crude oils (see figure).
Kresnyak (US 2004/0007500) – teaches recycle of light hydrocarbon for use as diluent in desalting processes (see figure).
Martin (US 4,226,690) – teaches using diluents to improve desalter operation.
Pettefer (US 3,396,100) – teaches addition of naphtha or kerosene diluent to improve desalter operation (abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771