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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/3/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-17 and 32-45 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/3/2026 have been fully considered and are moot. Amended claims are addressed below in view of Etchells et al., Mixing in Pipelines, Handbook of Industrial Mixing, Chapter 7 (2003) and Levitronix, Redundancy with Levitronix Pump Systems, PR2400-05 Rev01 (2005).
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) 1-17 and 32-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lott (US 2009/0107881) in view of Etchells, Mixing in Pipelines, Handbook of Industrial Mixing, Chapter 7 (2003), Levitronix, Redundancy with Levitronix Pump Systems, PR2400-05 Rev01 (2005), and Brickhouse (US 5,076,705).
With respect to claims 1, 32, 36-37, 40, Lott teaches method of mixing a catalyst precursor into heavy oil for cracking (abstract; figure). Lott teaches blending a quantity of catalyst precursor with a quantity of diluent to form a diluted precursor mixture (0050; 0059-0061). The diluted precursor mixture is then mixed with a heavy oil feedstock using a series of mixers, such as the illustrated in line mixers and tank with one or more pumps for pump around (0064-0065). Modifications to the mixing process scheme may be made for mixing the catalyst precursor with the heavy oil feedstock (0065).
Lott teaches a series of mixers but is silent regarding using a plurality of mixing lines containing the same with a common discharge line downstream from the parallel mixing lines to form a common conditioned feedstock stream.
Etchells, directed to the design of pipeline mixing and related devices in chemical and hydrocarbon process industries, teaches design of a mixer includes consideration of secondary factors like startup, turndown, upset conditions, and mechanical requirements (p. 406). Etchells teaches arranging mixers of different diameter in parallel to handle extreme process changes and turndown flowrate (p. 407).
Levitronix, directed to the design of redundancy in process equipment, teaches a pumping system which includes multiple pumps in parallel or series. By providing equipment in parallel operation one pump/line may be isolated with preinstalled manual valves and taken out of service without affecting the running system; and returned to after service or replacement. The parallel operation may include all pumps simultaneously, only one pump or less than all pumps where more than two; the discharge lines join to a common line. Levitronix teaches additional benefits of parallel lines includes operating over a wide range of flow rates due to reserve capacity for high demand/peak flow rate and being able to operate a low flow using less lines. A control valve may be used to direct flow between the two lines.
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lott by utilizing parallel mixing lines of Etchells because both are directed to inline mixing in petroleum processes and Etchells teaches arranging mixers in parallel allows handling process flow changes such as turndown, and providing a parallel mixing line is a duplication of parts which produces expected mixing through each of the parallel lines, or lesser than each of the parallel lines when one is out of service.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lott by utilizing parallel mixing lines of Etchells by preinstalling valves to allow the mixer to be taken out of service and control valve for directing flow or preventing back flow as taught in Levitroniz because Levitroniz is directed to equipment redundancy allowing the same benefit of being able to process wide range of flow such as turndown or high flow and also providing the benefit of allowing each of the parallel equipment to be taken out of service for maintenance or replacement without shutting down the process.
Lott is silent regarding restricting flow through the common discharge line by partially closing at least one valve downstream from the high shear mixer of the one or more mixing lines that remains online to increase upstream pressure thereby causing or allowing a portion of the heavy oil feedstock to enter a bypass line, bypass the parallel mixing liens, and combine with the common conditioned feedstock stream in a common discharge.
Brickhouse, directed to static mixing with bypass, teaches using a bypass valve in parallel with an inline mixing unit to allow the feed to bypass the mixer to allow for fluctuations in feed flowrate affecting pressure drop across the mixer. The valve may be opened based on pressure across the mixing unit. Levitroniz also teaches controlling the flow through the pumps using control valves actuated on pressure.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lott by utilizing parallel mixing lines of Etchells to include providing a bypass line and controlling the bypass control valve using pressure of the system of Brickhouse because both teach mixing using inline mixers and for the benefit of maintaining desired pressure drop across of the mixer.
With respect to claims 2, 3 and 33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize two, three or more parallel mixing lines as a matter of design choice for a given flow rate, catalyst to feed ratio, and desired mixing efficiency.
With respect to claim 34-35, 38, 41-43 and 45, Brickhouse teaches passing a portion of the feed through the bypass valve, which is less than the onstream mixer. In the case of two mixers and a bypass, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to maximize the flow through the operational mixer and minimize flow through the bypass to ensure adequate mixing is maintained while one mixer is out of service.
With respect to claim 4, Lott teaches an embodiment wherein the parallel mixing line includes a static mixer and high shear mixer (0064). Thus, when providing parallel mixing trains would have been obvious to include static and high shear mixer in each train.
With respect to claims 5-7, Levitronix teaches one pump/line may be isolated with preinstalled manual valves and taken out of service without affecting the running system; and returned to after service or replacement. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lott in view of Etchells by closing the valves around the mixer to be taken out of service and allowing the flow to pass through the other parallel lines or bypass as taught in Levitronix and Brickhouse respectively to allow continued operation of the process while a mixer is in service. Brickhouse teaches controlling the opening of the bypass line using pressure. Levitronix also teaches utilizing control valves to direct flow from one line to another.
With respect to claims 8-10, Lott is silent regarding the use of a flow meter for measuring flowrate of the feed and catalyst mixture. However, Levitronix teaches wherein flow through each line is measured, or the total flow and flow in one line, and a signal is sent to each pump to control the flow through each line. Therefore, prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to and within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to monitor flow rate and adjust with a control valve the flow to each of the mixing lines maintaining desired flow through each line.
With respect to claim 11, Lott teaches “in some embodiments, it may be possible to dilute the catalyst precursor composition with a small portion of the heavy oil feedstock 108” (0059).
With respect to claim 12, Lott teaches sending the feed to a pump around surge tank (0064). With the pump around system, the catalyst and oil would continue to mix.
With respect to claim 13, Lott teaches using a number of diluents capable of dispersing the catalyst, including “start up diesel (which typically has a boiling range of about 150° C or higher), vacuum gas oil (which typically has a boiling range of 360-524° C) (680-975° F), decant oil or cycle oil (which typically has a boiling range of 360-550° C) (680-1022° F), and/or light gas oil (which typically has a boiling range of 200-360° C) (392-680° F). In some embodiments, it may be possible to dilute the catalyst precursor composition with a small portion of the heavy oil feedstock 108. Although the diluent may contain a substantial fraction of aromatic components, this is not required in order to keep the asphaltene fraction of the feedstock in solution, as the well dispersed catalyst is able to hydrocrack the asphaltenes within the heavy oil feedstock as well as the other components of the feedstock”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that a portion of the feedstock taken before conditioning, or after conditioning, could be selected as one of the diluents for aiding in dispersion of the catalyst in the feedstream.
With respect to claim 14, Lott teaches heating the conditioned feedstock downstream from the discharge line to decompose the catalyst precursor and form dispersed metal sulfide catalyst particles throughout the heavy oil feedstock (0066).
With respect to claim 15, Lott teaches causing or allowing the catalyst precursor to form dispersed metal sulfide catalyst particles in situ within the heavy oil feedstock and hydroprocessing the heavy oil feedstock at hydroprocessing conditions to form converted products, the dispersed metal sulfide catalyst particles promoting beneficial upgrading reactions (0049).
With respect to claim 16, Lott teaches using a slurry reactor, ebullated bed, or fixed bed (0047).
With respect to claim 17, Lott teaches wherein the dispersed particles are less than 100 or even less than 1 nm in size (0036).
With respect to claims 39 and 44, Lott teaches “continuous (as opposed to batch) mixing can be carried out using high energy pumps having multiple chambers within which the catalyst precursor composition and heavy oil feedstock are churned and mixed as part of the pumping process itself used to deliver a conditioned heavy oil feedstock 118 to the hydroprocessing reactor system.” (0064).
Conclusion
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