DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 23 March 2026 containing remarks.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 9, 12-14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained.
Claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15-17, 19, and 20 are indicated allowable. The rejection follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-5, 9, 12-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bozzano (US 2022/0127537).
With respect to claims 1, 3-5, 9, 12-14, and 18, Bozzano discloses a process for hydroprocessing hydrocarbon streams (see Bozanno, Abstract) comprising: (a) heating a hydrotreating charge stream by heat exchange with a hydrotreated stream to provide a heated hydrotreating charge stream (see Bozanno, paragraphs [0039] and [0040]); (b) hydrotreating the heated hydrotreating charge stream in the presence of hydrogen over a hydrotreating catalyst to provide the hydrotreated stream (see Bozanno, paragraphs [0042] and [0043]); (c) heating a hydroisomerization charge stream by heat exchange with the hydrotreated stream to provide a heated hydroisomerization charge stream (see Bozanno, paragraph [0045]); and (d) hydroisomerizing the hydroisomerization charge stream in the presence of hydrogen over a hydroisomerization catalyst to provide a hydroisomerized stream (see Bozanno, paragraph [0054]). The hydrotreating charge stream and the hydroisomerization charge stream may be heated only by means of heat exchange and not using a fired heater (see Bozanno, paragraphs [0039], [0040] and [0045]). The hydroisomerization charge stream may be heated prior to heating the hydrotreating charge stream with the hydrotreated stream (see Bozanno, paragraph [0045]). Hydrotreating may occur in a guard reactor and hydrotreating reactor (see Bozanno, paragraphs [0039] and [0040]); with the hydrotreating charge stream being an untreated hydrocarbon stream (see Bozanno, paragraph [0035]). The hydroisomerization charge stream may be taken from the hydrotreated stream (see Bozanno, paragraph [0052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15-17, 19, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) set forth in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s argument to be:
Claims 1 and 18 refer to the hydroisomerization charge stream which is in line 100 of Bozzano. The charge heater 72 in Bozzano is used to heat the hydroisomeization charge stream in line 100 to the hydroisomerization reactor 74.
Bozzano, in paragraph [0040], discloses use of both a heat exchanger 46 as well as fired heater 72 to heat the charge stream in line 100.
Figure 1 of Bozzano discloses that the feed stream entering the hydroisomerization reactor 74 is heated to the appropriate temperature by using a fired heater 72.
Bozzano does not teach heating a hydroisomerization charge stream only by heat exchange with another stream as recited in claims 1 and 18.
With respect to Applicant’s first, second, third, and fourth arguments, Examiner notes that the stream to “charge heater 72” of Bozzano is a combined (i.e. mixed) hydroisomerization/hydrocracked stream (see Bozzano, paragraph [0052]) and thus includes a hydrocracked constituent whereas the claim limitation at issue specifies “heating said hydroisomerization charge stream [i.e. not a mixed stream] only by heat exchange with another stream.” To the extent that Bozzano can be interpreted as disclosing multiple “hydroisomerization charge streams,” it is noted that the claims do not require “heating all said hydroisomerization charge streams only by heat exchange with another stream.” In any event, because Bozzano clearly discloses that at least in one instance one hydroisomerization charge stream may be heated by heat exchange with another stream (see Bozzano, paragraph [0045]), then the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the process to provide for such indirect heat exchange of all hydroisomerization charge streams, such modification providing a more energy and economically efficient process. The person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights