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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 13 March 2026 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 18 February 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Examiner notes that the NPL cited is not in the English language. There appears to be a translation attached, but it is of low quality, and currently not legible.
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 and temperature conditions of the preheated feed to be greater than or equal to 150˚C and the hydro processing effluent side of the first heat exchanger is above ammonium chloride deposition.
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].
Examiner notes that Hoehn teaches that heat exchange of the hydrocarbon feed may occur by two alternate pathways. In one embodiment, the feed is heated only by heat exchanger 18, and alternatively, the feed may be heated by a combination of heat exchanger 60 and heat exchanger 18. The rejections rely upon the embodiment using heat exchanger 60 and 18. Examiner additionally notes Hoehn teaching that the reactor effluent is cooled through a series of heat exchangers prior to introduction into the hot separator, which is operated at a temperature of 200-370˚C [0032]. In this regard, Examiner notes that the effluent from the hydroprocessing unit would be maintained at a temperature higher than 200-370˚C after heat exchange unit 18, since each heat exchanger cools the effluent more. It is noted that this temperature range is above the ammonium chloride deposition temperature. It is additionally noted that some heat exchange occurs above the initial hydrocarbon feed temperature of 100˚C in Hoehn heat exchanger 60. Examiner notes that it would be reasonable to the person having ordinary skill in the art to select an outlet temperature of 150˚C or above for the preheated feed of heat exchanger 60, since the desired temperature of the feed to inlet 12 in Hoehn is to be 280˚C or more. It is further not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results. Therefore, Examiner considers Hoehn to meet the claimed temperature limitations of heat exchanger 18, mapping to claimed first and second heat exchanger.
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].
Examiner notes that Hoehn teaches that heat exchange of the hydrocarbon feed may occur by two alternate pathways. In one embodiment, the feed is heated only by heat exchanger 18, and alternatively, the feed may be heated by a combination of heat exchanger 60 and heat exchanger 18. The rejections rely upon the embodiment using heat exchanger 60 and 18. Examiner additionally notes Hoehn teaching that the reactor effluent is cooled through a series of heat exchangers prior to introduction into the hot separator, which is operated at a temperature of 200-370˚C [0032]. In this regard, Examiner notes that the effluent from the hydroprocessing unit would be maintained at a temperature higher than 200-370˚C after heat exchange unit 18, since each heat exchanger cools the effluent more. It is noted that this temperature range is above the ammonium chloride deposition temperature. Therefore, Examiner considers Hoehn to meet the claimed temperature limitations of heat exchanger 18, mapping to claimed first and second heat exchanger. It is additionally noted that some heat exchange occurs above the initial hydrocarbon feed temperature of 100˚C in Hoehn heat exchanger 60. Examiner notes that it would be reasonable to the person having ordinary skill in the art to select an outlet temperature of 150˚C or above for the preheated feed of heat exchanger 60, since the desired temperature of the feed to inlet 12 in Hoehn is to be 280˚C or more. It is further not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
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:
The prior art does not disclose the preheated feed maintains the effluent side of the heat exchanger at a temperature above the deposition temperature of ammonium chloride. Hoehn teaches one embodiment where the hydrocarbon feed 10 is only heated by heat exchanger 18 [0023]. The initial hydrocarbon feed temperature is 100˚C and is heated up to 280˚C or more through heat exchange. Thus, the hydroprocessed effluent is at a lower temperature than the ammonium chloride deposition temperature.
Regarding Applicant’s first argument, the previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. Examiner notes that Hoehn teaches that heat exchange of the hydrocarbon feed may occur by two alternate pathways. In one embodiment, the feed is heated only by heat exchanger 18, and alternatively, the feed may be heated by a combination of heat exchanger 60 and heat exchanger 18. The rejections rely upon the embodiment using heat exchanger 60 and 18. Examiner additionally notes Hoehn teaching that the reactor effluent is cooled through a series of heat exchangers prior to introduction into the hot separator, which is operated at a temperature of 200-370˚C [0032]. In this regard, Examiner notes that the effluent from the hydroprocessing unit would be maintained at a temperature higher than 200-370˚C after heat exchange unit 18, since each heat exchanger cools the effluent more. Therefore, Examiner considers Hoehn to meet the claimed temperature limitations of heat exchanger 18, mapping to claimed first and second heat exchanger.
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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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