DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 17 November 2025 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-11, and 13-24 are pending. Claims 9-11, 13, and 14 are withdrawn as being directed to a nonelected invention. Consequently, only claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 15-24 are pending for examination.
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 8-10. 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 17 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be:
The various passages cited from Hogan, Duncan, Lourenco, and Saccheri fail to teach or suggest mobile refineries supporting separate units on separate trailers.
Hogan teaches away from the claimed mobile refinery by teaching that the “object of the invention is to provide a portable single skid mounted fully equipped topping plant . . . that can be mounted on a single skid for transport on highways.”
Lourenco does not disclose a mobile refinery having a distillation unit at all but rather a system that uses a pressure pulse to crack oil into a lower weight oil.
Duncan fails to teach or suggest a mobile refinery having a first and second distillation tower, a hydrotreater unit supported on a third trailer, a second heater in fluid communication with the second distillation tower and the hydrotreatment unit, or a hydrogen generator supported on a fourth trailer.
Duncan teaches away from the claimed arrangement of claim 1 by expressly stating that hydrotreating may be performed at a static location.
None of the cited references teaches or suggests that a hydrotreater may be in fluid communication with a second heater on a second trailer that is also in fluid communication with a second distillation tower.
None of the references teaches or suggests a first and second tower on the same trailer with a hydrotreater and hydrogen generator supported on additional/separate trailers and in fluid communication with a second heater.
With respect to Applicant’s first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh arguments, see discussion supra at paragraph 8 (“[T]he 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.”). Moreover, it is noted that Hogan makes use of multiple “skids” (see Hogan, 40-41); Duncan makes use of a “plurality of rail cars” (see Duncan, column 2, lines 30-31); Lourenco clearly makes use of multiple skids or trucks (see Lourenco, paragraph [0028]); and Saccheri makes provision for use of “[a] series of trailers, each equipped with different modules” (see Saccheri, paragraph [0032]). Thus, there is sufficient disclosure and/or suggestion directly from the cited references to arrange the various units on the various trailers as claimed. Given that the motivation of the cited references for using such modular scheme is itself largely the flexibility it provides, then the person having ordinary skill in the art would use their ordinary creativity to arrange and rearrange the various units as best meets their refining needs at any given point in time and would do so without any undue experimentation and achieving an entirely predictable result in view of the teachings of the cited references. 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Shumway (WO 03/031012 A1). Shumway discloses a mobile refinery comprising modular units which may be used to carry out any or a combination of various refining operations including atmospheric distillation, vacuum distillation, hydrotreating, catalytic reforming, isomerization, hydrocracking, catalytic cracking, delayed coking, residue reduction, asphalt, gasoline blending, sulfur recovery, ethylene processing, hydrogen production, and liquefied petroleum gas production; each of such modular units being supportable and transportable via separate trucks or trailers (see Shumway, Abstract; page 2, lines 12-14; page 3, lines 1-3; and claim 2).
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