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
Applicant has amended claims 1-4 and 17-18, canceled claim 5 and added new claims 19-25. Claims 1-4 and 6-25 are pending.
The amendments to the claims have overcome many of the 112(b) rejections of record. However, some 112(b) rejections of record have not been adequately addressed. Such 112(b) rejections are maintained below. Additionally, the amendments have been found to necessitate new rejections under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new prior art rejections over the prior art previously relied upon. See 102 and 103 rejections below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section II of Remarks, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record. Therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new claim objections are set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments, see section III of Remarks, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record. Examiner agrees that many of the 112(b) rejections of record have been overcome by the claim amendments. The 112(b) rejections which have been overcome have been withdrawn.
However, some 112(b) rejections of record have not been adequately addressed. Namely, the previous Office Action included 112(b) rejections of claims 6, 9, 15, and 16 concerning the recitations in said claims to an “i-th heating unit”. Said rejections have not been addressed by the amendments and therefore, are maintained below.
Furthermore, the amendments have been found to necessitate new rejections under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
Applicant’s arguments, see section IV of Remarks, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that claim 1 is not anticipated by Elliot because Elliot’s process is allegedly not one where “the material transported from the 1st heating unit to the h-th coke tower is a coke-forming feedstock”, as is required by claim 1. Specifically, Applicant alleges that Elliot “teaches that the material fluid fed to the coke tower by the heating unit 14 is a mixture of fresh feedstock and the fluid from the bottom of the separation tower”, implicitly alleging that a mixture of fresh feedstock and fluid from a bottom of a separation tower is not “a coke-forming feedstock”. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
During patent examination, a claim limitation must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the specification, unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification (MPEP 2111). Applicant’s specification does not include any special definition of “coke-forming feedstock”. Therefore, “coke-forming feedstock” must be afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “coke-forming feedstock” is merely: a feedstock which forms coke when subjected to coking conditions. This interpretation is consistent with the use of the term “coke-forming feedstock” in Applicant’s specification.
The material transported from the 1st heating unit 14 in Elliot is a “coke feedstock” comprised of fresh feed 11, e.g. residual bottoms from a refining process (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 55-Column 3 Line 15). This coke feedstock is fed from the 1st heating unit 14 sequentially into coke drums A, B, and C, where said coke feedstock forms coke (Figure 1, Column 3 Lines 34-51). Thus, the material transported from the 1st heating unit 14 in Elliot, i.e. the “coke feedstock”, is clearly “a coke-forming feedstock”.
As argued by Applicant, the “coke feedstock” in Elliot comprises bottoms from fractionator 36 that are mixed with the fresh feed 11 (Figure 1, Column 5 lines 1-10). However, there is nothing in the claims which excludes the “coke-pulling feedstock” from being a mixture or comprising either fresh feed or fractionator bottoms. It is noted that, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thus, Examiner maintains that Elliot anticipates claim 1, including the limitation therein to “the material transported from the 1st heating unit to the h-th coke tower [being] a coke-forming feedstock”.
Applicant’s arguments against the 102 rejections over Elliot contain a statement noting that amended claim 1 requires that “the material [transported from the 1st heating unit] is conveyed in a sequential start and termination”. If Applicant is alleging that Elliot fails to teach the sequential start and termination of material transport from the first heater as required by claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The coke-forming feedstock in Elliot (“coke feedstock”) is fed from the 1st heating unit 14 sequentially into coke drums A, B, and C, i.e. by sequentially starting and terminating feed of the coke feedstock to each of the coke drums (Figure 1, Column 3 Lines 34-51). Thus, Elliot anticipates the sequential start and termination of material transport from the first heater required by claim 1. See 102 rejection of claim 1 below for further details.
Applicant’s arguments, see section V of Remarks, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that none of the secondary references (Faegh, Bloomer, Fern, and Chahar) cure the alleged deficiencies of Elliot regarding transport of a “coke-forming feedstock” from the 1st heating unit to the coke towers. As discussed above with respect to the 102 rejections, Elliot is not deficient in the alleged manner. Therefore, this argument is moot.
Applicant has argued that “the claimed invention demonstrates unexpected results by reducing the impact of variations in the feed material property, feed volume and variable temperature and pressure on the product properties.” Though Applicant has not expressly articulated which feature allegedly yields unexpected results, Examiner understands that it is the invention of claim 1, in particular the feeding of a “coke-forming feedstock” from the 1st heating unit which allegedly produces the unexpected results. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, as discussed above and detailed in the 102 rejections below Elliot anticipates the method of claim 1, including the claimed feeding of a coke-forming feedstock from the 1st heating unit. An allegation of unexpected results cannot be relied upon to establish patentability when the prior art anticipates the claims.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that the feeding of a “coke-forming feedstock” from a heater in a delayed coking process1 is by no means inventive. Indeed, a delayed coking process must be supplied with a “coke-forming feedstock” (i.e. a feedstock which forms coke when exposed to coking conditions) if it is to be successful for its intended purpose, i.e. the formation of petroleum coke (delayed coke). Thus, Examiner respectfully holds that any hypothetical unexpected results attained by Applciant’s invention cannot be reasonably attributed to the feeding of a “coke-forming feedstock”.
Lastly, while Applicant points to certain examples in the specification as evidence of the alleged unexpected results, Applicant has not provided any explanation as to the specific nature of the alleged unexpected results, nor has Applicant explained how the cited examples demonstrate the alleged unexpected results. Instead, Applicant has merely alleged that “Results of comparative example 1 and comparative example 2 of the instant application show that a heater conveying a mixture of raw coke feedstock and separation tower bottom feedstock at the same time would result in significantly inferior product properties to the multi-heater solution of this application”. Examiner notes that the burden is on Applicant to establish the presence and significance of unexpected results (MPEP 716.02(b)I). Likewise the burden is on Applicant to explain any data which they provide as evidence of unexpected results (MPEP 716.02(b)II).
With respect to independent claim 18, Applicant has argued that none or Elliot and the other cited references teach or fairly suggest the limitations of claim 18 to "the heating furnace a is connected with a feedstock tank and is used for heating a fresh feedstock to the feeding temperature of the coke tower" and "S1, heating a coking feedstock from a feedstock tank by the heating furnace a and feeding the heating coking feedstock to the coke tower a to generate an oil gas,..." Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Elliot teaches these features as described in the 103 rejection of claim 18 below. Examiner notes that, in Elliot, the coke-forming feedstock (coke feedstock) from the feedstock tank 12 is, in fact, a “fresh feedstock” as it is comprised of fresh feed supplied to the feedstock tank 12 via line 11 (Figure 1, Column 2 Lines 55-65).
The following are new claim objections.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 13 is/are objected to because it contains/they contain informalities.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the coke-charging cycle time of the h-th coke tower" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following include new rejections, necessitated by amendment, as well as rejections maintained from the previous Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 20-22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “pursing… the h-th coke tower”. It is unclear what is involved in “pursing” of a coke tower.
It is believed Applicant intended to recite “purging… the h-th coke tower”.
Applicant should amend claim 4 to replace “pursing” with --purging--.
Claims 6, 9, 15, 16, 20, and 21 reference an “i-th heating unit”, wherein i is any integer greater than 1 and less than m, and wherein m is the total number of heating units. However, the claims clearly allow for m to be 2. When m=2 the presence of an i-th heating unit as defined by the claims is not possible.
Claims 6, 9, 15, and 16 do not contain any language which clearly require that m be greater than 2. In other words, there is no clear requirement in any of said claims that there be more than 2 heating units. Therefore, it would seem that the limitations pertaining to the i-th heating units in said claims are merely optional. On the other hand, there is no clear indication that said limitations are optional. Accordingly, it is unclear if claims 6, 9, 15, and 16 should be treated as requiring m to be 3 or greater, or if the limitations in said claims regarding the i-th heating units are merely optional.
Applicant should amend claims 6, 9, 15, and 16 to clarify as appropriate.
For the purposes of examination, the limitations in said claims regarding the i-th heating units have been treated as optional.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the i-th heating unit" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the i-th transported material" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the i-th transported material" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, 15, 22, and 25 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 9.
Claim 21 recites “The coking process of claim 7, wherein an overhead material of each of the n coke towers is transferred to one fractionation tower and in the one fractionation tower, a material is at least separated into an overhead material of the separation tower and a bottom material of the separation tower,” (emphasis added).
Claim 7 recites “wherein an upper material and/or an overhead material of each of the n coke tower is transferred to and separated in one or more separation towers into at leas a separated overhead material and a separated bottom material.”
In view of the language recited in claim 7, there are many clarity issues present in claim 21.
Most notably, it is unclear if the one fractionation tower recited in claim 21 is part of the “one or more separation towers” recited in claim 7. Presumably, it is Applicant’s intent that the one fractionation tower is at least part of the one or more separation towers
Further clarity issues in claim 21 include at least the following:
i) It is unclear if the “overhead material of each of the n coke towers” recited in claim 21 is the same as that recited in claim 7.
ii) It is unclear if the “overhead material of the separation tower” recited in claim 21 is the same as that recited in claim 7.
It is unclear if the “bottom material of each of the n coke towers” recited in claim 21 is the same as that recited in claim 7.
iii) Claim 12 recites “a material is at least separated into an overhead material of the separation tower…”. It is unclear which material it is that is separated.
Claim 20 appears to reintroduce many elements which were previously introduced in claims 1 and 6. Limitations which apparently reintroduce elements include, but are not limited to, “a 1st transported material”, “a feeding temperature W1, “a intra-tower gas velocity G1”, “a m-th transported material”, “a feeding temperature W1”.
Claim 20 is a dependent of claim 6 and claim 1 (via claim 6). Thus, claim 20 is unclear, as it cannot be reasonably determined if the apparently reintroduced elements are, in fact, the same as the corresponding elements recited in claims 1 and/or 6. For example, it is unclear if the 1st transported material apparently reintroduced in claim 20 is, in fact, the same 1st transported material introduced in claim 1.
In any case, the language of claim 20 is highly redundant in view of the language in claims 1 and 6.
Applicant should amend claim 20 to remedy the clarity issues and redundancy therein.
Claim 22 recites “a coke-pulling feedstock” in lines 1-2. To ensure clarity, claim 22 should be amended to recite --the coke-pulling feedstock-- in place of “a coke-pulling feedstock”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the coke-pulling feedstock" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the coke formation rate B" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites “a weight ratio of a total amount of the coke-pulling feedstock to a total amount of the coke-forming feedstock transported to a h-th coke tower” in lines 1-3. To ensure clarity, claim 25 should be amended to recite --the weight ratio of the total amount of the coke-pulling feedstock to the total amount of the coke-forming feedstock transported to a h-th coke tower--.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment and made over the prior art previously relied upon.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9, 12-14, 16, 19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elliott et al. (US 4,929,339), hereafter referred to as Elliott.
With regard to claims 1 and 19: Elliot teaches a coking process using 2 heating units, i.e. furnace 14 and preheater 52, and three coke towers A, B, and C, wherein each of the heating units 14 and 52 are configured to be in selectable fluid communication with each of the respective coke towers, wherein the coke towers A, B, and C are operated in a cyclical and sequential manner such that during a coke charging period (a period comprised of a coking period followed by a conditioning period) for a respective coke tower, material is fed into the respective coke tower sequentially from each of the two heating units, starting with furnace 14 (hereafter referred to as “the first heating unit”) and ending with preheater 52 (hereafter referred to as “the second heating unit”), wherein material transport from the first heating unit 14 is started at the beginning of the charging period and material transport from the second heating unit 52 is terminated at the end of the charging period (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 32-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15).
Wherein the material transported from the first heating unit 14 is a coke forming feedstock (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 32-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15).
With regard to claim 2: The sum of the material fed from the first heating unit 14 and the second heating unit 52 represents the total amount of material supplied into each coke tower during its respective charging period (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 32-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15). In this way, the sum of material transported form the first and second heating units into a particular coke tower is equal to a target coke-charging capacity of said coke tower.
With regard to claim 3: The method of Elliot is fairly characterized as proceeding such that, during a single “material transport cycle” (i.e. a period of time during which material is transferred from one particular heating unit to one particular coke tower), each of the two heating units 14 and 52 transports only one batch of material to a particular coke tower, and/or at any time during a single material transport cycle, said particular coke tower only accepts material transported from one of the heating units 14 and 52 (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 32-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15).
With regard to claims 7 and 21: Upper material and/or overhead material from each of the coke towers A, B, and C is transferred to a separation tower, specifically a fractionation tower, (fractionator) 36 and the upper material and/or overhead material is separated into at least an overhead material 38/44 of the separation tower 36 and a bottom material of the separation tower, i.e. fractionation tower, 36 (Figure 1, Column 4 Line 54-Column 5 Line 25).
With regard to claim 9: The second heating unit 52 transports a coke pulling feedstock (conditioning feed) (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 32-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15).
With regard to claim 12: Each of the coke towers A, B, and C has a respective coke charging cycle (a cycle comprised of a coking period followed by a conditioning period) which may be 48 hours in length (Figure 2B, Column 4 Lines 20-42).
With regard to claim 13: The method of Elliot is fairly characterized as proceeding such that, during one material transport cycle, i.e. a cycle comprised of a coking period for a particular coke tower followed by a conditioning period for said particular coke tower, material is transported from the first heater 14 to said particular coke tower for 50% of said material transport cycle (i.e. during the coking period of said material transport cycle), and material is transported from the second heater 52 for the remaining 50% of said material transport cycle (i.e. during the conditioning period of said material transport cycle) (Figure 2B, Column 4 Lines 20-42).
With regard to claim 14: When transfer of material from the one of the heaters 14 and 52 to a first one of the coke towers A, B, and C is terminated, then material transport form said one of the heaters to a second adjacent coke tower is started (Figure 2B, Column 4 Lines 20-42). For example, when material transfer from heater 14 to tower A is terminated (i.e. at an end of a coking period for tower A), then material transfer from heater 14 to tower B is started (i.e. at a beginning of a coking period for tower B) (Figure 2B, Column 4 Lines 20-42).
With regard to claim 16: At least a portion of an upper and/or overhead material from each of the coke towers A, B, and C is transported to a separation tower (fractionator) 36 via line 30, and at least a portion of a lower and/or bottom material from the separation tower 36 is transported to the second heating unit 52 via lines 66, 62, and/or 58 (Figure 1, Column 4 Line 54-Column 5 Line 23).
With regard to claim 22: The second heating unit 52 has only a coke pulling feedstock (conditioning feed) as its transported material and/or the coke-pulling at least comprises a bottom material of the separation tower 36, said bottom material supplied via line 66 (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 32-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-25).
The following are new rejections, necessitated by amendment, and made over the prior art previously relied upon.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 10, 11, 20, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot.
With regard to claim 6: Elliot anticipates the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Elliot does not explicitly teach the feeding temperature, intra-tower gas velocity, and heating rate ranges recited in claim 6.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that feeding temperature, intra-tower gas velocity, and heating rate are all result effective variables in Elliot’s method. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Elliot by optimizing the feeding temperature, intra-tower gas velocity, and heating rates used in the method of Elliot such that they matched or otherwise conformed to the ranges expressed in claim 6 in order to obtain a predictably functional coking method.
With regard to claim 8: Elliot anticipates the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Elliot does not explicitly teach the operating temperature and pressure ranges recited in claim 8.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that operating temperature and operating pressure are both result effective variables in Elliot’s method. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Elliot by optimizing the operating temperatures and operating pressures in the method of Elliot such that they matched or otherwise conformed to the ranges expressed in claim 8 in order to obtain a predictably functional coking method.
With regard to claim 10: Elliot anticipates the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
In Elliot, the coke forming feedstock is a petroleum-based feedstock (e.g. residual bottoms from a refining process) (Column 2 Lines 59-62).
Elliot does not explicitly teach that the coke forming feedstock has a coke formation rate of 10-80%.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the coke formation rate of the coke forming feedstock is a result effective variable in Elliot’s method. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Elliot by optimizing the coke formation rate of the coke forming feedstock such it matched or otherwise conformed to the range expressed in claim 10 in order to obtain a predictably functional coking method.
With regard to claim 11: Elliot anticipates the limitations of claim 9 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Elliot does not explicitly teach the weight ratio of coke-pulling feedstock to coke forming feedstock transported to a particular tower is in the range recited in claim 11.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that said ratio is a result effective variable in Elliot’s method. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Elliot by optimizing the weight ratio of coke-pulling feedstock to coke forming feedstock transported to a particular tower such it matched or otherwise conformed to the range expressed in claim 11 in order to obtain a predictably functional coking method.
With regard to claim 20: Elliot does not explicitly teach the feeding temperature, intra-tower gas velocity, and heating rate ranges recited in claim 20.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that feeding temperature, intra-tower gas velocity, and heating rate are all result effective variables in Elliot’s method. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Elliot by optimizing the feeding temperature, intra-tower gas velocity, and heating rates used in the method of Elliot such that they matched or otherwise conformed to the ranges expressed in claim 20 in order to obtain a predictably functional coking method.
With regard to claim 23: Modified Elliot does not explicitly teach that the coke forming feedstock has a coke formation rate of 30-60%.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the coke formation rate of the coke forming feedstock is a result effective variable in Elliot’s method. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Elliot by optimizing the coke formation rate of the coke forming feedstock such it matched or otherwise conformed to the range expressed in claim 23 in order to obtain a predictably functional coking method.
With regard to claim 24: The second heating unit 52 transports a coke pulling feedstock (conditioning feed) (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 32-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15).
The coke pulling feedstock may comprise coker gas oil (heavy coker gas oil and/or light coker gas oil) (Figure 1, Column 4 Line 54-Column 5 Line 23).
With regard to claim 25: Elliot does not explicitly teach the weight ratio of coke-pulling feedstock to coke forming feedstock transported to a particular tower is in the range recited in claim 25.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that said ratio is a result effective variable in Elliot’s method. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Elliot by optimizing the weight ratio of coke-pulling feedstock to coke forming feedstock transported to a particular tower such it matched or otherwise conformed to the range expressed in claim 25 in order to obtain a predictably functional coking method.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot in view of Faegh (US 2014/0082999).
With regard to claim 4: Elliot anticipates the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
The method of Elliot is fairly characterized as proceeding such that, when a material transport cycle (i.e. a cycle comprised of a coking period for a particular coke tower followed by a conditioning period for said particular coke tower) for a particular coke tower is complete, said particular coke tower is subjected to a decoking operation before a following material transport cycle is started subsequent material transport cycle (Figure 2B, Column 4 Lines 20-42).
Elliot is silent to the decoking operation including purging.
However, it is notoriously well-known in the art to purge coke towers in conjunction with decoking operations. For example, Faegh teaches a coking method having a decoking operation (decoking cycle) wherein coke towers (drums) are subjected to steam purging prior to removal of coke from the towers in order to remove volatile hydrocarbons remaining in the coke, and again following the removal of coke in order to remove air from the interior of said towers in preparation for a subsequent coking cycle (paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Elliot in view of Faegh by carrying out steam purging during the decoking operation, such that the decoking operation is a steam purging and decoking operation, wherein the coke tower subjected to said purging and decoking operation is: i) steam purged prior to coke removal in order to remove residual volatile hydrocarbons from the coke, and ii) steam purged following the coke removal in order to remove air from said tower in preparation for a subsequent coking cycle.
With regard to claim 17: Elliot anticipates the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Elliot teaches a coking process using and three coke towers A, B, and C and two heating units, i.e. a heating unit A (furnace) 14 and a heating unit B (preheater) 52, wherein each of the heating units 14 and 52 are configured to be in selectable fluid communication with each of the respective coke towers A, B, and C (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 20-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15).
Each of the coke towers is operated according to a coking method comprising, in sequence:
i) Feeding a coke-forming feedstock (coke feedstock) from the heating unit A 14 to a particular coke tower during a coking period, wherein the coking period may be 24 hours in length (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 20-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15);
ii) Stopping feeding of the coke-forming feedstock to said particular coke tower (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 20-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15);
iii) Feeding a coke-pulling feedstock (conditioning feedstock) to said particular coke tower from the heating unit B 52 during a conditioning period, wherein the conditioning period may be 24 hours in length (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 20-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15);
iv) Stopping feeding of the coke-pulling feedstock to said particular coke tower (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 20-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15); and
v) Performing a decoking operation on said particular coke tower (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 20-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15).
The operation of each of said towers according to said coking method is offset from the others such that, while one of the coke towers operated in a coking period, a second one of the towers is operated in a conditioning period, and a third one of the coke towers is undergoing decoking operations (Figure 2B, Column 4 Lines 20-42). For example, when tower A is being fed with coke-forming feedstock during a coking period, tower B is being fed with coke-pulling feedstock in during a conditioning period, and tower C is being subjected to decoking operations (Figure 2B, Column 4 Lines 20-42).
The method of Elliot further comprises feeding, via line 30, oil gas generated by each of the coke towers A, B, and C to a separation tower (fractionator) 36 where at least heavy coker gas oil 48 and light coker gas oil 46 are separated from the oil gas (Figure 1, Column 4 Line 54-Column 5 Line 25).
By disclosing the method explained above, Elliot teaches or at least suggests a method which makes use of a coking system comprising three coke towers, coke tower a, coke tower b and coke tower c, and 2 heating units, heating unit a 14 and heating unit b 52, wherein the overhead material (oil gas) of each of the 3 coke towers A, B, and C is in communication with a separation tower 36 in a material transport manner, the heating unit a 14 transports and heats a coke-forming feedstock, and the heating unit b 52 transports and heats a coke-pulling feedstock, wherein the method comprises steps of:
(1) Feeding the coke-forming feedstock into the coke tower A, and introducing the oil gas generated by the coke tower A into the separation tower 36 to separate off at least coker gas oil;
(2) When the feeding duration of the coke tower A reaches 50% a coke-charging cycle (the coke charging cycle of a tower being comprised of a 24 hour coking period and a 24 hour condition period) of the coke tower A (i.e. when the end of the coking period in tower A is reached), stopping feeding the coke-forming feedstock to the coke tower A, simultaneously starting to feed the coke-forming feedstock to the coke tower B and starting to feed the coke-pulling feedstock to the coke tower A, and feeding the oil gas generated by the coke tower B to the separation tower 36 to separate off at least coker gas oil;
(3) When the feeding duration of the coke tower B reaches 50% of the coke-charging cycle of the coke tower B (i.e. when the end of the coking period in tower B is reached), stopping feeding the coke-forming feedstock to the coke tower B, simultaneously starting to feed the coke-forming feedstock to the coke tower C, starting to feed the coke-pulling feedstock to the coke tower B, and stopping feeding the coke-pulling feedstock to the coke tower A, and feeding the oil gas generated by the coke tower C to the separation tower 36 to separate off at least coker gas oil;
(4) Performing steam decoking operations on the coke tower A;
(5) When the feeding duration of the coke tower C reaches 50% of the coke-charging cycle of the coke tower C (i.e. when the end of the coking period in tower B is reached), stopping feeding the coke-forming feedstock to the coke tower C, simultaneously starting to feed the coke-forming feedstock to the coke tower A, starting to feed the coke-pulling feedstock to the coke tower C and stopping feeding the coke-pulling feedstock to the coke tower B, and feeding the oil gas generated by the coke tower A to the separation tower 36 to separate off at least coker gas oil;
(6) Performing decoking operations on the coke tower B;
(7) When the feeding duration of the coke tower A reaches 50% of the coke-charging cycle of the coke tower A (i.e. when the end of the coking period in tower A id reached), stopping feeding the coke-forming feedstock to the coke tower a, and simultaneously starting to feed the coke-forming feedstock to the coke tower b, starting to feed the coke-pulling feedstock to the coke tower a and stopping feeding the coke-pulling feedstock to the coke tower c, and feeding the oil gas generated by the coke tower b to the separation tower to separate off at least coker gas oil;
(8) Performing decoking operations on the coke tower c; and
(9) Repeating the steps (3) to (8).
Elliot is silent to the decoking operations for each tower including steam purging.
However, it is notoriously well-known in the art to purge coke towers with steam in conjunction with decoking operations. For example, Faegh teaches a coking method having a decoking operation (decoking cycle) wherein coke towers (drums) are subjected to steam purging prior to removal of coke from the towers in order to remove volatile hydrocarbons remaining in the coke, and again following the removal of coke in order to remove air from the interior of said towers in preparation for a subsequent coking cycle (paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Elliot in view of Faegh by carrying out steam purging during the decoking operations, such that the decoking operations are steam purging and decoking operations, wherein coke towers subjected to said purging and decoking operations are: i) steam purged prior to coke removal in order to remove residual volatile hydrocarbons from the coke, and ii) steam purged following the coke removal in order to remove air from said tower in preparation for a subsequent coking cycle.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot in view of Bloomer et al. (US 3,109,803), hereafter referred to as Bloomer.
With regard to claim 15: Elliot anticipates the limitations of claim 9 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Elliot is silent to the coke-forming feedstock and/or the coke-pulling feedstock being filtered before entering a heating unit and/or a coke tower.
However, it is known in the art to filter coke-forming feedstock before it enters a heating unit. For example, Bloomer teaches a coking method wherein a coke forming feedstock is filtered by a rotary filter 15 before it enters a heating unit (heater) 21 and consequently, before it enters either of the coke towers 23 and 24 located downstream of the heating unit 21 (Figure 1, Columns 5 and 6, Especially Column 5 Line 70-Column 6 Line 17). By filtering the coke forming feedstock in filter 15, Bloomer is able to remove undissolved ash and other solid mater suspended in the coke forming solution (Column 5 Line 70-Column 6 Line 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Elliot in view of Bloomer by filtering the coke forming feedstock before it enters the first heater 14 and consequently, before it enters any of the coke towers A, B, or C, in order to remove any undissolved ash and/or other solid mater that is suspended in said feedstock.
By filtering the coke forming feedstock, modified Elliot would implicitly control a coke fine concentration in the coke forming feedstock.
Modified Elliot is silent to the filtering of the coke-forming feedstock controlling the coke fine concentration in said feedstock to be in the specific range recited in claim 15.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the specific coke fine concentration within the coke forming feedstock is a result effective variable in Elliot’s method. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Elliot by optimizing the filtering of the coke-forming feedstock so as to control the coke fine concentration therein to a level matching or otherwise conforming to the range expressed in claim 15 in order to obtain a predictably functional coking method.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot in view of Faegh, Fern (US 2012/0298553), and Chahar et al. (US 5,158,668), hereafter referred to as Chahar.
With regard to claim 18: Elliot teaches a coking process, wherein the process uses a coking device comprising three coke towers A, B, and C, two sets of heating furnaces, i.e. a heating furnace A (furnace) 14 and a heating furnace B (preheater) 52, a fractionation tower 36 and a feedstock tank (heater surge drum) 12, wherein the coke towers A, B, and C are all in selectable fluid communication with each of heating furnaces A 14 and B 52, wherein a top of each of the coke towers A, B, and C is connected with the inlet of the fractionation tower 36 via a pipeline 30, wherein bottom outlets of the fractionation tower 36 is connected via lines 58, 62, and 66 to a coke-pulling feedstock supply line (see annotated Figure 1 below), wherein the heating furnace B 52 is connected with the coke-pulling feedstock supply line and is used for heating material(s) the coke-pulling feedstock supply line to a feeding temperature of a particular coke tower, and wherein the heating furnace B 14 is connected with the feedstock tank 12 and is used for heating a fresh feedstock to a feeding temperature of a particular coke tower (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 20-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-25).
Each of the coke towers A, B, and C is operated according to a coking method comprising, in sequence:
i) Heating a coke-forming feedstock (coke feedstock) from the feedstock tank 12 and feeding the coke-forming feedstock from the heating unit A 14 to a particular coke tower during a coking period, wherein the coking period may be 24 hours in length (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 20-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15);
ii) Stopping feeding of the coke-forming feedstock to said particular coke tower (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 20-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15);
iii) Feeding a coke-pulling feedstock (conditioning feedstock) to said particular coke tower from the heating unit B 52 during a conditioning period, wherein the conditioning period may be 24 hours in length (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 20-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15);
iv) Stopping feeding of the coke-pulling feedstock to said particular coke tower (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 20-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15); and
v) Performing a decoking operation on said particular coke tower, wherein said decoking operation may be 24 hours in length (Figures 1 and 2B, Columns 2-5, especially Column 3 Line 34-Column 4 Line 9, Column 4 Lines 20-42, and Column 5 Lines 5-15).
The operation of each of said towers according to said coking method is offset from the others such that, while one of the coke towers operated in a coking period, a second one of the towers is operated in a conditioning period, and a third one of the coke towers is undergoing decoking operations (Figure 2B, Column 4 Lines 20-42). For example, when tower A is being fed with coke-forming feedstock during a coking period, tower B is being fed with coke-pulling feedstock in during a conditioning period, and tower C is being subjected to decoking operations (Figure 2B, Column 4 Lines 20-42).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The method of Elliot further comprises:
Feeding, via line 30, oil gas generated by each of the coke towers A, B, and C to a fractionation tower (fractionator) 36 where at least heavy coker gas oil 48 and light coker gas oil 46 are separated from the oil gas (Figure 1, Column 4 Line 54-Column 5 Line 25).
Feeding bottom products, including heavy and light coker gas oil, from the fractionation tower 36 to the coke pulling feedstock supply line via lines 66, 62, and 58, and then subsequently from the coke pulling feedstock supply line to the heating unit B 52 (Figure 1, Column 4 Line 54-Column 5 Line 25).
By disclosing the method explained above, Elliot teaches or at least suggests a method comprising steps wherein:
(1) The coking feedstock is heated by the heating furnace A 14 and enters the coke tower A, generated oil gas enters the fractionation tower 36 and is fractionated to obtain at least coker gas oil at a tower bottom (i.e. from lines 48 and 46), wherein the coker gas oil at the tower bottom is introduced into the coke-pulling feedstock supply line;
(2) When a feeding duration of the coke tower A in the step (1) comprises roughly 33.3% of a total coke-producing cycle (the total coke producing cycle being comprised of a: i. a 24 hour coking period, during which coke forming feedstock is fed to a particular coke tower; ii. a 24 hour conditioning period, during which coke pulling feedstock is fed to said particular coke tower; and iii a 24 hour decoking period, during which said particular coking tower is decoked), the coking feed of the coke tower A is switched to the coke tower B, the coke tower B repeats the coke-charging process of the coke tower a in the step (1), and the coke tower A is fed with the coke-pulling feedstock heated by heating furnace B 52 to continue coke-charging;
(3) When the feeding duration of the coke tower B in the step (2) comprises roughly 33.3% of the total coke-producing cycle, the coking feed of the coke tower B is switched to a coke tower C, the coke tower C repeats the coke-charging process of the coke tower A in the step (1), the coke-pulling feedstock which is heated to by the heating furnace B 52 is switched to the coke tower B, the coke tower A is subjected to a decoking operation at this time, and reassembled to be on standby for a next coke-charging;
(4) When the feeding duration of the coke tower C in the step (3) comprises roughly 33.3% of the total coke-producing cycle, the coking feed of the coke tower C is switched to the coke tower A, the coke tower A repeats the process in the step (1), the coke-pulling feedstock which is heated by heating furnace B 52 is switched to the coke tower C, and the coke tower B is subjected to a decoking operation at this time, and reassembled to be on standby for a next coke-charging;
(5) When the feeding duration of the coke tower A in the step (4) comprises roughly 33.3% of the total coke-producing cycle, the coking feed of the coke tower a is switched to the coke tower B, the coke tower B repeats the coke-charging process of the coke tower A in the step (1), the coke-pulling feedstock which is heated by heating furnace B 52 is switched to the coke tower A, and the coke tower C is subjected to a decoking operation at this time, and reassembled to be on standby for a next coke-charging; and
(6) repeating the processes of the step (3), the step (4) and the step (5).
Elliot is silent to the decoking operations for each tower including steam purging.
However, it is notoriously well-known in the art to purge coke towers with steam in conjunction with decoking operations. For example, Faegh teaches a coking method having a decoking operation (decoking cycle) wherein coke towers (drums) are subjected to steam purging prior to removal of coke from the towers in order to remove volatile hydrocarbons remaining in the coke, and again following the removal of coke in order to remove air from the interior of said towers in preparation for a subsequent coking cycle (paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Elliot in view of Faegh by carrying out steam purging during the decoking operations, such that the decoking operations are steam purging and decoking operations, wherein coke towers subjected to said purging and decoking operations are: i) steam purged prior to coke removal in order to remove residual volatile hydrocarbons from the coke, and ii) steam purged following the coke removal in order to remove air from said tower in preparation for a subsequent coking cycle.
Modified Elliot does not explicitly teach the presence of a coke pulling feedstock storage tank connected to the bottom outlets of the fractionation tower 36 for receiving material therefrom and subsequently feeding it into the heating furnace B 52.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be beneficial to add a coke pulling feedstock storage tank in the form of a surge drum to the coke pulling feedstock supply line for the purposes of accommodating fluctuations in the flow rate of material received by the coke pulling feedstock supply line from the fractionation tower 36. The use of surge drums connected downstream of fractionation columns and upstream of heating furnaces is known in the art, as is evident from Elliot’s teachings to feed surge drum 12 (Figure 1, Column 2 Lines 59-64, Column 5 Lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Elliot by adding a coke pulling feedstock storage tank in the form of a surge drum to the coke pulling feedstock supply line, wherein said coke pulling feedstock storage tank is connected to the bottom outlets of the fractionation tower 36 for receiving material therefrom and subsequently feeding it into the heating furnace B 52, in order to obtain a system which is capable of accommodating fluctuations in the flow rate of material received by the coke pulling feedstock supply line from the fractionation tower 36.
Modified Elliot does not explicitly teach that the fractionation tower 36 fractionates the generated oil gas to obtain gas, coker gasoline, and coker diesel.
However, it is known in the art that coking towers (delayed cokers) can produce gasoline and diesel (see Fern: Paragraph [0005]). Furthermore, it is known in the art that coker fractionator towers can be engineered to separate gasoline, diesel, and light gas (i.e. gas comprised of C1-C3 hydrocarbons) from a coker overhead stream. For example, Fern teaches a coker fractionator which separates at least Diesel from a coker overhead stream (Figure 2). Chahar teaches a coker fractionator which separates at least gasoline and light gas from a coker overhead stream.
In view of the combined teachings of Fern and Chahar, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the coker fractionator of Elliot could be modified to yield gasoline, diesel, and light gas fractions in addition to the coker gas oil.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that gasoline and diesel are useful fuels and therefore, would be motivated to engineer Elliot’s process to yield them, especially in view of Fern which suggests that delayed cokers are often operated as a means of producing additional gasoline and diesel (Fern: paragraph [0005]). Likewise, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that light gases comprised of C1-C3 would be a useful as a fuel, e.g. as a substitute for natural gas, or as a precursor for obtaining a useful fuel, such as propane gas. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to engineer Elliot’s process to yield a light gas product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Elliot in view of Fern and Chahar by configuring the fractionation tower 36 to produce light gas, coker gasoline, and coker diesel product streams, in order to obtain said products for use as fuels (or alternatively in the gas of the light gas, as precursor for obtaining a useful fuel, such as propane gas).
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 JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
1 Although the claims do not use the term “delayed coking”, it is nevertheless understood that they are to a delayed coking process.
Prosecution Insights