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 8 and 10 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.
In claims 8 and 10, the presence of the term “preferably” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention.
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.
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 1-3 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2022/0145189) in view of van Ginneken (US 3,958,952).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Xu et al. teaches a process for hydroprocessing a renewable feedstock in a fixed-bed reactor system having at least one catalytic bed (see para. [0012]; Fig. 1), the process comprising the steps of:
introducing a renewable feedstock in a downward flow into a top portion of a fixed-bed reactor (see para. [0063]; Fig. 1);
directing the downward flow of the renewable feedstock to a catalyst zone (110; 112, 116) (see para. [0063]; Fig. 1);
allowing the feedstock to flow downwardly to the catalytic zone (see para. [0063]; Fig. 1); and
reacting the feedstock in the catalytic zone under hydroprocessing conditions sufficient to cause a reaction selected from the group consisting of hydrogenation, hydrodeoxygenation, hydrodenitrogenation, hydrodesulphurization, hydrodemetalation, hydrocracking, hydroisomerization, and combinations thereof (see paras. [0019]; [0026]; [0046]-[0047]; [0053]).
The reference Xu et al. is, however, silent with respect to arranging a filter zone as claimed by applicant upstream of the catalytic zone in the fixed-bed reactor.
The reference van Ginneken teaches a process for hydroprocessing a hydrocarbon feedstock containing solid contaminants in a fixed-bed reactor system having at least one catalytic bed (see Abstract; col. 3, lines 14-32; Fig. 1), the process comprising the steps of:
introducing the feedstock in a downward flow into a top portion of a fixed-bed reactor (see col. 5, lines 3-15; col. 9, lines 38-65; Fig. 1);
directing the downward flow of the feedstock to a filtering zone (4, 5) having top-open interstitial portions (18) to receive the downward flow and top-covered annular portions (20) that are in fluid communication with a headspace between the filtering zone and a catalytic zone (see col. 4, lines 30-59; col. 5, lines 45-52; col. 10, lines 8-26; Figs.1-4);
passing the downward flow from the interstitial portions (18) to the annular portions (20) through a filtering material (19) disposed between the interstitial portions (18) and the annular portions (20), resulting in a filtered feedstock (see col. 9, lines 38-65; Figs. 1-4);
allowing the filtered feedstock to flow downwardly to the catalytic zone (see col. 9, lines 38-65; Figs. 1-4); and
reacting the filtered feedstock in the catalytic zone under hydroprocessing conditions sufficient to cause a reaction selected from the group consisting of hydrogenation, hydrodeoxygenation, hydrodenitrogenation, hydrodesulphurization, hydrodemetalation, hydrocracking, hydroisomerization, and combinations thereof (see col. 3, lines 14-32; col. 7, lines 44-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xu et al. and van Ginneken, and modified the fixed-bed reactor of Xu et al. to include a filter zone, as taught by van Ginneken, and claimed by applicant, upstream of the catalyst zone of Xu et al., since the reference van Ginneken teaches that such a modification helps prolong the period between catalyst replacements/regenerations of a plant operating a catalyst process having a feedstock contaminated with sold particles in a simple and economic manner (see col. 1, lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 2, the references Xu et al. and van Ginneken disclose the process, wherein the catalytic zone comprises a grading zone (112) (i.e., a zone having a relatively lower catalytic activity as compared to a downstream catalyst zone) (see Xu et al.: paras. [0013]; [0046]) and a catalyst zone (116) (see Xu et al.: paras. [0047]; [0058]; [0060]; [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, the references Xu et al. and van Ginneken do not specifically specify wherein the grading zone (110) has a start-of-run catalytic activity in a range of from 0 to 50% of the start-of-run catalytic activity of the catalyst in the catalyst zone (12, 16). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the grading zone (112) (i.e., the uppermost catalyst bed taught by Xu et al.) with a lower activity catalyst such that the grading zone (112) has a start-of-run catalytic activity in a range of from 0 to 50% of the start-of-run catalytic activity of the catalyst in the catalyst zone, since the reference Xu et al. teaches that the uppermost catalyst bed can be provided with catalyst having lower catalytic activity than catalyst beds arranged downstream of the uppermost catalyst bed (see paras. [0046]-[0047]; [0058]; [0060]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 6, the references Xu et al. and van Ginneken disclose the process, wherein the renewable feedstock is selected from the group consisting of one or more bio-renewable fats and oils, liquid derived from a biomass liquefaction process, liquid derived from a waste liquefaction process, and combinations thereof (see Xu et al.: paras. [0034]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 7, the references Xu et al. and van Ginneken disclose that the process further comprises the step of distributing the downward flow of the renewable feedstock with a feed distributor in the top portion of the fixed-bed reactor above the filtering zone (see van Ginneken: col. 9, lines 50-52; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the references Xu et al. and van Ginneken disclose that the process further comprises adding a petroleum-derived feedstock for co-processing with the renewable feedstock (see Xu et al.: para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, the references Xu et al. and van Ginneken disclose the process, wherein hydrogen is mixed with the renewable feedstock prior to the introducing step (see Xu et al. para. [0063]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the references Xu et al. and van Ginneken disclose the process, wherein the filtering material is selected from the group consisting of ceramics, metals, and combinations thereof (see van Ginneken: col. 10, lines 14-21; col. 11, lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 11, the references Xu et al. and van Ginneken disclose the process, wherein the grading zone (112) is comprised up catalytically inert material, catalytically active material, and combinations thereof (see Xu et al.: para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 12, the references Xu et al. and van Ginneken disclose the process, wherein the interstitial portions (18) are substantially closed to the headspace between the filtering zone and the catalytic zone (see van Ginneken: col. 10, lines 8-24; Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 13, the references Xu et al. and van Ginneken disclose the process, wherein the hydroprocessing conditions at least comprise a process temperature in the range of from 200 to 400°C (see Xu et al.: paras. [0053]; [0062]; van Ginneken: col. 7, lines 55-60).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. in view of van Ginneken as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Dubin et al. (US 2020/0325404).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the references Xu et al. and van Ginneken do not specifically disclose wherein the grading zone has a first grading bed and a second grading bed, wherein the start-of-run catalytic activity of the first grading bed is less than the start-of-run catalytic activity of the second grading bed. The references Xu et al. and van Ginneken are also silent with respect the first grading bed having a start-of-run catalytic activity in a range of from 0 to 30% of the start-of-run catalytic activity of the catalyst in the catalyst zone, and the second grading bed having a start-of-run catalytic activity in a range of from 30 to 50% of the start-of-run catalytic activity of the catalyst in the catalyst zone, as recited in claim 5.
The reference Dubin et al. teaches that a fixed catalytic bed (C1-C3) in a hydrotreating reactor (R) may comprise several additional layers of catalyst including: at the top of the bed, one or more optional layers of porous elements of several sizes, intended for scavenging solid impurities present or created at the start of the bed; or, alternatively, one or more layers of inert gradings having decreasing sizes; one or more layers of active gradings with a small content of impregnated metals, the gradings have a reduced catalytic function (see paras. [0088]-[0090]). The reference Dubin et al. further teaches that the gradings differ from the main catalyst bed by reduced hydrotreating activity and/or a form different from that of the catalyst in the main catalyst bed and/or a lower content of impregnated metal and/or a lower specific surface area and a much thinner layer than a layer of catalyst (see paras. [0090]-[0091]; [0124]; Fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Xu et al. and van Ginneken to include a first grading bed and a second grading bed, wherein the start-of-run catalytic activity of the first grading bed is less than the start-of-run catalytic activity of the second grading bed as claimed by applicant, since the reference Dubin et al. suggests for the provision of one or more layers of inert gradings having decreasing sizes and one or more layers of active grading beds having different levels of catalytically active material and/or specific surface area upstream of a main hydrotreating catalyst so as to prolong the service life of the hydrotreating catalyst (see paras. [0006]; [0089]-[0091]; [0124]; Fig. 1).
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first grading bed with a start-of-run catalytic activity in a range of from 0 to 30% of the start-of-run catalytic activity of the catalyst in the catalyst zone, and provide the second grading bed with a start-of-run catalytic activity in a range of from 30 to 50% of the start-of-run catalytic activity of the catalyst in the catalyst zone, since the reference Dubin et al. suggests for the provision of one or more layers of inert gradings having decreasing sizes and one or more layers of active grading beds having different levels of catalytically active material and/or specific surface area upstream of a main hydrotreating catalyst so as to prolong the service life of the hydrotreating catalyst (see paras. [0006]; [0089]-[0091]; [0124]; Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights