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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 14 July 2026 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 15-24 are pending.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained. The rejection follows.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan (US 3,953,298) in view of Duncan (US 4,983,259), Lourenco (US 2011/0162999), Saccheri (US 2013/0036671), and Likkasit (C. Likkasit et al., Solar-Aided Hydrogen Production Methods for the Integration of Renewable Energies Into Oil & Gas Industries, 168 Energy Conservation and Management 395-406 (2018)).
With respect to claims 1 and 4, Hogan discloses a mobile refinery (see Hogan, Abstract) comprising: (a) a trailer configured to be towed by a vehicle (truck) (see Hogan, column 3, lines 48-54); and (2) a plurality of processing units supported on the trailer; the processing units comprising an atmospheric distillation unit for separating a light stream and residual stream and a heater in fluid communication with a crude oil source and a distillation tower (see Hogan, column 5, lines 22-68) (distillation tower operating at 6 psig or 1.4 atm), the heater used to combust a portion of the residual stream and output heated crude to the distillation tower (see Hogan, column 7, lines 5-12 and 50-60; and column 9, lines 55-56).
Hogan does not explicitly disclose wherein the mobile refinery comprises a plurality of trailers, with a first trailer supporting the atmospheric distillation unit and a second trailer supporting the heater. Hogan also does not explicitly disclose wherein the mobile refinery comprises a hydrotreater unit or a hydrogen generator unit.
However, mobile refineries supporting separate units on separate trailers are known per se (see Hogan, column 1, lines 36-55) (see Duncan, column 2, lines 30-31) (see Lourenco, paragraph [0028]) (see Saccheri, paragraph [0032]). Moreover, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the mobile refinery of Hogan to provide for use of individual trailers for individual units, such modification facilitating the quick replacement of individual process units in the field during times of required repair or maintenance (see, e.g., Saccheri, paragraph [0008]), thereby preventing the need for a complete shutdown of the refinery for a single failed piece of equipment. Duncan discloses wherein hydrotreating may be used to remove sulfur constituents from fuel oil products (see Duncan, column 4, lines 59-68), such products being treated either on-site alongside a mobile refinery fractionator or at a remote location (see Duncan, column 5, lines 1-2). Finally, inasmuch as it is known that produced crude oil contains some fraction of water (see Hogan, column 4, lines 59-68) (see Duncan, column 5, lines 1-5), then the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the mobile refinery of Hogan to generate hydrogen on-site at the mobile refinery location via an electrolysis-based hydrogen generator (see Likkasit, Abstract) to convert separated water to the hydrogen necessary to carry out the hydrotreating of produced products as disclosed in Duncan (see Duncan, column 4, lines 66-68), such modification providing beneficial use of an undesired byproduct and thus eliminating or minimizing the need to otherwise provide an external source of hydrogen to carry out such hydrotreating.
With respect to claim 2, Duncan notes that distillation units of mobile refineries may include additional vessels/towers (see Duncan, column 3, lines 5-15).
With respect to claims 6 and 8, Duncan discloses wherein diesel and naphtha are recovered and wherein both may be treated to remove sulfur constituents (see Duncan, column 4, lines 50-68). Hogan discloses wherein liquid fuels, including diesel, may be used as fuel for the combustion heater (see Hogan, column 7, lines 50-60; column 8, lines 57-68; and column 9, lines 1-3). The mobile refinery may include a generator unit which includes an electrical generator and fuel tank, the generator being powered by the diesel produced on site (see Hogan, column 12, lines 45-53).
With respect to claims 15-24, see discussion supra at paragraphs 9-11. Duncan notes that a plurality of distillation sections may be added or removed as desired to perform the necessary product separations (see Duncan, column 3, lines 5-15). Sachheri discloses multi-module refining units having the ability to be transported in one configuration and to be installed and erected/expanded in a second configuration at the time of processing (see Saccheri, Figs. 8 and 9; and paragraphs [0048] and [0049]). Such a design is “simple, modular, scalable, [and] customizable” (see Saccheri, paragraph [0048]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 14 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be:
Hogan, Duncan, Lourenco, Saccheri, and Likkasit, alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest at least “a plurality of trailers that are each configured to be towed by a vehicle for transportation along a roadway and not a railroad” and “a plurality of processing units supported on the plurality of trailers . . . includes: an atmospheric distillation unit (ADU) . . . a heater skid unit . . . a hydrotreater unit . . . and a hydrogen generator unit . . .” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites specific roadway trailers that comply with roadway transportation requirements in terms of weight and size. Someone having ordinary skill in the art understands that a railroad car, as in Duncan, face different weight and size requirements and allow for much higher load bearing capacity, lower vibration disturbance, and larger dimensional constraint than a semi-trailer for roadways.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to merge or combine the different teachings for railroad trailers and roadway trailers because different trailers have different principles of operation.
Duncan operates on the principle of extreme weight capacity, rigid steel-on-steel stability, and fixed-path logistics. By comparison, Hogan, Lourenco, or Saccheri teach roadway vehicles (on a single trailer) that, due to weight distribution and terrain unevenness, limit the mobile refinery to a single skid.
Someone having ordinary skill in the art would not see modifying the railroad cars in Duncan “obvious” because such modification would lose the principle of operation on weight capacity, stability, and size limitations provided by railroad cars and not found in roadway vehicles. The conflicting mechanical requirements of railroad cars and roadway vehicles would not have the person of ordinary skill in the art attempt to merge the hydrotreating in Duncan with the single skid of Hogan.
With respect to Applicant’s first, second, third, fourth, and fifth arguments, the person having ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes that mobile refineries and/or individual units thereof can be suitably transported by either truck flatbed trailer or flatbed rail car as clearly evidenced by the cited references. Moreover, the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate and accommodate for the different design considerations in each mode of transportation (see Hogan, column 1, lines 60-61; and column 2, lines 10-12) (see Duncan, column 5, lines 24-26) (each reference noting the different size and/or weight considerations for transport by roadway or rail). Such skilled person could make ready use of known road and rail weight and size constraints to design and size the refinery units appropriately for successful transport, such ability being part of the ordinary creativity and skillset of any competent engineer. As the Supreme Court correctly noted, “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). The person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the mobile refinery of Hogan to provide for use of individual trailers for individual units, such modification facilitating the quick replacement of individual process units in the field during times of required repair or maintenance (see, e.g., Saccheri, paragraph [0008]), thereby preventing the need for a complete shutdown of the refinery for a single failed piece of equipment.
Conclusion
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