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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11, 13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunlop (US 2,952,356), further in view of Poppos (US 3,074,878), and further in view of Harandi (WO 2019/099247), and further in view of Court (US 20130078115 A1).
With respect claim 1, the claim requires “A process for converting a hydrocarbon-containing feed by pyrolysis; the process comprising (I) feeding the hydrocarbon-containing feed and heated particles into a pyrolysis zone.” Dunlop teaches a system involving injecting oil by pyrolysis that evolves into lighter hydrocarbon vapors (Dunlop 3, line 66-67).
Claim 1 further requires “ (II) contacting the hydrocarbon-containing feed with the heated particles in the pyrolysis zone to effect pyrolysis of at least a portion of the hydrocarbon-containing feed to produce pyrolysis zone effluent comprising olefins and the particles, wherein coke is formed on the surface of the particles; (III) obtaining from the pyrolysis zone effluent a first gaseous stream rich in the olefins and a first particle stream rich in the particles;” Dunlop teaches coke particles in the hydrocarbon oil fluid coking system (Dunlop 1, line 53-55). Dunlop does not explicitly teach the effluent comprising olefins and particles. However, Poppos teaches that the oil, upon contact with the solids in, is converted to light vaporous conversion products, normally including substantial portions of olefins and diolefins (Poppos 4, line 14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Dunlop, the effluent comprising olefins and particles as Poppos teaches that using this method, an extremely short contact time, reaction, and separation of suitable gaseous products are formed (Poppos 5, line 41).
Claim 1 further requires “(IV) feeding at least a portion of the first particle stream, an oxidant stream, and an optional steam stream into a gasification/combustion zone, wherein the oxidant stream comprises molecular oxygen;” Dunlop teaches transferring oil in a combustion zone and back via line (Dunlop 3, line 55-65). Dunlop does not explicitly teach an oxidant stream and an optional steam stream wherein the oxidant stream comprises molecular oxygen. However, Harandi teaches one or more gas streams including oxygen stream can be introduced into a gasifier (Harandi 3, [0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Dunlop, an oxidant stream comprising molecular oxygen and an optional steam stream wherein the oxidant stream as Harandi teaches this allows for reduced or minimized production of inorganic nitrogen compounds (Harandi, abstract).
Claim 1 further requires “(V) contacting the first particle stream, the oxidant stream, and the optional steam stream, within the gasification/combustion zone to effect gasification/combustion of at least a portion of the coke disposed on the surface of the particles to produce a gasification/combustion zone effluent comprising regenerated particles and a gasification/combustion gas mixture comprising CO and/or CO2;” Dunlop teaches the oil is subjected to pyrolysis in a coking vessel where coke produced in the process (Dunlop 3, 57-60). Dunlop does not explicitly teach contacting the first particle stream, the oxidant stream, and the optional steam stream, within the gasification/combustion zone or producing a gas mixture comprising CO and/or CO2. However, Harandi teaches an oxygen stream comprising O2 that is combined with the stream in gasification (Harandi 20, [0067]). Harandi further teaches the gas mixture comprising CO, CO2 and partially gasified coke particles (Harandi, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Dunlop, as Harandi teaches reducing, minimizing, or
eliminating production of slag or other glass-like substances in the gasifier (Harandi, abstract).
Claim 1 further requires “ (VI) obtaining from the gasification/combustion zone a second gaseous stream rich in the gasification/combustion gas mixture and a second particle stream rich in the regenerated particles;” Dunlop teaches a combustion zone (Dunlop, line 65). Dunlop does not explicitly teach obtaining a second gaseous stream rich in the gasification/combustion gas mixture and a second particle stream rich in the regenerated particles. However, Harandi teaches separating CO2, H2S, or a combination thereof from the gas phase product to form a second synthesis gas stream and removing at least a first portion of the partially gasified coke particles from the gasifier step to form a second particle stream (heated and regenerated) (Harandi, claims 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Dunlop, a second gas mixture and a second particle stream rich in the regenerated particles as Harandi teaches reducing, minimizing, or eliminating production of slag or other glass-like substances in the gasifier passing the second particle stream comprising deposited coke to a heater before a gasifier (Harandi, claims 1-4, [0029], [0050], [0053], [0056], [0060]) (Harandi, abstract).
Claim 1 further requires “(VII) feeding at least a portion of the second particle stream into the pyrolysis zone as at least a portion of the heated particles fed into the pyrolysis zone in step (I);” Dunlop does not explicitly teach feeding at least a portion of the second particle stream into the pyrolysis zone. However, Harandi teaches step (VII) in which at least comprises passing the second particle stream comprising deposited coke to a heater before a gasifier (Harandi, claims 1-4, [0029], [0050], [0053], [0056], [0060]).
Claim 1 further requires “(VIII) obtaining a CO2-rich stream from the gasification/combustion gas mixture, wherein the CO2-rich stream, on a dry basis, comprises CO2 at a concentration of ~ 90 vol%, based on the total volume of the CO2-rich stream.” Dunlop does not explicitly teach obtaining a CO2-rich stream from the gasification/combustion gas mixture, wherein the CO2-rich stream, on a dry basis, comprises CO2 at a concentration of ~ 90 vol%, based on the total volume of the CO2-rich stream. However, Court teaches a stream containing around 90% of CO2 by volume and on a dry basis (Court 1, [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Dunlop, the limitations claimed as Court teaches obtaining this final product in order to make it available to a system of transport (Court 1, [0010]).
Regarding Claim 10, Dunlop does not explicitly teach on a volume basis, the second gaseous stream comprises a greater amount of N2 than a combined amount of H2, CO, and CO2. However, Harandi teaches a nitrogen content of 95 vol% (Harandi 19, [0066]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Dunlop, as Harandi teaches this method can allow
essentially the same or a similar temperature profile to be maintained in the gasifier relative to conventional operation (Harandi 14, [0046]) .
Regarding claim 11, Dunlop does not explicitly teach Harandi teaches a hydrogen wt% of 9 to 11% (Harandi 12, table 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Dunlop, the volume of N2 claimed as Harandi teaches this a part of the parameters for suitable petroleum processing (Harandi 12, [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Dunlop teaches removing coarser particles from the line (Dunlop 2, line 65-70).
Regarding claim 16, Dunlop teaches their invention is applicable to particulate solids like coke, sand, catalyst, etc. or mixtures thereof (Dunlop 2, line 63-65).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Dunlop does not explicitly teach the pressure and temperature ranges. However, Harandi teaches a pressure range in the gasification zone of 0-1000 Kpag (0-899 kPa) and a temperature range of 850°C to about 1000°C (Harandi 14, [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Dunlop, the pressure and temperature range claimed as Harandi teaches this method can allow essentially the same or a similar temperature profile to be maintained in the gasifier relative to conventional operation (Harandi 14, [0046]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 12, and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Harandi (US 4,939,314), Poppos (US 3,074,878), Harandi (WO 2019/099247), and Court (US 20130078115 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Harandi the method of claim 1 is discussed above. Harandi teaches a nitrogen content of between wt% 0.2 and 2% (Harandi 12, Table 1).
However, neither Harandi nor the other cited prior art references teach or suggest reacting at least a portion of the second gaseous steam with additional steam under shifting conditions to produce a shifted gas stream, where the shifted gas stream, on a dry basis, comprises CO2 at a concentration of 20 vol%, based on the total volume of the shifted gas stream; and obtaining from the shifted gas stream the CO2-rich stream and a CO2-lean gas stream comprising H2 and N2.
Regarding Claim 12, Harandi the method of claim 1 is discussed above.
However, neither Harandi nor the other cited prior art references teach or suggest wherein the oxidant stream comprises O2 at a concentration > 95 vol% and N2 at a concentration <5 vol%, based on the total volume of the oxidant stream, the gasification/combustion zone is a combustion zone, the second gaseous mixture is a flue gas comprising CO2 and H2O, and step (VIII) comprises:(Viiic) indirectly transferring heat from the second gaseous stream to a cooling medium to produce a cooled second gaseous stream comprising water; and (Villd) separating at least a portion of the water from the cooled second gaseous stream to produce the CO2-rich stream comprising, on a dry basis, CO2 at a concentration > 90 vol% CO2, based on the total volume of the CO2-rich stream.
Claims 3-4, 6-11 and 14-15 contain allowable subject matter due to its dependence on claim 2, which contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 5 contain allowable subject matter due to its dependence on claim 4, which contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 13 contain allowable subject matter due to its dependence on claim 12, which contains allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights