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 .
This communication is in response to the amendment and reply filed 6/11/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (1) Morel does not teach hydrocracking a light fraction because the light fraction of Morel is vacuum gas oil. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Primary reference, Brown, teaches sending the initial cracked effluent to a separator to separate a first light stream comprising naphtha and diesel that may be sent to fuels processing/pool from a first heavy stream comprising gas oil and heavier effluent, shown in the figures as 750F+ or 800F+ (i.e. 400C or 427C) fraction. The heavier stream or a resid portion thereof is processed in deasphalting. Where the resid portion is subject to solvent deasphalting, the VGO would be removed for further treatment. The remainder, the second light stream, is the stream corresponding to the light stream of Morel and would include gas oil and vacuum gas oil range components.
Applicant argues (2) Morel does not disclose maximum conversion hydrocracking of claim 1 because the conditions are adjusted to maximize production of gas oil. Applicant argues maximizing gas oil production is not the same as maximizing conversion. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive. As stated by applicant, the process is maximizing conversion, with the reference point of 400C. Thus, maximizing conversion to gas oil is maximizing conversion of the 400C- fraction. Applicant argues the stream is different in Morel and claimed, however, the claimed stream is a first stream comprising gas oil and a second stream comprising heavy unconverted oil. As shown above, the stream in Brown and Morel may include gasoil range and vacuum gas oil range components. Heavy unconverted oil when the feed is a residual oil is expected to be residual components. The first stream comprising gas oil would include the streams of Morel and Brown comprising gas oil and vacuum gas oil range components.
Applicant argues (3) the art fails to teach overall conversion of a two-stage process, now claimed as such that hydrocarbons exiting maximum conversion hydrocracking comprise less than 10 % of hydrocarbons boiling greater than 400C. The art is silent regarding wherein the two stage process results in less than 10% 400C+ effluent. However, the art teaches multiple step hydrocracking for the purpose of maximizing conversion relative to gas oil which is an end point just below 400C. Given Morel teaches increasing conversion with multiple stages and recycling the unconverted VGO, it would have been obvious maximize conversion, including 90% as claimed.
Applicant argues (4) Brown teaches producing lubricants while Morel teaches producing fuel from gas oil. However, in Brown, the lighter fractions are sent to fuels processing. The residual fraction to deasphalting is sent to lubricant processing.
With respect to Al-Ghamdi, Applicant argues (5) there is no reason to add a naphtha cracker to Brown or Morel. This is not persuasive. Brown and Morel teach production of naphtha. Al-Ghamdi teaches naphtha can be processed to produce olefins. Where olefinic chemicals are a desired product, it would have been obvious to convert the naphtha of Brown or Morel to produce the desired chemicals.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2016/0298048) in view of Morel (US 2016/0177202) and Al-Ghamdi (US 2018/0155642).
With respect to claims 1, 15, and 16, Brown, directed to “processing deasphalted gas oils derived from thermally cracked resid fractions to form Group I, Group II, and/or Group III lubricant base oils” (abstract). Brown teaches providing feedstock which may include residues having 10% distillation point of at least 650F or at least 1050F (par. [0041]). Brown teaches exposing the feed to thermal cracking conditions” (par. [0054], [0075]), including hydrocracking in the presence of a hydrocracking catalyst (par. [0054], [0026]). The cracked product may be separated into “lower boiling portions (such as naphtha and diesel boiling range compounds) from one or more portions having a boiling range suitable for forming lubricant base oils” such as 700F+ (par. [0075], [0076]). The lower boiling portion includes gas oil range components. With respect to the remaining light fraction, Brown teaches the light fractions may be sent to fuels processing (Figure 3).
The heavy stream or only the resid portion thereof is deasphalted to produce a stream comprising de-asphalted oil (par. [0075]+). Where the resid portion is sent to deasphalting, resid kwon to be e.g. 1050F+ as shown in Brown for feedstock, the vacuum gas oil would be removed for additional further processing. The de-asphalted oil is hydrocracked in a partial conversion (see par. [0092] at least 10% conversion, which includes 10-40%) hydrocracking unit under partial conversion conditions to produce one or more lubricating base oils (par. [0084], [0092]); wherein the partial conversion hydrocracking conditions produces naphtha (par. [0097]), diesel (par. [0097]), and unconverted oil that is subject to further hydroprocessing to produce lubricant base oil (par. [0099]). Further hydroprocessing may include hydrotreating, hydrocracking, hydrofinishing, hydrodewaxing (par. [0097]-[0121]).
Brown is silent regarding the further treatment of the non-resid, heavy portion not send to deasphalting (see par. [0075]+), including subjecting, in a maximum conversion hydrocracking unit comprising more than one reaction stage, such that the effluent comprises less than 10% heavy hydrocarbons having a boiling range of greater than 400 C, at least a portion of the first stream to maximum conversion hydrocracking conditions to form a fifth stream comprising naphtha, steam-cracking the naphtha of the fifth stream to produce one or more olefins and/or one or more aromatics;
subjecting a second portion of the third stream to maximum conversion hydrocracking to produce additional naphtha; and
flowing a fourth stream comprising a heavy fraction from the maximum conversion hydrocracking unit to the de-asphalting unit.
Morel, directed to vacuum residue upgrading and fuels processing, teaches a process for conversion of residue hydrocarbon using hydrocracking, corresponding to the first hydrocracking/thermal cracking of Brown, and separation into at least a heavy and light fraction. The heavy residual fraction may be processed using solvent deasphalting, as in Brown. A lighter fraction comprising vacuum gas oil is subject to hydrocracking to produce a naphtha fraction, gas oil fraction, and an unconverted fraction which may be recycled back to the initial hydrocracking reaction or passed to the solvent deasphalting unit (Figure 2-3). The light fraction hydrocracking unit operates with catalyst and operating conditions of at least temperature and pressure and LHSV overlapping those claimed in the instant application. Thus, the art satisfies the claim limitation for maximum conversion hydrocracking. With respect to the hydrocracking conversion, Morel teaches using two-stage cracking wherein the first stage is 30-60% and the second stage converts more of the unconverted portion increasing the conversion (0030). Morel also teaches recycling the VGO for further conversion. Figures. Morel teaches sending a portion of the deasphalted oil to hydrocracking with the initial light stream for increased product (Figure 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Brown by treating the gas oil and all or portion of the deasphalted oil stream in a hydroconversion reaction zone for the production of gas oil and naphtha as taught in Morel because both are directed to production of fuels and chemicals from residual hydrocarbons using hydrocracking and downstream treatment of the hydrocracked effluent, Brown teaches a desire for processing the hydrocracked light fraction and Morel teaches specific steps for upgrading the same, and the combination of the two combines known processes in an expected manner to do no more than obtain predictable results of upgrading the gas oil to produce naphtha and other hydrocarbon products. With respect to the conversion of the hydrocracking unit, it would have been obvious to maximize conversion, including only 10% boiling above gas oil, because Morel teaches using two stages for increased conversion to gas oil and teaches recycling any unconverted VGO for further cracking.
Brown in view of Morel is silent regarding further comprising steam-cracking the naphtha of the fifth stream to produce light olefins and/or BTX.
Al-Ghamdi is directed to an integrated process and system for conversion of crude oil to petrochemicals (aromatics and olefins) and fuel products using mixed feed steam cracking (title; abstract; 0002). Al-Ghamdi teaches wherein the naphtha range streams, including one or more of straight run naphtha, wild naphtha from individual hydrotreating or hydrocracking units, and other refinery product streams, is passed to steam cracking zone that operates under parameters to crack the feed into desired products including ethylene, propylene, butadiene, and mixed butenes (0426-0429). The integrated units may include resid hydrocracking to produce heavy fraction that is passed to base oil production zone and a light fraction which may be passed to one of the integrated hydroprocessing zones (0838), the integrated hydroprocessing zones then producing a naphtha that is passed to steam cracking (throughout; 0427).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Brown and Morel by sending the naphtha or light product fractions produced with one or more of the refining units to a steam cracking reactor as taught in Al-Ghamdi to create an integrated process for producing olefin products given each of the references are directed to production of fuels and petrochemicals from heavy petroleum feed using an integrated set of refining units, Al-Ghamdi teaches sending any number of wild naphtha streams, with or without other fractions, produced from hydroprocessing intermediate streams to a mixed feed steam cracker to produce olefins, Al-Ghamdi can be integrated Brown and Morel which teaches forming such boiling range streams, and the combination is within the skill of one in the art and would merely apply process steps in a known way to yield predictable results.
With respect to claims 2 and 7, Brown teaches low severity hydrocracking with an LHSV of 0.5-20 hr-1, which when converted to a WHSV which encompasses 10 hr-1 and overlaps the range of 0.05 to 10 hr-1.
With respect to claim 3, Morel is silent regarding wherein the heavy fraction of the stream from hydrocracking comprises primarily polyaromatic hydrocarbons and other hydrocarbons with a boiling range of above 350 collectively, but the same feeds and conditions are expected to produce a fraction overlapping or similar to that claimed.
With respect to claim 4, Brown teaches deasphalting with an alkane having 3 to 6 carbon atoms (0077).
With respect to claim 5, Brown teaches wherein the feed to deasphalting may be 800F+ (0076), thus the DAO would fall within the range of primarily hydrocarbons boiling above 400C.
With respect to claim 6, Brown teaches wherein the partial conversion hydrocracking conditions comprise a reaction temperature of 288-449 C, which encompasses 300 to 450 °C, and a reaction pressure of 1500-5000 psig, which overlaps 80 to 200 bar (0095).
With respect to claims 8-10, Morel teaches wherein the hydrocracking conditions comprise a reaction temperature of 300-550C, which encompasses 300 to 450 °C, and a reaction pressure of 5-35 MPa, which encompasses 80 to 200 bar, and an LHSV of 0.1-10h-1, which overlaps WHSV of 0.05-10hr-1 (0033-0035).
With respect to claim 11, Brown teaches wherein the partial conversion hydrocracking conditions comprise a reaction temperature of 288-449C, pressure of 1500-5000 psig (0095). Morel teaches temperatures of 300-550C, which encompasses 300 to 450 °C, and a reaction pressure of 5-35 MPa, which encompasses 80 to 200 bar (0033-0035).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Brown teaches wherein the hydroprocessing is dewaxing and conditions include a weight ratio of hydrogen to feed in a range of 1,000-10,000 scf/b, which when converted to mass falls within a range overlapping the claimed range of 0.1% to 15%, and a temperature in the range of 300-450C, which falls within 200-450C, and a hydrogen pressure of 500-5000 psig, which encompasses a total pressure of 20-200 bar.
With respect to claim 14, Morel teaches hydrocracking to produce naphtha and diesel (figures 1-3).
With respect to claims 17-20, Brown teaches wherein the deasphalting produces 85% or less DAO, with the remaining deasphalting residue (0078), which is a pitch stream (evidenced by Morel).
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