DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 03 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1, step c) recites “separating said multiple-phase combined stream in at least a hydrogen rich gas…” This should be separating “into” a least a hydrogen rich gas, for grammatical purposes.
With regard to claim 9, the claim recites “the multiple phase combined stream”. This should be “the multiple-phase combined stream” for consistency.
With regard to claim 13, the claim recites “The process according to claim 1…comprises…the methane reduced liquid stream or a product of further hydroprocessing of the methane reduced liquid stream.” There is no “methane reduced liquid stream previously recited in claim 1 or claim 13. However, a “methane reduced stream” is recited in claim 7. Thus, it appears that claim 13 should be depended from claim 7 for antecedent basis purposes.
With regard to claim 14, the claim recites “the liquid stream of hydrocarbons”. This should be “the liquid product stream of hydrocarbons” for antecedent basis purposes.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-14 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.
With regard to claims 1-4, 7, 11, and 13, the claims each recite “rich in oxygenates”, “methane lean”, “hydrogen rich”, “rich liquid”, “methane enriched”, “methane reduced”, or some combination thereof. The terms “rich”, “lean”, “enriched”, and “reduced” are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “rich”, “lean”, “enriched”, and “reduced” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the terms “rich” and “lean” are used in relationship to each other, where a “rich” stream comprises more of the component than the “lean” stream. The same is true for “enriched” and “reduced”, which are also considered in relationship to each other, where the enriched stream comprises more of the component than the reduced stream. The specific amounts are not ever recited in the instant specification and as such are not critical. Thus the terms will only be considered to mean the general relative meanings recited above.
With regard to claim 11, the claim recites “The process according to claim 1…comprises stripping the methane enriched liquid stream of hydrocarbons…” There is no “methane enriched” stream previously recited in claim 1 or claim 11. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that “the methane enriched liquid stream” is equivalent to the “rich liquid hydrocarbon stream” in claim 1 as this is the stream described as being subjected to the desorption step in claim 1. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 5, 6, 8-10, 12, and 14, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murty et al. (US 2012/0047793).
With regard to claim 1, Murty teaches a process for treating hydrogen recycle gas in a process for converting biorenewable feedstocks (paragraph [0001]), the process comprising the following steps (see Figure 2 and corresponding paragraphs [0016]-[0027]):
a) introducing a biorenewable feedstock comprising triglycerides or free fatty acids (oxygenates) 112 and recycled hydrogen gas 120 to a reactor 118 for hydrogenation and deoxygenation (hydroprocessing) to produce a product (paragraphs [0016]-[0018]). The product 132 comprises a liquid portion and a gaseous portion (two-phase stream) comprising hydrocarbons (paragraph [0019]) unreacted hydrogen, and light hydrocarbons (paragraph [0025]), where the light hydrocarbons include methane (paragraph [0004]).
b) combining a gaseous stream 172 separated from the deoxygenated product 132 and a sponge oil 15, where the sponge oil is naphtha (methane lean stream of hydrocarbons being liquid at ambient temperature and pressure) (paragraphs [0026]-[0027]). While Murty does not explicitly teach forming a multiphase combined stream with the stream 172 and sponge oil 15, Murty shows in Figure 2 the same combining of the streams 172 and 15 before separation as claimed, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the same multiphase stream is formed by the combining, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
c) separating a purified hydrogen recycle gas stream 120 and a rich sponge oil 178 (rich liquid hydrocarbon stream) in a contacting drum 174 (paragraph [0027]). Murty teaches the rich sponge oil contains the light hydrocarbons (paragraph [0027]) which as defined by Murty above include methane, as claimed. Murty does not explicitly teach that the purified recycle stream 120 contains a majority of the hydrogen comprised in said hydroprocessed stream. However, because Murty teaches the same contacting of the gaseous stream comprising hydrogen and light hydrocarbons which has been phase separated from the same hydroprocessed effluent with the same naphtha sponge oil, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to expect the purified hydrogen recycle gas stream 120 of Murty to comprise the same majority of the hydrogen from the hydroprocessed effluent, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
d) separating the light hydrocarbons from the rich sponge oil (rich liquid hydrocarbon stream) to provide a gaseous stream and a propane-free sponge oil (liquid product stream of hydrocarbons) (paragraph [0028]). As the gaseous stream comprises the majority of the light hydrocarbons, which as defined by Murty include methane, the gaseous stream is considered to be a methane rich gaseous stream, as claimed.
With regard to claim 6, Murty teaches directing the product stream 132 to cooling and then to high pressure stripping column 140 having a stripping gas 143, where the stripping column produces an overhead gas 147 and a liquid product 150 (paragraphs [0020]-[0021]).
With regard to claims 7 and 13, Murty teaches combining a gaseous stream 172 and a sponge oil 15 (paragraph [0026]), separating a purified hydrogen recycle gas stream 120 and a rich sponge oil 178 (rich liquid hydrocarbon stream) in a contacting drum 174 (paragraph [0027]), and separating the light hydrocarbons from the rich sponge oil (rich liquid hydrocarbon stream) to provide a gaseous stream comprising the light hydrocarbons (methane rich gaseous stream) and a propane-free sponge oil (liquid product which is a methane reduced liquid stream instant claims 7 and 13) (paragraph [0028]). Murty teaches that the stripper overhead stream 147 passes through a cold separator 162 and a carbon dioxide scrubber 170 before being used as the gaseous hydroprocessed stream 172 which contacts the sponge oil. However, the language of the claims is “comprising”, thus the claims are open to additional steps between the claimed steps. Murty teaches the gaseous overhead stream 147 from the stream and teaches a gaseous stream 172 which is derived from the overhead stream 147, and thus Murty renders obvious the process of claim 7 due to the open “comprising” language.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murty et al. (US 2012/0047793) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kelley (US 3,365,391).
With regard to claim 2, Murty teaches the process above, where a gaseous stream 172 is separated from the deoxygenated product 132 (two-phase stream) in a high pressure separator before passing to the sponge oil absorber (paragraph [0026], Figure 2).
Murty does not specifically teach an option for passing the deoxygenated product 132 (two-phase stream) directly to the absorber (combining the sponge oil with the two-phase stream as claimed).
Kelley teaches a process for hydrotreating oils (column 1, lines 9-11). Kelley teaches that the process comprises an embodiment where the hydrotreated product 178 (two-phase stream) is passed without separation to a high pressure separator absorber 186 to recover recycle hydrogen and spend (rich) liquid (column 5, lines 23-26 and Figure 3). Thus, Kelley teaches that it is known and suitable to combine the separation and absorption steps into a single vessel which is a high pressure separator absorber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to pass the deoxygenated product 132 of Murty to a combination high pressure separator absorber to recover purified hydrogen, because Murty and Kelley each teach hydroprocessing followed by recovering hydrogen from the effluent, Kelley teaches it is known to combine the high pressure separator and absorber into a single vessel, and this is merely a change in sequence of adding the sponge oil, which is known to be prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)C).
With regard to claim 14, Murty in view of Kelley teaches the process above, where the two-phase hydroprocessed stream is passed directly to the separator absorber. In this case, the liquid product stream after desorbing the sponge oil comprises at least an amount of the liquid hydroprocessed stream which is passed to the absorber, as claimed.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murty et al. (US 2012/0047793) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Quignard et al. (US 2013/0324775).
With regard to claims 3 and 5, Murty teaches the process above. Murty further teaches cooling deoxygenation product 132 before passing to separator 140 to produce a liquid product 150 and a gas stream 147 (paragraph [0020]). Murty teaches that the stripper overhead stream 147 passes through a cold separator 162 and a carbon dioxide scrubber 170 before being used as the gaseous hydroprocessed stream 172 which contacts the sponge oil. However, the language of the claims is “comprising”, thus the claims are open to additional steps between the claimed steps. Murty teaches the gaseous overhead stream 147 from the stream and teaches a gaseous stream 172 which is derived from the overhead stream 147, and thus Murty renders obvious the last step of claim 3 due to the open “comprising” language. The separator 140 and drum 174 for the sponge oil are separate devices, as claimed in instant claim 5.
Murty does not specifically teach the separator 140 can be flash separation, instead teaching a stripper.
Quignard teaches upgrading oxygenated bio-oils (paragraphs [0001] and [0008]). Quignard further teaches that it is known to use separation on the hydrotreated effluent into a gas phase and liquid phase by any method known to one skilled in the art, which is listed as including stripping and flash separation (paragraph [0090]). Thus, Quignard teaches that flash separation and stripping are equally known to one of ordinary skill in the art to be used for the purpose of separating a hydrotreating effluent into a gas and liquid phase.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the stripper 140 of Murty with the flash separation of Quignard, because each of Murty and Quignard teach separation of a hydrotreated effluent from oxygenated feed into gas and liquid, Murty teaches stripping, and Quignard teaches that stripping and flash separation are equally known for the purpose of separation (paragraph [0090]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murty et al. (US 2012/0047793) in view of Quignard as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kelley (US 3,365,391).
With regard to claim 4, Murty in view of Quignard teaches the process comprising flash separation above.
Murty in view of Quignard fails to teach passing the stream 132 (two-phase stream) directly to a combined flash separation and absorber device (integrated absorption and flashing zone).
Kelley teaches a process for hydrotreating oils (column 1, lines 9-11). Kelley teaches that the process comprises an embodiment where the hydrotreated product 178 (two-phase stream) is passed without separation to a combination separator absorber 186 to recover recycle hydrogen and spend (rich) liquid (column 5, lines 23-26 and Figure 3). Thus, Kelley teaches that it is known and suitable to combine the separation and absorption steps into a single vessel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to pass the deoxygenated product 132 of Murty to a combination separator absorber which includes a flash separation as taught by Quignard to recover purified hydrogen, because Murty, Quignard, and Kelley each teach hydroprocessing followed by recovering hydrogen from the effluent by absorption and flash separation, Kelley teaches it is known to combine the separator and absorber into a single vessel, and this is merely a change in sequence of adding the sponge oil, which is known to be prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)C).
Claims 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murty et al. (US 2012/0047793) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mehra et al. (US 2003/0132138).
With regard to claim 8, Murty teaches the process above.
Murty is silent with regard to the pressure of the combined stream comprising sponge oil and stream 172 (multi-phase combined stream) for the absorption.
Mehra teaches a process for improving recycle hydrogen in hydrotreating processes (Abstract). Mehra teaches that the process comprises a hydrotreating step, followed by high pressure separation into a gas stream comprising hydrogen and C1+ hydrocarbons and a liquid stream, followed by absorbing methane and other hydrocarbons from the gas stream by contacting with a lean liquid solvent stream (Figure 4, paragraph [0091]). Mehra additionally teaches the pressure for the methane absorber is 2400 psig (Figure 4), which is 16547 kPag, which is within the range of at least 3000 kPa of instant claim 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the pressure of Mehra in the process of Murty, because each of Murty and Mehra teach hydrotreating to produce a product, high pressure separation of the product into a liquid and a gas comprising hydrogen and C1+ hydrocarbons, and absorbing the hydrocarbons from the gas in a lean oil, Murty is silent regarding the pressure, and Mehra teaches that a pressure of 2400 psig (16547 kPag) is suitable for the process (Figure 4).
With regard to claim 10, Murty in view of Mehra teaches the process above, where the absorption step can have a pressure of 200 to 5000 psig (1378 to 34474 kPag) (paragraph [0115]). Murty further teaches separation of the rich liquid to produce a product (paragraph [0028]), but is silent regarding the pressure, and Mehra further teaches separation of the rich liquid solvent stream in flash separators, which are operated at lower pressure than the operating pressure of the absorption step (paragraph [0122]). The range of lower pressure than the absorption step is a range of less than 5000 psig (34473 kPag), which overlaps the range of less than 2000 kPa of instant claim 10, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the pressure of Mehra in the process of Murty, because each of Murty and Mehra teach absorbing the hydrocarbons from the gas in a lean oil to produce a rich oil, and separation of the rich oil, Murty is silent regarding the pressure, and Mehra teaches that a pressure less than the pressure of the absorption (less than 5000 psig or 34474 kPag) is suitable for the process of separation (paragraph [0122]).
With regard to claim 12, Murty in view of Mehra teaches the process above, where the absorption step can have a pressure of 200 to 5000 psig (1378 to 34474 kPag) (paragraph [0115]). Murty further teaches separation of the rich liquid to produce a product (paragraph [0028]), but is silent regarding the pressure, and Mehra further teaches separation of the rich liquid solvent stream in flash separators, which are operated at lower pressure than the operating pressure of the absorption step (paragraph [0122]). Murty does not specifically teach a decrease of pressure by 80% for the desorption. However, Mehra teaches the general idea of decreasing the pressure, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that desired pressure for the use of the products after separation would affect the pressure decrease. Thus, the amount of decrease in pressure is a result effective variable, and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to decrease the pressure by 80% for the desorption, as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murty et al. (US 2012/0047793) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wozniak et al. (US 2021/0060516, cited on IDS of 11/01/2023).
With regard to claim 9, Murty teaches the process above.
Murty is silent with regard to the temperature of the combined stream comprising sponge oil and stream 172 (multi-phase combined stream) for the absorption.
Wozniak teaches a process for hydroprocessing a biorenewable feedstock (Abstract). Wozniak teaches the process comprises a hydrotreating step (paragraph [0043]), followed by separation to produce a gas stream 132 comprising hydrogen, methane, and other hydrocarbons (paragraphs [0077]-[0078]), and passing the stream 132 along with a lean absorber stream 162 (multi-phase combined stream) to a sponge absorber to absorb the hydrocarbons including methane (paragraphs [0077]-[0078]). Wozniak further teaches the temperature of the absorber is about 34 to about 60°C (paragraph [0078]), which is within the range of 20 to 275°C of instant claim 9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the temperature of Wozniak in the process of Murty, because each of Murty and Wozniak teach hydroprocessing a biorenewable feed to produce a product, separating into a gas comprising hydrogen and C1+ hydrocarbons, and absorbing the hydrocarbons from the gas in a sponge absorber, Murty is silent regarding the temperature, and Wozniak teaches that a temperature of about 34 to 60°C is suitable for the process (paragraph [0078]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murty et al. (US 2012/0047793) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Quignard et al. (US 2013/0324775).
With regard to claim 11, Murty teaches the process above, where the separation of the rich sponge oil into a gas stream and liquid stream is fractionation (distillation) (paragraph [0028])
Murty does not specifically teach the separation can be stripping instead of distillation.
Quignard teaches upgrading oxygenated bio-oils (paragraphs [0001] and [0008]). Quignard further teaches that it is known to use separation on the hydrotreated effluent into a gas phase and liquid phase by any method known to one skilled in the art, which is listed as including stripping and distillation (paragraph [0090]). Thus, Quignard teaches that distillation and stripping are equally known to one of ordinary skill in the art to be used for the purpose of separating a hydrotreating effluent into a gas and liquid phase.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the distillation step of Murty with the stripping of Quignard, because each of Murty and Quignard teach separation of a hydrotreated effluent from oxygenated feed into gas and liquid, Murty teaches distillation, and Quignard teaches that stripping and distillation are equally known for the purpose of separation (paragraph [0090]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772