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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/10/2026 has been entered.
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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chapus et al. (US 2017/0022424 A1) in view of Himelfarb et al. (US 2008/0004476 A1), and further in view of Toppinen et al. (WO 2020/165496 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chapus teaches hydroprocessing renewable feedstocks comprising triglycerides and/or fatty acids with hydrogen in a fixed-bed trickle-flow reactor to produce paraffinic hydrocarbons by reactions including hydrodeoxygenation and hydrogenation. Chapus teaches downward co-current flow of feed and hydrogen through catalytic beds and separation and recycle of the resulting liquid hydrocarbon product. See Chapus ¶¶[0001]–[0014], [0037]–[0042], [0058], [0096]–[0108], [0110]. Chapus further teaches a local liquid recycle ratio of ≤2, preferably ≤1.7 and ≤1.5, for controlling the exothermic hydroprocessing reactions. See ¶¶[0030]–[0034], [0096]–[0100]. Chapus specifically recognizes that reduced liquid recycle reduces pressure drop and equipment requirements while high hydrogen flow at the reactor head preserves good distribution over the catalytic bed. See ¶¶[0032]–[0035]. Chapus further teaches separating a liquid fraction containing paraffinic hydrocarbons from the hydrotreated effluent and recycling at least a portion of the separated liquid fraction to the hydrotreatment reactor. See ¶¶[0028]-[0034], [0059]-[0060], [0096]-[0100], and [0118]-[0131]. Chapus expressly demonstrates a recycle amount falling within the presently claimed range when expressed on the claimed volume basis. In Example 3, Chapus treats a total renewable palm-oil feed F of 100 g/h and recycles a total of 90 g/h of liquid hydrocarbon product (RL1 = 60 g/h and RL2 = 30 g/h). See ¶¶[0176]-[0180] and Table 3. Chapus reports a density of 915.5 kg/m³ for the palm-oil renewable feed (Table 1a) and a density of 786.3 kg/m³ for the produced hydrocarbon liquid (Table 3). Accordingly, converting the expressly disclosed mass flow rates to volumetric flow rates gives a recycle-to-renewable-feed volume ratio of: (90/786.3)/(100/915.5) ≈ 1.05:1.
Thus, Chapus's Example 3 expressly provides the mass flow rates and densities which necessarily correspond to a hydrocarbon-liquid recycle-to-renewable-feed volume ratio of approximately 1.05:1, which falls within the claimed range of 0.4:1 to 1.8:1. Accordingly, the claimed recycle ratio does not distinguish the claimed process from Chapus merely because Chapus generally defines its recycle ratios on a weight basis rather than a volume basis.
Chapus differs from amended claim 1 in that its preferred renewable-feed arrangement divides the feed into part-streams F1–Fn introduced at respective catalytic zones rather than expressly introducing substantially all renewable feedstock upstream of the first bed. See Chapus ¶[0058]. Chapus also does not expressly disclose the claimed numerical first-bed wetting requirements of at least 90% surface contact and no more than 10% local-liquid-velocity distribution range.
Himelfarb teaches the known alternative multi-bed fixed-bed reactor arrangement pertinent to these differences. Himelfarb teaches that nonuniform feed flow causes channeling and hot spots and expressly teaches improving distribution of feed across the catalyst bed to address those problems. See Himelfarb ¶¶[0014]–[0018]. In particular, Himelfarb defines “highly dispersed” feed as feed distributed across the cross-sectional area of the vessel and onto the top surface area of the catalyst bed in a manner that minimizes radial nonuniformity, and teaches that the flow preferably approaches substantially uniform fluid flow at the catalyst-bed top surface. Himelfarb further defines substantially equivalent local mass flow rates by reference to the difference between the largest and smallest local flow rates. See ¶[0016]. Himelfarb teaches distribution means including perforated horizontal plates, apertures, holes, nozzles, downcomers, conduits, spray nozzles and atomizers for obtaining such highly dispersed flow. See ¶¶[0017]–[0018]. More importantly for amended claim 1, Himelfarb's multi-bed embodiment includes first and second catalyst beds 108 and 120. The hydrocarbon feed is introduced through inlet 104, passes across first distribution means 114, and is highly dispersed onto and through the first catalyst bed 108; the effluent thereafter proceeds toward the second bed. See ¶¶[0045]–[0050] and Fig. 2. Himelfarb's Fig. 3 embodiment likewise introduces the hydrocarbon feedstock through conduit 222 and hydrogen through conduit 224 at reactor inlet 218, where the mixture is supplied to distribution tray 214 above the first catalyst bed 208 and dispersed across its top surface; downstream trays redistribute the effluent over subsequent catalyst beds. See ¶¶[0051]–[0054]. US20080004476A1
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ, in the renewable-feed hydroprocessing process of Chapus, the known multi-bed feed arrangement and highly dispersed first-bed distribution taught by Himelfarb, such that substantially all renewable feedstock and hydrogen are introduced upstream of the first catalyst bed and distributed across the top surface thereof, in order to minimize radial nonuniformity, flow channeling, and localized hot spots and thereby improve utilization of the catalyst bed, as expressly taught by Himelfarb.
With respect to the claimed at least 90% surface contact and ≤10% local-liquid-velocity distribution range, Himelfarb does not expressly disclose these particular numerical values. However, Himelfarb expressly identifies the degree of radial flow uniformity as a parameter affecting catalyst-bed operation and teaches that the desired flow should approach substantially uniform flow, including minimizing the difference between local flow rates. See ¶¶[0014]–[0017]. Thus, the extent of bed-surface coverage and local-flow uniformity are result-effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the number, spacing, configuration, and flow characteristics of Himelfarb's known distributor openings/nozzles so as to increase bed-surface coverage and reduce differences between local liquid velocities, including to at least 90% coverage and a local-velocity distribution range of no more than 10%, because Himelfarb expressly teaches that minimizing radial nonuniformity and approaching substantially uniform flow reduces channeling and hot spots and improves flow through the catalyst bed. The claimed numerical limits have not been shown to produce a result different in kind from the known benefits obtained by progressively improving the flow uniformity taught by Himelfarb.
As to the recycle limitation, Chapus expressly teaches local liquid recycle ratios ≤2, including preferred ratios ≤1.7 and ≤1.5. See ¶¶[0096]–[0100]. Selection of a recycle amount within the overlapping claimed range of 0.4:1–1.8:1 would have been obvious for controlling reactor exothermicity while reducing pressure drop and hydraulic load, consistent with Chapus's express objective of reducing liquid recycle. To the extent Chapus expresses the ratio by weight whereas claim 1 expresses it by volume, determination and adjustment of the corresponding volumetric flow rates of the liquid feed and liquid recycle would have been within ordinary process-engineering skill.
Regarding claims 3-5, Himelfarb teaches distribution trays having a plurality of openings, nozzles or downcomers for dispersing feed across the top surface of a catalyst bed (¶¶[0017]–[0018], [0047]–[0049]) and teaches interbed distribution trays 212/210 that receive first-bed effluent and quench gas and redistribute the resulting fluids across the top surface of the succeeding catalyst bed (¶¶[0053]–[0054]).
It would have been obvious to arrange the known plurality of discharge points with sufficient density and spacing that adjacent distributed-flow regions overlap, because such arrangement predictably furthers Himelfarb's expressly stated objective of minimizing radial nonuniformity and approaching substantially uniform flow over the catalyst-bed surface.
Claim 6. Himelfarb expressly teaches introducing interbed quench gas, which may comprise hydrogen, to the effluent from an upstream catalyst bed before redistribution over the succeeding bed. See ¶¶[0053]–[0054]. Chapus likewise teaches supplemental hydrogen/recycled hydrogen-rich gas between catalytic zones for a quench effect. See Chapus ¶[0111]. Thus, the limitation would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Himelfarb further teaches withdrawing the effluent from reactor vessel 216 through reactor outlet 220 and passing the effluent through external heat exchanger 244, which provides indirect heat removal and cooling of the effluent (¶[0055], Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool at least a portion of the hydroprocessing effluent of Chapus using the external heat exchanger of Himelfarb in order to remove heat from the exothermic reactor effluent and control process temperature.
Regarding claim 10, Chapus expressly teaches quench devices between catalytic zones to provide better homogeneity in temperature differences over the entire section of the reactor, followed by distributors that guarantee homogeneous liquid and gas supply over the entire reactor section. See ¶¶[0111]–[0112]. The particular <25% temperature-spread criterion is not expressly disclosed. However, cross-sectional temperature uniformity is expressly identified by Chapus as the desired result of quenching.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust quench rate, mixing, and distribution to reduce the difference between the highest and lowest temperature across the reactor section, including to less than 25% of the average quench-induced temperature drop, because Chapus expressly teaches using interbed quenching to obtain better temperature homogeneity across the entire reactor section. The numerical degree of temperature uniformity represents optimization of that known result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 11. Chapus expressly teaches renewable feeds including vegetable oils, algal oils, animal fats and similar renewable materials comprising triglycerides and/or free fatty acids. See ¶¶[0001]–[0006] and the renewable-feed discussion beginning at ¶[0037]. Thus, at least the claimed bio-renewable fats and oils are expressly taught, rendering the Markush alternative satisfied.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chapus et al. (US 2017/0022424 A1) in view of Himelfarb et al. (US 2008/0004476 A1), and further in view of Petri et al. (US 2009/0326289 A1).
Chapus in view of Himelfarb teaches the process of claim 1, including hydroprocessing in a fixed-bed reactor having first and second catalyst beds and controlling the temperature of the effluent between catalyst beds, but does not expressly teach quenching the effluent from the first catalyst bed by passing at least a portion of the effluent through an internal heat exchanger.
Petri teaches hydroprocessing reactions including hydrodeoxygenation, hydrodesulfurization, hydroisomerization, hydrodenitrification and hydrocracking and recognizes that such reactions are exothermic and can result in excessive catalyst-bed temperatures (¶[0006]). Petri teaches controlling such temperatures using an integral heat-transfer section mounted within the reactor vessel between first and second catalyst beds (¶¶[0008], [0022]-[0023]). The process effluent from the first catalyst bed circulates through the internal heat-transfer section, exchanges heat with a separate heat-transfer fluid, is thereby cooled, and thereafter passes to the second catalyst bed. Petri further teaches that the internal heat-transfer section may comprise a tubular heat-exchange bundle mounted within the reactor shell (¶[0023]; Fig. 1; ¶¶[0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydroprocessing process of Chapus in view of Himelfarb by providing the internal heat exchanger of Petri between the first and second catalyst beds and passing at least a portion of the first-bed effluent therethrough, in order to remove heat generated by the exothermic hydroprocessing reactions and reduce the temperature of the first-bed effluent before introduction into the second catalyst bed, thereby maintaining the catalyst beds within their desired operating-temperature ranges, as expressly taught by Petri.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chapus et al. (US 2017/0022424 A1) in view of Himelfarb et al. (US 2008/0004476 A1), and further in view of Toppinen et al. (WO 2020/165496 A1).
Chapus in view of Himelfarb teaches the process of claim 1 and interbed quenching. The combination does not expressly teach directing the quench to a quench mixing device to provide a homogeneous quenched effluent.
Toppinen teaches an interbed fluid mixer configured to mix fluid exiting an upstream catalyst bed with an additional fluid before the combined fluid is supplied to a downstream catalyst bed, thereby providing improved mixing and a more homogeneous fluid stream. (See page 5, lines 25 through page 6, line 25; Figure 1 (118, 122, and 120).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the Chapus/Himelfarb process with the interbed fluid mixer taught by Toppinen for mixing the catalyst-bed effluent with the quench fluid before introduction to the downstream catalyst bed, in order to improve mixing of the streams and reduce localized concentration and temperature differences in the quenched effluent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Chapus requires staged introduction of feed into multiple catalytic zones whereas amended claim 1 requires substantially all renewable feedstock to be introduced upstream of the first catalyst bed. The Examiner agrees that Chapus itself teaches staged introduction of renewable feed part-streams F1–Fn. See Chapus ¶[0058]. The rejection, however, does not rely on Chapus alone for the amended limitation. Himelfarb expressly teaches a known alternative multi-bed reactor arrangement in which the hydrocarbon feed is introduced at the reactor inlet upstream of the first catalyst bed, is dispersed by a first distribution means across the top surface of the first bed, passes through the first bed, and thereafter passes toward subsequent catalyst beds. See Himelfarb ¶¶[0045]–[0050] and Fig. 2. In Himelfarb's Fig. 3 embodiment, hydrocarbon feedstock and hydrogen enter reactor inlet 218 and the mixture is distributed by tray 214 across the top surface of the first catalyst bed 208; only quench gas is subsequently introduced between the catalyst beds. See ¶¶[0051]–[0054]. Thus, contrary to Applicant's argument, the prior art expressly establishes that feeding the hydrocarbon feed and hydrogen upstream of the first bed and thereafter processing the feed sequentially through multiple catalyst beds was a known alternative fixed-bed configuration.
Applicant argues that modifying Chapus in this manner would destroy Chapus's operating principle because staged feed injection controls exothermicity. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not require simply deleting Chapus's temperature-control mechanism while leaving nothing in its place. Himelfarb expressly teaches the alternative multi-bed arrangement together with highly dispersed first-bed distribution, interbed quench, and downstream redistribution for controlling nonuniform flow and catalyst-bed temperatures. Chapus itself additionally teaches low liquid recycle, concentrated hydrogen introduction at the reactor head, interbed quenching, and distributors for maintaining homogeneous supply and temperature across the reactor section. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would have had a technical reason, independent of Applicant's disclosure, for employing the known Himelfarb reactor configuration in the renewable-feed process of Chapus.
Applicant's argument that Himelfarb merely teaches a “conventional” tray and does not teach uniform wetting likewise does not address Himelfarb's actual disclosure. Himelfarb expressly identifies nonuniform flow, channeling, and hot spots as problems and defines highly dispersed flow as feed distributed across the vessel cross-section and onto the catalyst-bed top surface in a manner minimizing radial nonuniformity. Himelfarb further states that the fluid flow preferably approaches substantially uniform fluid flow and expressly evaluates uniformity by comparing local mass flow rates across incremental cross-sectional areas. See ¶¶[0014]–[0017].
Applicant's comparative Figs. 1A–1E therefore do not establish that Himelfarb is unconcerned with the degree of flow uniformity. Even accepting Applicant's evidence that particular conventional chimney or bubble-cap arrangements may wet only 15–30% of the bed surface, Himelfarb is not limited to those particular configurations. Himelfarb expressly permits perforated plates, apertures, holes, nozzles, downcomers, conduits, spray nozzles and atomizers and teaches selecting suitable distribution means to obtain highly dispersed flow. See ¶¶[0017]–[0018].
The Examiner acknowledges that Himelfarb's disclosed numerical criterion of less than 0.3 is not the same numerical limitation as the claimed ≤10% local-liquid-velocity distribution range. The rejection therefore does not rely on inherency. Rather, Himelfarb expressly teaches minimizing radial nonuniformity and approaching uniform flow, making the degree of distribution uniformity a recognized result-effective variable. Optimizing distributor configuration and flow to achieve progressively greater surface coverage and smaller local-flow differences would have been within ordinary skill absent evidence that the claimed ≥90%/≤10% limits produce an unexpected result relative to the known trend.
Applicant's argument concerning Toppinen is persuasive to the limited extent that Toppinen's inventive mixer should not be characterized as the first-bed distributor. Toppinen's mixer principally mixes first-bed effluent with a second fluid between catalyst beds. The present rejection therefore relies principally on Himelfarb for the first-bed distribution and uniform-flow teachings, while Toppinen is relied upon, where applicable, for interbed mixing of catalyst-bed effluent and quench fluid. This distinction does not overcome the rejection.
Finally, Applicant's hindsight argument is not persuasive because the reason for the combination is found in the references themselves. Chapus seeks low-recycle renewable-feed hydroprocessing with control of exothermicity and homogeneous reactor operation; Himelfarb expressly teaches substantially uniform catalyst-bed distribution to minimize radial nonuniformity, channeling, and hot spots; and Toppinen teaches interbed mixing to reduce local concentration maxima. The proposed combination therefore applies known fixed-bed reactor flow-management techniques to the renewable hydroprocessing system of Chapus for their known and predictable purposes, rather than deriving the modifications solely from Applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
