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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by FR-2134763 A5.
The FR reference discloses a process for producing aromatic compounds from a gasoline feedstock from a catalytic cracking unit by charging the feedstock to a first hydrogenation zone operated in the present of hydrogen and a first catalyst to hydrogenate diolefins contained in the feedstock to produce a selective hydrogenation effluent (page 7, lines 15-24). The effluent is then passed into a fractionation zone to produce at least one C5- fraction containing compounds with 5 carbon atoms or few and a C6+ fraction containing compounds with at least 6 carbon atoms (page 7, lines 25-26). The C6+ fraction is hydrogenated olefins contained in the C6+ fraction in a second hydrogenation zone operated the presence of hydrogen and a second catalyst to produce a second hydrogenation effluent (page 7, lines 26-32). The second effluent is then passed into an extraction zone to produce an extracted stream concentrated in aromatics compounds and a raffinate stream concentrated in non-aromatic compounds (page 7, lines 33-35; page 2, lines 1-3). The first hydrogenation is operated at a temperature of 140o C, at a pressure of 28kg/cm2 (2.7 Mpa), at a hourly volumetric flow rate: 2 volumes per volume of catalyst (LHSV 2h-1) and at molar ratio of hydrogen to hydrocarbon is about 0.5 (it is estimate that the ratio is within the claimed ranges 2-100 Sm3/m3 ) . The first catalyst comprises a support and a metal of Group VIII (Examples 1 and 2). The second hydrogenation zone is operated at a temperature of 340o C, at a pressure of 40 Kg/cm2 (3.9 Mpa), a hourly feed volumetric flow rate: 4 volumes per volume of catalyst (LHSV 4 h-1). The second catalyst comprises a support and metal of Group VIII. (examples 1 and 2).
With respect to the amended limitation that the second cut is withdrawn at the bottom of a fractionation column, the fractionation step disclosed in the FR reference inherently involves a distillation operation in which lighter hydrocarbons (C5-) are removed overhead and heavier hydrocarbons are withdrawn as a bottoms stream. Accordingly, the claimed “second cut withdrawn at the bottom” is inherently disclosed.
With respect to the amended boiling range of the gasoline feedstock extending from C2/C3 hydrocarbons up to about 260°C, such range corresponds to conventional gasoline or pyrolysis gasoline feedstocks, as taught by the FR reference.
With respect to the amended limitation that the second cut, hydrogenation effluent, and aromatic stream comprise aromatic compounds containing 6 to 11 carbon atoms, gasoline-range aromatics inherently consist of C6-C11 compounds. Accordingly, this limitation merely describes the inherent composition of the streams disclosed in the FR reference.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR-2134763 A5.
The process of the FR reference is as discussed above.
The FR reference does not teach that the C6+ fraction exhibiting a content of less than or equal to 5000 ppm of compounds having boiling point of greater than 217o C.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of FR reference by producing a C6+ fraction exhibiting a content of less than or equal to 5000 ppm of compounds having boiling point of greater than 217o C because the FR reference intended to producing a C6+ fraction comprising compounds having at least 6 carbon atoms. As control of the end-point boiling range and exclusion of heavier hydrocarbons from gasoline fractions was a routine optimization well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The intent of the FR reference to produce a gasoline-range C6+ fraction comprising compounds having at least six carbon atoms would have motivated such routine fractionation control.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR-2134763 A5 in view of Lee et al. (US 2013/0225838 A1).
The process of the FR reference is as discussed above.
The FR reference does not teach a extracting step as claimed.
Lee discloses a liquid-liquid extraction process for producing aromatic compounds. In this process, a hydrocarbon mixture is fed into a liquid-liquid extractor (Figure 3(340)) with a solvent stream (Figure 3(130)). This action separates the mixture into a raffinate (Figure 3(104)) and an extract (Figure 3(105)) that is concentrated in aromatic compounds. The extract is then stripped in a stripping section (Figure 3(346)), which separates it into a gas stream (Figure 3(108)) of non-aromatic compounds and a purified extract (Figure 3(112)). Following this, the aromatics are separated from the purified extract and the solvent using an aromatics recovery tower (Figure 3(341)). This yields a solvent stream (Figure 3(118)) and overhead vapors that form the aromatic stream (Figure 3(116)). The gas stream from the stripping section (Figure 3(108)) is condensed and separated in a condenser-settler (Figure 3(347)) to obtain a raffinate recycle stream (Figure 3(109)) and an aqueous phase (Figure 3(110)). The raffinate from the extractor (Figure 3(104)) is washed with water in a water wash tower (Figure 3(244)), which is fed by a water stream (Figure 3(134)). This washing step produces a non-aromatic stream (Figure 3(135)) and wash water (Figure 3(133)). The solvent used in the process included sulfolane (paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of the FR reference by utilizing the separation steps as suggested by Lee because such techniques were known to be effective for separating gasoline-range aromatic compounds and represent the predictable use of prior-art extraction technology in a known aromatic recovery process.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks and amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The amendments to claim 1 defining the gasoline feedstock boiling range, replacing “C5−/C6+” with “first/second cut,” reciting withdrawal of the second cut from the bottom of a first fractionation column, and specifying aromatic compounds containing 6 to 11 carbon atoms do not overcome the FR reference. The FR reference discloses treatment of an unsaturated gasoline feedstock, including selective hydrogenation of diolefins (p.7, l.15–24), separation of C5 hydrocarbons from the hydrogenated effluent to produce a heavier gasoline fraction (p.7, l.25–26), hydrogenation/hydrodesulfurization of the heavier aromatic gasoline fraction (p.7, l.26–32), and extraction of aromatics to produce an aromatic-rich stream and raffinate/non-aromatic stream (p.7, l.33–35; p.2, l.1–3). Applicant’s replacement of “C5−” and “C6+” with “first” and “second” is a change in terminology only; the first cut corresponds to the light C5− fraction and the second cut corresponds to the heavier fraction remaining after removal of C5− compounds. Further, the limitation that the second cut is withdrawn at the bottom of a first fractionation column is inherently met because separation of light C5− hydrocarbons by fractionation necessarily produces the heavier fraction as a bottoms or lower-boiling-column residue stream.
Applicant’s argument that the Office disregarded the limitation “aromatic compounds containing 6 to 11 carbon atoms” is not persuasive. The Office has considered this limitation. The FR reference processes gasoline-range aromatic streams, and gasoline-range aromatics inherently include benzene, toluene, xylenes/ethylbenzene, and higher alkylbenzenes within the C6-C11 range. Thus, the second cut, hydrogenation effluent, and aromatic stream of FR inherently contain aromatic compounds having 6 to 11 carbon atoms. The added boiling-range language for the gasoline feedstock, extending from C2/C3 hydrocarbons up to 260°C, is likewise consistent with unsaturated gasoline or pyrolysis gasoline feeds and does not patentably distinguish over the FR reference.
Applicant’s assertion that FR teaches away because it discusses treating a C6-C8 cut after separating C5 hydrocarbons and hydrocarbons higher than C8 is not persuasive. A reference does not teach away merely by describing a preferred or exemplary BTX-focused embodiment. FR does not criticize, discredit, or discourage treating broader gasoline-range aromatic fractions containing C6-C11 aromatics. Rather, FR’s disclosure of C6-C8 aromatics is encompassed within the claimed C6-C11 aromatic range and does not negate the disclosed sequence of hydrogenation, fractionation, hydrogenation, and extraction.
With respect to claim 4, FR may not expressly recite a second cut having less than or equal to 5000 ppm by weight of compounds boiling above 217°C; however, controlling the heavy-end content and endpoint of a gasoline fraction by fractionation is a routine optimization of cut point, reflux, and column operation.
With respect to claims 6–10, Applicant’s argument that Lee does not cure deficiencies in FR is not persuasive because FR already discloses the basic aromatic extraction step. Lee is relied upon for the specific extraction configuration and solvent-handling details recited in the dependent claims, including liquid-liquid extraction, extract stripping, aromatic recovery, solvent recycle, water washing, phase separation, and sulfolane solvent use.
Withdrawn claim 11 has not been considered on the merits because it is withdrawn from consideration. Accordingly, Applicant’s amendments and arguments do not overcome the rejections of claims 1–3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. §102, claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §103, and claims 6–10 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
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