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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 February 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, 13-16, 27, 29, 35-41 are pending.
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 1-2, 4, 10-11, 13, 27, and 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lattner (US 2014/0061100) in view of Greene (US 2,825,686) and Bigache (US 3,597,494) and Strack (US 2007/0007170).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 27, and 37-41, Lattner teaches sending a crude oil hydrocarbon feed to a desalting step [0067], followed by flash separation to remove heavy residual bottoms including asphaltenes [0069-0071], prior to feeding to steam cracking (pyrolysis) steps [0072], see figure 4. Lattner pyrolysis includes convection section [0070] and radiant coils [0070]. Lattner teaches pyrolysis effluent sent to flash 120 followed by fractionation 130 to produced desired fractions [0043-0056], see figure 4. It is expected that the bottoms obtained by Lattner would contain metal composition as claimed, since it is obtained by the same process steps as disclosed by the prior art. Lattner teaches preheating the hydrocarbons [0070]. Lattner teaches the hydrocarbon can be preheated with the steam [0070], while the claims require preheat hydrocarbon prior to combining with steam. However, Examiner considers the order of the pre heat steps to be prima facie obvious (Please see MPEP 2144.04, IV, C).
Lattner does not explicitly disclose (1) which compositions are removed in the desalting step (2) separation of bottoms, cooling bottoms, and quenching steps (3) purge introduced into knock out drum.
Regarding (1), Examiner notes that desalting is well known in the art to treat crude oil feeds to remove salts and contaminants that are detrimental to refinery processes. Greene teaches that crude oil is desalted to remove calcium chloride (halogen containing), sodium chloride (halogen containing), and vanadium (metal) to prevent the fouling that they would produce in refinery equipment (column 1, lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art that the well-known desalting step performed in Lattner would also reduce in removal of halogen and metal contaminants, as disclosed by Greene. Examiner additionally notes that the instant spec teaches the same crude oil feeds [0034], to conventional desalters [0040] to remove the sodium chloride and calcium chloride [0041]. In this regard, it is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps, since the prior art teaches the same conventional desalting of crude oil feed as disclosed by the instant specification.
The prior art teaches the same crude oil desalting, flash, and steam cracking steps, as discussed above. It is expected that the same halogen/asphaltene/nickel/vanadium reduction would be achieved, since the same steps are performed to the same feedstocks. Examiner additionally notes that Applicant’s instant specification uses conventional desalting [0040]. In this regard, it is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps from the desalting and pyrolysis of the prior art.
Regarding (2) However, Bigache teaches cooling fractionator bottoms and recirculating as quench fluid is conventional in steam cracking process (column 1, lines 1-40). Bigache introduces steam cracker effluent into knockout drum 21, followed by fractionation column 7 (figure 2, column 3, line 64-column 4, line 75)). Bottoms from the knockout drum 23 and fractionator 18 are cooled and recirculated into the knockout drum (see figure 2). Examiner considers Bigache knock out drum, fractionator, bottoms cooling, and recirculation to read on claimed steps i-ii and iv on page 2 of the claims. Examiner additionally notes that the Bigache recirculation of bottoms would result in the same decrease in liquid vapor contact time, since Bigache is also adding additional material to the knock out drum in addition to the pyrolysis effluent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the conventional cooling, quenching, and recirculation with the process of the previous combination, for the benefit of achieving the desired cooling of the pyrolysis effluent. Examiner notes that it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06, I).
Further, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate cooling temperatures in order to avoid undesirable fouling and polymerization. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding (3), Strack teaches purge gas selected from steam, inert gas such as nitrogen, and non condensable hydrocarbons from steam cracking introduced into knock out drum separators in order to reduce liquid vapor contact time [0046], [0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Strack purge gas introduction into the knock out drum, for the benefit of improving vapor liquid contact time.
Regarding claims 10-11, Lattner teaches tar knock out drum separation , transfer line exchangers, and quench with liquid to cool to a temperature of 350°C [0075], [0076], see figures. Examiner additionally notes BIgache as applied to claim 1 for knock out drum/fractionator/bottoms recirculation.
Regarding claim 13, Lattner teaches tar knockout drum mixture cooled to a temperature of about 300°C [0044], [0054], see figure 4.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lattner (US 2014/0061100) in view of Greene (US 2,825,686) and Bigache (US 3,597,494) and Strack (US 2007/0007170) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wegner (US 4,006,077) and Zenaitis (US 2018/0094198).
Regarding claims 14-15, Lattner teaches subjecting the steam cracked tar to a catalytic hydroprocessing step in one or more stages [0088-0106]. Lattner teaches that the hydroprocessing includes hydrodemetallization [0105]. Examiner considers Lattner to read on the claimed catalytic dementalization (one stage of hydroprocessing) and hydroprocessing (additional stage of hydroprocessing).
Lattner does not explicitly disclose the demetallization via centrifuging and/or sorption.
However, Wegner teaches that petroleum oils can be demetallized by contact with sorptive medium (abstract).
Further, Zenaitis teaches that sorptive processes can be combined with centrifuging in order to achieve demetallization (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used sorptive and/or centrifuging in the process of the previous combination, for the benefit of removing undesirable metal components.
Regarding claim 16, Lattner teaches the same hydroprocessing steps as claimed, including dementalization [0105].
Therefore, it is expected that the same amount of vanadium would be removed, since Lattner teaches the same steam cracked tar sent to the same hydroprocessing/dementalization as claimed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Claim 29, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lattner (US 2014/0061100) in view of Greene (US 2,825,686) and Bigache (US 3,597,494) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Alabbad (US 2019/0031967) and Banerjee (US 2014/0091010).
Regarding claims 29 and 36, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Lattner teaches hydroprocessing the steam cracker bottoms (see figure).
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose (1) pyrolysis product sent to amine unit (2) using a lean amine solution to remove sulfur impurities in a clean fuels unit (3) common amine regeneration.
Regarding (1), Alabbad teaches that it is known in the art to send pygas/sulfur containing hydrocarbon gases to amine units in order to remove the undesirable sulfur compounds [0003-0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated amine units as disclosed by Alabbad, in order to remove undesirable sulfur components from the hydrocarbon streams of the previous combination.
Regarding (2), Banerjee teaches a similar process for hydroprocessing hydrocarbons [0025-0026] as required by Lattner. In Banerjee, hydroprocessing is combined with amine wash stages to further remove hydrogen sulfide [0030]. A lean amine stream is fed to the amine wash stage [0032], which results in a rich amine stream [0037], which is sent to amine regeneration steps [0037]. Examiner considers the Banerjee combination of hydroprocessing and amine wash units to read on the claimed “clean fuels unit”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the Banerjee amine wash with the hydroprocessing required by Lattner, for the benefit of recovering further removal of sulfur compounds.
Regarding (3), the claims use a common amine regeneration unit for the two rich amine streams recovered. Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have treated the amine streams in a common regeneration step, since they both have similar contaminants and are sent to the same amine regeneration steps in order to regenerate the streams for further use. It is not seen where such a modification would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 35, Lattner teaches that the feeds are selected from crude oils [0068]. In this regard, Examiner notes that the person having ordinary skill in the art would be appropriately select the specific crude oil to be treated, such as medium or heavy crude oil having the claimed api gravities. Since Lattner does not limit the crude oil to a specific type, it is expected that the person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a medium crude or heavy crude.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nierode (US 2022/0306949) – common assignee and inventors – teaches a similar process for desalting and steam cracking.
Nierode (US 2023/0151283) – common assignee and inventors – teaches a similar process for desalting and steam cracking.
Kuan (US 223/0220287) - common assignee and inventors – teaches a similar process for desalting and steam cracking.
Osby (US 2021/0253961) – noted on ISR for related PCT, teaches steam cracking process (abstract).
Xu (US 2021/0230490) - noted on ISR for related PCT, teaches steam cracking process (abstract).
Srivastava (US 2016/0376511) – teaches steam cracking and fractionation (see figure).
Bourane (US 2013/0197284) – teaches an integrated process for deasphalting and pyrolysis (see figure).
Buchanan (US 2007/0090020) – teaches it is conventional to desalt feeds prior to steam cracking to produce olefins [0004].
Chakka (US 2010/0089797) – teaches removing vanadium and salts from crude oil feeds [0001-0028].
Davidson (US 2020/0172817) – teaches desalting of crude oil and removal of nickel and vanadium [0052].
Packie (US 2,823,181) – teaches removing vanadium, sodium chloride, and calcium chloride form crude using desalter (column 1, lines 1-45).
Conclusion
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