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 10 December 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 18-19, and 21 are pending.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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 1-3, 7, 11, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto (US 2011/0147273) in view of Gordon (US 2011/0100874) and Fan (US 2010/0236978).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Soto teaches mixing sulfur containing heavy oil [0027, 0028] with alkali metal stream and heating in hydrogen free environment 180 to obtain a pre reaction material [0055] and contacting the pre reaction material with a hydrogen supply 107 in a hydrogenation reactor 110 [0056], and separating the material to recover desulfurized liquid fuel hydrocarbon products and alkali metal reagent (solid) [0057]. Soto teaches mixing the alkali with the hydrocarbon feed in preheat zone 180 at a temperature of at least 250°C or 275°C, including temperatures of 300 or 310°C [0032], which overlaps with the claimed range. Soto teaches hydrogenation temperatures of 316-482°C and 3.4-10 MPa [0038], overlapping with the claimed range. Soto feedstock is a heavy residual oil containing sulfur [0027-0028]. It is expected that the feed would have the same or similar properties as claimed, since it is the same residual hydrocarbon material identified in Applicant’s instant spec. Soto teaches adding hydrogen gas to the desulfurization reaction zone [0036].
Soto teaches the alkali metal stream is an alkali metal sulfide [0030] and the pre reaction material comprises liquid phase generated oil, heavy hydrocarbons [0027]. Examiner notes that Soto heavy desulfurized bottoms, are within the scope of the recited heavy hydrocarbon feed [0045].
Soto does not explicitly disclose (1) hydrogen to feed ratio (2) the alkali metal is molten state (3) hermetic reactor.
Regarding (1), Soto teaches selecting the amount of hydrogen with respect to the oil feed rate, and the sulfur content of the oil [0028]. In this regard, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have calculated the hydrogen ratio with respect to the sulfur content, and it is expected that the same or similar ratio would be achieved, since the same desulfurization is desired.
Regarding (2), Soto teaches mixing the alkali with the hydrocarbon feed in preheat zone 180 at a temperature of at least 250°C or 275°C, including temperatures of 300 or 310°C [0032], which overlaps with the claimed range. Soto teaches alkali reagents including sodium and lithium and sulfides thereof [0030].
Further, Gordon teaches desulfurization of hydrocarbons at temperatures in which alkali metals are in molten state [0031]. Gordon teaches that sodium becomes molten at 98°C and lithium becomes molten at 180°C [0031].
Therefore, in view of Gordon teaching of molten alkali temperatures, it is noted that the Soto preheat zone temperature of at least 250°C would be such that the alkali metal is in the molten state.
Regarding (3), Fan teaches it is conventional to ensure airtightness of reactors prior to reaction steps [0075].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used an airtight/hermetically sealed reactor, in order to achieve the desired reaction in a stable matter.
Regarding claims 2 and 18-19, Soto teaches the pre reaction temperature is from 250-310°C [0032], which lies within the claimed range. Soto teaches the alkali metal is selected from lithium, sodium, cesium, or rubidium [0030]. Soot teaches a mass ratio of alkali metal to sulfur in the feed is from 1.2-2.5 [0039], and the sulfur content of the feed is at least 1 wt % or at least 3 wt% [0028].
Regarding claim 3, Soto teaches performing pre reaction in a static or dynamic mixer [0032].
Regarding claim 7, Soto teaches hydrogenation for 5-720 minutes [0038], which Examiner considers to read on the claimed stabilization hydrogenation step.
Regarding claim 21, Soto teaches that any suitable dynamic or static mixer may be used [0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate mixing devices, such as the claimed mixing element. It is not seen where such a mixer would result in any new or unexpected result.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto (US 2011/0147273) in view of Gordon (US 2011/0100874) and Fan (US 2010/0236978) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Christman (US 3,594,312).
Regarding claim 5, Soto teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Soto teaches the desulfurization reactor is slurry or ebullating bed reactor [0043]. Soto teaches pressures of 414-5516 kpa (0.414-5.16 Mpa) and temperatures of 425-600°F (218-316°C) [0064], which overlap with the claimed ranges.
Soto does not explicitly disclose the claimed catalyst.
However, Christman teaches a similar process for desulfurizing hydrocarbon feeds using alkali additives (column 1, lines 1-25). Christman teaches performing the alkali promoted desulfurization with cobalt molybdenum nickel catalyst (column 1, lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a nickel/cobalt/molybdenum catalyst in the desulfurization reactor of Soto, for the benefit of catalyzing the desired hydrodesulfurization reactions.
Claims 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto (US 2011/0147273) in view of Gordon (US 2011/0100874) and Fan (US 2010/0236978) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gordon (US 2009/0134040).
Regarding claims 6 and 8-9, Soto teaches separating the alkali component and regenerating using electrolysis [0051-0053].
Soto does not explicitly disclose how the separation is performed or recycling elemental metal.
However, Gordon teaches a similar process for separating and regenerating alkali [0050]. Gordon teaches using gravimetric separation [0054], which Examiner considers to include centrifuge separation. Gordon follows gravimetric separation with electrolysis [0060] using polar solvents including dimethyl carbonate [0068], in order to regenerate the alkali material. Gordon teaches elemental alkali metal catalyst [0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Gordon separation and regeneration steps, in order to recover the alkali material, as desired by Soto.
Further, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate temperature and separation vessel, in order to recover and regenerate the alkali material as desired by Soto.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed by the updated rejections as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grosse (US 2,029,100) - teaches a hydrodesulfurization process, and notes that besides hydrogen, other types of hydrocarbon gases containing hydrogen can be used including natural gas, methane, ethane, propane, etc (page 1, column 1, lines 25-35).
Aldridge (US 3,367,861) - teaches alkali desulfurization followed by hydrotreatment (figure).
Bearden (US 3,788,978) – teaches alkali desulfurization
Hanks (US 2018/0171238) – teaches alkali metal desulfurization
Paasikallio (WO 2020/0239729) – teaches alkali treatment and hydroprocessing
Gomez (US 6,955,753) – teaches treatment of crudes with alkali and hydrotreatment
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