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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07 November 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13, and 16-20 are pending. Claims 7, 9-10, and 16-17 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-4, 6, 11, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadler (WO 2015/050635) in view of Van Doesburg (US 2012/0125819) and Hoehn (US 2015/0353844) and alternatively Van Doesburg (US 2012/0125819) in view of De Graff (US 3,445,378) and Hoehn (US 2015/0353844).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Nadler teaches hydroprocessed effluent 14 sent to sulfur and halogen recover unit 76 to separate sulfur and halide compounds from the hydroprocessed effluent [0011-0012], [0014]. Nadler teaches stripping to separate the hydrogen halide from the hydroprocessed product [0016], [0066]. Nadler teaches the product recovered after stripping has a reduced amount of halogen [0007]. Nadler teaches that the halogen is chlorine [0072].
Nadler does not explicitly disclose (1) the conditions of the stripping zone (2) the two claimed heat exchangers.
Regarding (1), Van Doesburg teaches a similar process for hydrotreating hydrocarbons, followed by stripping to remove gaseous contaminants such as sulfur and ammonia[0008-0012]. Van Doesburg teaches stripping temperatures of 100-350°C and pressures of 1-50 bar [0012], which reads on the claimed “hot high pressure stripper”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the conditions of Van Doesburg in the stripping column of Nadler, for the benefit of obtaining the desired removal of gaseous contaminants from the hydrotreated streams.
Regarding (2), Hoehn teaches a similar process for hydrotreating hydrocarbons. Hoehn teaches using a feed effluent heat exchanger 18 (between the hydrotreater 14 and the stripping column 40), in order to preheat the feedstock [0019]. Hoehn also sends a portion of the stripper effluent 44 though line 62 to provide heat to the feedstock stream 78 [0022-0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Hoehn heat exchangers, in order to properly heat the hydrocarbon feed to hydrotreatment.
Alternatively, Van Doesburg teaches hydrotreatment followed by stripping to remove impurities such as sulfide and ammonium at temperatures of 100-350°C and pressures of 1-50 bar [0008-0012].
Van Doesburg does not disclose (1) removal of chloride (2) the two claimed heat exchangers.
Regarding (1), De Graff teaches that hydrotreated effluents contain various gaseous contaminants including hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and hydrogen chloride (column 3, lines 50-75).
Therefore, it would be obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art that the Van Doesburg effluent would contain hydrogen chloride as part of the gaseous contaminants, and it is further expected that it would also be removed with the other gaseous contaminants in the stripping of Van Doesburg, since it is the same hydrotreated effluent sent to the same stripping step as claimed.
Regarding (2), Hoehn teaches a similar process for hydrotreating hydrocarbons. Hoehn teaches using a feed effluent heat exchanger 18 (between the hydrotreater 14 and the stripping column 40), in order to preheat the feedstock [0019]. Hoehn also sends a portion of the stripper effluent 44 though line 62 to provide heat to the feedstock stream 78 [0022-0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Hoehn heat exchangers, in order to properly heat the hydrocarbon feed to hydrotreatment.
Regarding claim 2, it is expected that the same chloride reduction would result, since the prior art teaches the same stripping at the same conditions as claimed, as discussed above. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Regarding claim 4, Nadler teaches hydrocarbon feed having chlorine content of 87 ppm fed with hydrogen to hydrodesulfurization reactor [0072-73]. Alternatively, it is expected that the Van Doesburg would have the same chloride content as claimed, since it is the same fossil fuel type feeds as described in Applicant’s instant specification (see page 1, lines 10-17).
Regarding claim 5, Nadler does not disclose fractionation of the stripped fluid.
However, Van Doesburg teaches fractionation of the stripped product to recover desired product fractions [0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Van Doesburg fractionation, in order to recover desired fractions.
Regarding claim 6, Nadler teaches cobalt, molybdenum, nickel catalysts [0032].
Van Doesburg teaches cobalt, nickel, molybdenum catalyst [0009].
Regarding claim 11, Hoehn teaches sending a portion of stripped fluid 80 to the hydrotreater reactor 14 (see figure).
Regarding claims 19-20, Nadler teaches hydrotreatment temperatures of 230-315°C [0064]. Examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected an appropriate introduction temperature for the feedstock, for the benefit of operating at the desired operating temperatures.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadler (WO 2015/050635) in view of Van Doesburg (US 2012/0125819) and Hoehn (US 2015/0353844) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bradway (US 6,299,759) and alternatively Van Doesburg (US 2012/0125819) in view of De Graff (US 3,445,378) and Hoehn (US 2015/0353844) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bradway (US 6,299,759).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Hoehn sends a portion of the cooled stripped effluent 80 to hydrotreatment zone 14 (see figure).
Further, Bradway teaches a similar process for hydroprocessing. Bradway teaches that the temperature may be controlled by splitting the feedstock into multiple portions, and using them to quench the reactor (column 7, lines 24-40, see figures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a split feed configuration, as disclosed by Bradway, for the benefit of providing quenching to the process to reduce fouling.
Response to Arguments
Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments to be:
There is no reason to modify Hoehn with Nadler and van Doesburg.
Hoehn does not disclose heat transfer from the second heat exchanger to the first heat exchanger
Regarding Applicant’s first argument, Hoehn is analogous in that it is drawn to heat exchangers drawn to hydrotreatment and stripping of hydrocarbons. In this regard, Nadler and van Doesburg are also drawn to hydrotreatment and stripping of hydrocarbons. All of the reference cited require hydrocarbon feeds, hydrotreatment, stripping, and the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporated the Hoehn heat exchangers, for the benefit of heating and cooling the desired streams of the previous combination.
Regarding Applicant’s second argument, Hoehn teaches the feed is sent to first heat exchanger 60, followed by second heat exchanger 18, prior to hydrotreatment stage 14 (see figure). Examiner notes that this is the same configuration as shown in figure 1 of the instant specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Christensen (US 3,718,734) – teaches feed effluent heat exchanger (see figure).
Pier (US 2,154,527) -teaches hydrotreating 8, quench 10, and stripping 12 to remove gaseous contaminants (see figure).
Marve (US 2015/0210937) -teaches stripping to remove chlorides from hydrocarbons (abstract).
Forrester (US 3,144,559) – teaches a method of monitoring halogen content of hydrocarbon streams in a refining plant (column 1, lines 1-20).
Eizenga (US 2013/0305593) – teaches hydroprocessing zone 4 followed by hot high pressure separator 8 (see figure).
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
Prosecution Insights