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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claims 1-16, it is not clear if “vacuum residue” in step ii is the vacuum residue from step I, or another stream. It is not clear how the “slurry hydrocracking reactor” and “gas-oil reactor” are connected. In step iii, it is not clear if “the total naphtha” is the total naphtha from step i or step ii or both. In step iv, it is not clear if “the middle distillate” is the middle distillate from step i or step ii or both. In step vi, it is not clear if the “selective mild hydrocracking unit” is the same as the selective mild hydrocracking unit mentioned in step iv, or not. In step vii, it is not clear if the “naphtha cracker unit” is the same as mentioned in step iii or different. In step x, it is not clear if the “naphtha cracker unit” is the same as in step vii, step iii, both, or different. The inconsistencies in the claim language carry throughout the claim steps, and thus it is not clear what steps are performed and how the process is integrated. Further, there are two instances of claim 1. This creates confusion as to the dependency of subsequent claims. The office action will refer to the claims as claim 1 (first instance) and claim 1 (second instance). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, it is not clear what step the “naphtha cracker” conditions are referring to.
Regarding claim 5, it is not clear how the vgo hydrocracker is connected to the vgo hydrocracker, or what steps are performed.
Regarding claim 6, it is not clear which “mild hydrocracking” step the conditions are referring to.
Regarding claim 9, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the whole SR-VGO stream”. Further, it is not clear whether the vgo is sent to “slurry resid hydrocracker” or “vgo hydrocracker” stage.
Regarding claim 10, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the claim for “ex-slurry vgo”.
Regarding claim 11, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the claim for “the vgo hydrocracker”.
Regarding claim 12, it is not clear which “selective mild hydrocracking” step is being referred to. It is further not clear if the “naphtha” refers to the light or heavy naphtha.
Regarding claim 13, it is not clear which “middle distillate” stream is being referred to.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the claims describe the resid slurry hydrocracking reactor, but omit details as described in figure 2 (slurry hydrocracker 45, fractionation column 48, vgo to hydrotreatment zone 55 then hydrocracking zone 57). Examiner notes that such steps are essential, as the VGO 38 from atmospheric column 2 is sent to hydrotreater 55, and not resid slurry hydrocracking zone 45 (please see instant specification figures 1 and 2). Examiner notes that these details are necessary to understand accurately where the VGO stream is going, and how the process is integrated.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colyar (US 2009/0288984) in view of Al Ghamdi (US 2018-0142167) and Housmans (US 2016/0369188).
Regarding claims 1 (first instance) and 16, Colyar teaches fractionation of crude oil to obtain middle distillate, sent to distillate hydrotreatment zone 19, vgo sent to vgo hydrotreater 18, and resid sent to slurry resid hydroconversion unit 21 (see figure). Products from the resid conversion unit 21 are separated to recover distillate to be treated in distillated hydrotreatment 19 and VGO to be treated in VGO hydrotreatment zone 23, and vacuum bottoms which are recycled to resid hydrocracker 21 (see figure). Examiner notes that the person having ordinary skill in the art would appropriately select the distillation ranges/conditions, in order to obtain the desired products having the desired cut points.
Colyar does not teach (1) naphtha cracking to produce olefins and aromatic complex steps (2) steam cracker bottoms to resid hydrocracker.
Regarding (1), Al Ghamdi teaches a similar process which recovers naphtha 118 from distillation and is sent to a mixed feed steam cracker unit to produce olefins (see figure). Al Ghamdi mixed feed steam cracker unit also treats naphtha from distillate hydrotreater 222 and naphtha from vgo hydrotreatment 312 [0069-0085]. Al Ghamdi teaches steam cracker products are separated to recover ethylene, b butadiene, butane, butene, ethylene, propylene, and bottoms sent to aromatics recovery [0084-0086].
Al Ghamdi additionally teaches separating heavier products in an aromatics separation zone, in order to produce additional products and to be integrated with the steam cracker (see figures, [0078-0081].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have sent the naphtha recovered from the crude of Colyar to the mixed feed steam cracker of Al-Ghamdi, for the benefit of producing the desired ethylene products.
Regarding (2), Housmans teaches sending steam cracker bottoms to be treated in resid hydrocracker [0111].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Housmans steps, in order to produce further products from the steam cracker bottoms.
Regarding claim 1 (second instance), Al Ghamdi teaches desalting crude prior to distillation [0126].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Burch pretreatment, in order to remove salt prior to distillation.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 8-15, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to select appropriate conditions for the stages discussed above. In this regard, Al Ghamdi teaches specific temperatures, pressures, and catalyst ratios for each treatment zone [0140-0194]. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
It is expected that the process of the previous combination would result in the same products in the same amounts, since the same process steps are performed at the same conditions.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colyar (US 2009/0288984) in view of Al Ghamdi (US 2018-0142167) and Housmans (US 2016/0369188) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colyar (US 2009/0288986).
Regarding claim 6, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Process conditions have additionally been discussed as with respect to claims 2-5 and 8-15 above.
Further, Colyar teaches that two stage hydroconversion reactors may be used (see figures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person have used the Colyar staged conversion, in order to obtain the desired products.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colyar (US 2009/0288984) in view of Al Ghamdi (US 2018-0142167) and Housmans (US 2016/0369188) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kennedy (US 4,983,273).
Regarding claim 7, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose recycle of the hydroconversion bottoms.
However, Kennedy teaches improving hydrocracker performance by recycle of the bottoms fraction (columns 1-2). Kennedy teaches appropriate selection of the amount of recycle to fresh feed (column 6, lines 50-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have recycled the bottoms as disclosed by Kennedy, for the benefit of improving the conversion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 571-272-6381. 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771