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 .
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaka et al. (US 2013/0175010 A1) in view of Singh et al. (US 2018/0370871 A1).
Tasaka teaches a process for hydroprocessing hydrocarbon streams comprising hydroisomerizing a hydroisomerization charge stream in a hydroisomerization reactor (40) to produce a hydroisomerized stream, separating the hydroisomerized stream in a hydroisomerization separator (45) to provide a liquid hydroisomerized stream (41), hydrocracking a hydrocracking charge stream in a hydrocracking reactor (50) to provide a hydrocracked stream, separating the hydrocracked stream in hydrocracking separators (55, 57) to provide a liquid hydrocracked stream (51), and feeding the liquid hydroisomerized stream (41) and the liquid hydrocracked stream (51) to a common product fractionation column (20). See Tasaka, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0043]-[0048], [0052]-[0058].
Tasaka does not expressly teach stripping the hydroisomerized stream and the hydrocracked stream to provide corresponding fractionator streams prior to product fractionation.
Singh teaches a hydroprocessing process including a hydrocracking reactor (140), a hydrocracking separation section (14′), a product recovery section (20′) including stripping operations, and a separate hydroisomerization reactor (80) followed by a hydroisomerization separation section, wherein stripped hydroprocessing streams are recovered for downstream fractionation. See Singh, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0059], [0062]-[0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the downstream separation process of Tasaka by utilizing the stripping and product recovery arrangement taught by Singh because both references are directed to hydroprocessing processes utilizing separate hydrocracking and hydroisomerization processing trains with downstream separation and fractionation. Employing Singh's stripping arrangement would have improved removal of light ends prior to fractionation and enhanced downstream product recovery using known hydroprocessing techniques.
Regarding claim 12, Singh further teaches processing renewable (biorenewable) feedstocks, including renewable oils and fats, to produce renewable diesel and other distillate products. See Singh, Abstract; ¶¶ [0002]-[0006], [0027]-[0031]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize a biorenewable hydroisomerization charge stream in the modified Tasaka process because hydroprocessing renewable feedstocks was well known in the art and would have produced the expected renewable diesel products.
Regarding claim 13, Tasaka further teaches cooling the hydroisomerized effluent and separating the cooled stream into vapor and liquid portions prior to introduction into the product fractionation column. See Tasaka, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0052]-[0056].
Regarding claim 14, Tasaka further teaches combining process streams recovered from the hydrocracking and hydroisomerization processing sections during downstream recovery prior to fractionation. See Tasaka, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0054]-[0058].
Regarding claim 15, Singh teaches stripping hydroprocessing streams in separate stripping columns prior to fractionation to recover stripped liquid streams for downstream fractionation. See Singh, ¶¶ [0062]-[0070].
Regarding claim 16, Singh further teaches separating hydroprocessing streams using flash separation in combination with stripping operations prior to fractionation. See Singh, ¶¶ [0059], [0062]-[0074].
Regarding claim 17, Tasaka further teaches hydrotreating a hydrocarbon feed prior to hydroisomerization and hydrocracking and separating the hydrotreated stream into vaporous and liquid streams, the liquid stream providing feed to the downstream hydroprocessing section. See Tasaka, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0043]-[0048].
Regarding claim 18, Tasaka teaches hydroisomerizing a hydroisomerization charge stream in a hydroisomerization reactor (40), hydrocracking a hydrocracking charge stream in a hydrocracking reactor (50), separating the respective hydroisomerized and hydrocracked streams to provide separate liquid streams (41, 51), feeding the separate liquid streams to a common product fractionation column (20), and recovering diesel-range products therefrom. See Tasaka, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0043]-[0058].
Regarding claim 19, Singh further teaches stripping hydroprocessing streams to provide stripped liquid streams prior to downstream fractionation. See Singh, ¶¶ [0062]-[0070].
Regarding claim 20, Singh further teaches utilizing flash separation together with stripping operations to recover liquid hydroprocessing streams prior to fractionation. See Singh, ¶¶ [0059], [0062]-[0074].
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claims 11-20 above, and further in view of Ji et al. (US 7,172,686 B1).
The processes of Tasaka and Singh are as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claims 11-20.
Tasaka and Singh do not expressly disclose feeding the liquid hydroisomerized stream and the liquid hydrocracked stream into the product fractionation column at different elevations, as recited in independent claim 1.
Ji teaches introducing multiple hydrocarbon streams having different boiling ranges and/or different compositions into the same fractionation column at different feed locations (different elevations) corresponding to the boiling characteristics of the respective streams, thereby improving fractionation efficiency. See Ji, Abstract; col. 3, lines. 25-47; Figs. 7-9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Tasaka/Singh by introducing the liquid hydroisomerized stream and the liquid hydrocracked stream into the common product fractionation column at different elevations as taught by Ji because the two streams possess different boiling ranges and compositions, and introducing each stream at an appropriate feed elevation is a known distillation technique that improves fractionation efficiency by introducing each stream near its equilibrium stage while reducing remixing within the column.
Regarding claim 2, Tasaka further teaches separating the hydrocracked stream in hydrocracking separators (55, 57) to provide a vaporous hydrocracked stream and a liquid hydrocracked stream and feeding the liquid hydrocracked stream to the product fractionation column. See Tasaka, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0052]-[0058].
Regarding claim 3, Tasaka further teaches separating the hydroisomerized stream in hydroisomerization separator (45) to provide a vaporous hydroisomerized stream and a liquid hydroisomerized stream and feeding the liquid hydroisomerized stream to the product fractionation column. See Tasaka, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0043]-[0050].
Regarding claim 4, Singh further teaches processing a biorenewable feedstock by hydroprocessing. See Singh, Abstract; ¶¶ [0002]-[0006], [0027]-[0031].
It would have been obvious to utilize a biorenewable hydroisomerization charge stream in the modified Tasaka process because hydroprocessing renewable feedstocks was well known in the art and would have produced the expected renewable diesel products.
Regarding claim 5, Singh further teaches recycling a heavy fraction recovered from the downstream product recovery/fractionation section to provide feed to the hydrocracking reactor. See Singh, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0095]-[0102].
Regarding claim 6, Tasaka further teaches cooling the liquid hydroisomerized stream and separating the cooled stream into a cold vapor stream and a cold liquid stream prior to feeding the liquid stream to the product fractionation column. See Tasaka, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0052]-[0056].
Regarding claim 7, Singh further teaches utilizing hydrocracking vapor within the hydroisomerization recovery section where the hydrocracking vapor is combined with the hydroisomerization stream during downstream recovery. See Singh, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0098]-[0102].
Regarding claim 8, Singh further teaches separately stripping hydroprocessing streams prior to downstream fractionation. See Singh, ¶¶ [0062]-[0070].
Regarding claim 9, Singh further teaches flash separation together with stripping operations during downstream recovery of hydroprocessing streams. See Singh, ¶¶ [0059], [0062]-[0074].
Regarding claim 10, Tasaka further teaches hydrotreating a hydrocarbon stream, separating the hydrotreated stream into vaporous and liquid hydrotreated streams, and supplying the liquid hydrotreated stream as feed to the hydroisomerization processing section. See Tasaka, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0043]-[0048].
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
Prosecution Insights