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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites both: "contacting at least a portion of the stripper off-gas stream with a caustic stream" and "the process further comprises contacting the stripper off-gas stream with a sponge oil stream in a sponge absorber column." It is unclear whether the same stripper off-gas stream, a treated portion thereof, or separate portions thereof are subjected to the recited contacting steps. Furthermore, the claim does not specify the order or relationship between the caustic-contacting operation and the sponge-oil-contacting operation. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 1 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,952,541 in view of Ladkat et al. (US 2017/0183581 A1) and Glover et al. (US 2014/0353215 A1). Claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,952,541 teach a process for hydrotreating a feedstock comprising hydrotreating a feed stream in the presence of hydrogen and catalyst, separating hydrotreated effluent into liquid and gas streams, stripping hydrotreated liquid streams, sulfur removal from process gas streams, and hydrogen recycle operations. The claims of the '541 patent do not expressly teach contacting stripper off-gas with sponge oil in a sponge absorber column, recovering LPG hydrocarbons using sponge absorption, recovering hydrogen from purge gas streams using PSA systems, or processing PSA tail gas streams.
Ladkat teaches contacting stripper off-gas streams with sponge oil in a sponge absorber column to recover hydrocarbons, producing LPG-rich sponge oil streams and sponge off-gas streams, and recovering LPG hydrocarbons from hydroprocessing gas streams (¶¶[0074]-[0080]). Glover teaches purification of contaminated hydrogen-containing gas streams in PSA units employing solid adsorbent media, producing a hydrogen-rich stream and a contaminant-rich tail gas stream, and further processing tail gas streams to recover hydrocarbons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the sponge absorber, LPG recovery, and PSA hydrogen recovery operations taught by Ladkat and Glover into the process of the '541 patent in order to improve hydrocarbon recovery, hydrogen recovery, and overall process efficiency. Claims 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,952,541 in view of Mamrosh et al. “Use of Caustic in a Short Contact Time Approach to Selectively Scrub H2S from CO2-Contaminated Gas Streams” Environmental Science, Engineering, Chemistry, pages 1-15, 2011. Mamrosh teaches contacting sulfur-containing gas streams with caustic solution for very short contact times, approximately 0.01 to 0.2 seconds, in order to selectively remove hydrogen sulfide while minimizing carbon dioxide absorption. Such contact times fall within the claimed range of about 2 milliseconds to about 2 seconds. It would have been obvious to employ the known contact times taught by Mamrosh in the sulfur-removal process of the '541 patent in order to improve sulfur selectivity and reduce caustic consumption.
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, 2, 4-7, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Brandvold et al. (US 2009/0253947 A1) in view of Ladkat et al. (US 2017/0183581 A1).
Brandvold discloses a process for producing hydrocarbon fuels from renewable feedstocks comprising hydrotreating a feed stream in the presence of hydrogen and a hydrotreating catalyst to produce a hydrotreated stream (see e.g., Brandvold ¶¶[0029], [0033]).
Brandvold further discloses separating the hydrotreated effluent into liquid and gaseous streams and passing the liquid stream to a hydrogen stripper column to provide an overhead gaseous stream and a bottoms hydrocarbon stream (see e.g., ¶¶[0035]-[0038]). Brandvold further teaches cooling and condensing the overhead gaseous stream to produce a gas stream and condensed liquid stream (see e.g., Fig. 1 and associated description). Brandvold additionally teaches removing sulfur-containing components from the hydrogen-containing gas stream prior to recycle and states that sulfur components may be removed using techniques such as absorption with an amine or by caustic wash (¶[0049]). Thus, Brandvold teaches contacting a gas stream produced from the hydrotreating separation system with caustic wash to remove sulfur, which inherently produces: a sulfur-lean gas stream, and a sulfur-rich spent caustic stream.
Brandvold does not expressly teach contacting stripper off-gas with a sponge oil stream in a sponge absorber column, recovering LPG hydrocarbons using sponge oil absorption, recovering hydrogen from purge gas streams using PSA systems, or treating PSA tail gas streams.
Ladkat teaches contacting stripper off-gas streams with sponge oil in a sponge absorber column to recover hydrocarbons (¶¶[0074]-[0076]), producing LPG-rich sponge oil streams and sponge off-gas streams, fractionating LPG-rich streams (¶¶[0076]-[0080]), and recovering hydrogen from purge gas streams using PSA units comprising solid adsorbent media (¶¶[0080]-[0086]), and utilizing hydrocarbon streams such as naphtha as sponge off.
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sponge absorber, LPG recovery, and PSA hydrogen recovery operations of Ladkat into the hydrotreating process of Brandvold in order to improve hydrocarbon recovery, improve hydrogen utilization, and reduce losses of valuable hydrocarbons in process gas streams.
Regarding claim 2, Brandvold teaches a step of removal of sulfur compounds using caustic wash inherently comprises selectively removing sulfur from the gas stream.
Regarding claim 14, Brandvold discloses hydrotreating biorenewable feedstocks (see e.g., ¶¶[0005], [0010]).
Regarding claim 5, selective removal of hydrogen sulfide relative to carbon dioxide would have been an expected result of applying known caustic treating operations to sulfur-containing refinery gas streams.
Regarding claim 6, splitting a process gas stream into multiple portions for separate treatment represents a routine process design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Brandvold discloses hydrotreating biorenewable feedstocks (see e.g., ¶¶[0005], [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, Brandvold teaches contacting step for sulfur removal using caustic wash and the additional limitations relate to process conditions and operational variations that are inherently satisfied in the disclosed sulfur-removal operation.
Claims 3 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Brandvold et al. in view of Ladkat et al. and further in view of Duesel et al. (US 7,214,290 B2).
Brandvold and Ladkat teach the hydrotreating process, sponge absorber operations, LPG recovery operations, sulfur removal operations, and hydrogen recovery operations discussed above.
Duesel teaches processes for treating spent caustic refinery effluents containing sulfur compounds such as sulfides and mercaptides (see e.g., Duesel col. 1, lines 20-40). Duesel further teaches supplying such spent caustic streams to a submerged combustion gas evaporator where combustion gases are injected to thermally treat the spent caustic stream (see e.g., Duesel col. 3, lines 10-35). The process produces exhaust gas streams which are subsequently treated or purified prior to discharge (see e.g., Duesel col. 6, lines 5-25). Thus, Duesel teaches:
• combustion treatment of sulfur-containing spent caustic streams• generation of flue gas streams• treatment or purification of the resulting gas streams.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the sulfur-rich spent caustic stream produced in the process of Brandvold using the combustion-based spent-caustic treatment techniques of Duesel in order to dispose of sulfur-containing refinery caustic wastes and reduce sulfur emissions.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Brandvold et al. (US 2009/0253947 A1) in view of Ladkat et al. (US 2017/0183581 A1) and further in view of Glover et al. (US 2014/0353215 A1).
Brandvold and Ladkat teach the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, including the hydrotreating process, stripper off-gas caustic treatment, and contacting the stripper off-gas stream with a sponge oil stream in a sponge absorber column.
Glover teaches a hydrogen recovery process wherein a contaminated hydrogen-containing gas stream is passed to a PSA zone containing solid adsorbent media. The PSA zone produces a hydrogen-rich stream and a PSA tail gas stream (see Glover ¶¶ [0024]-[0027], [0033]-[0038], Fig. 1). Glover further teaches passing the PSA tail gas stream to an LPG recovery zone utilizing sponge liquid absorption to recover hydrocarbons from the tail gas stream (¶¶ [0038]-[0044], Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Glover’s PSA tail-gas hydrocarbon recovery teaching to the hydrotreating/sponge absorber process of Brandvold and Ladkat in order to recover residual hydrocarbons from the PSA tail gas and improve process efficiency.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Brandvold et al. in view of Ladkat et al. and further in view of Mamrosh et al. “Use of Caustic in a Short Contact Time Approach to Selectively Scrub H2S from CO2-Contaminated Gas Streams” Environmental Science, Engineering, Chemistry, pages 1-15, 2011.
Brandvold and Ladkat teach the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, including the hydrotreating process, stripper off-gas caustic treatment, and contacting the stripper off-gas stream with sponge oil in a sponge absorber column.
Brandvold teaches sulfur removal from process gas streams using caustic wash.
Mamrosh teaches contacting sulfur-containing gas streams with caustic solution using down-flow static mixers for very short contact times, approximately 1/100 second to 2/10 second (0.01-0.2 s), resulting in selective absorption of H₂S relative to CO₂. Mamrosh further teaches that CO₂ absorption kinetics are significantly slower than H₂S absorption kinetics and that limiting contact time improves H₂S selectivity (Mamrosh, pp. 6-8, "Results and Discussion"; Fig. 5; discussion of static mixer contacting times). The disclosed contact time range of approximately 0.01-0.2 second falls within the claimed range of about 2 milliseconds to about 2 seconds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the short caustic/gas contacting times taught by Mamrosh in the sulfur-removal step of Brandvold, as modified by Ladkat, in order to selectively remove hydrogen sulfide while minimizing carbon dioxide absorption and reducing caustic consumption.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Brandvold et al. (US 2009/0253947 A1) in view of Ladkat et al. (US 2017/0183581 A1) and further in view of Mamrosh et al., "Use of Caustic in a Short-Contact-Time Approach to Selectively Scrub H₂S from CO₂-Contaminated Gas Streams", and further in view of Duesel et al. (US 7,214,290 B2).
The processes of Brandvold, Ladkat, and Mamrosh are as discussed above.
Duesel teaches treatment of sulfur-containing spent caustic streams using combustion-based treatment systems. Duesel further teaches combusting sulfur-containing refinery waste streams to generate flue gases for subsequent treatment and disposal (col. 1, lines 20-40; col. 3, lines 10-35; col. 6, lines 5-25).
Duesel does not expressly teach combusting a second portion of a sponge off-gas stream together with sulfur present in a sulfur-rich spent caustic stream.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combust the second portion of the sponge off-gas stream together with the sulfur-rich spent caustic stream in the combustion system of Duesel because the sponge off-gas stream contains combustible hydrocarbons and sulfur-containing components that may be utilized as supplemental fuel while simultaneously disposing of sulfur-containing refinery waste streams and reducing sulfur emissions. Combining combustible refinery off-gases with sulfur-containing spent caustic streams for thermal treatment represents a predictable use of known refinery waste-treatment techniques to improve thermal efficiency and waste disposal.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Brandvold et al. in view of Glover et al. (US 2014/0353215 A1).
The process of Brandvold is as discussed above.
Glover teaches purification of contaminated hydrogen-containing gas streams in PSA units employing solid adsorbent media, producing a hydrogen-rich stream and a contaminant-rich tail gas stream.
It would have been obvious to purify a purge gas stream from the hydrotreating process of Brandvold using the PSA purification techniques taught by Glover in order to improve hydrogen recovery and process efficiency. It would have further been obvious to contact at least a portion of the resulting contaminant-rich tail gas stream with a caustic wash stream as taught by Brandvold in order to remove sulfur-containing compounds prior to downstream use, discharge, or further processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Brandvold does not teach contacting a stripper off-gas stream with a sponge oil stream in a sponge absorber column and further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would lack motivation to incorporate the sponge absorber of Ladkat into the process of Brandvold.
The Examiner agrees that Brandvold does not expressly disclose a sponge absorber column. For this reason, the rejection of claim 1 is not based on Brandvold alone, but rather on the combined teachings of Brandvold and Ladkat.
Brandvold teaches a hydrotreating process including hydrotreating a feedstock, separating hydrotreated effluent into liquid and gas streams, passing the liquid stream to a stripper column, condensing stripper overhead gases, and removing sulfur compounds from process gas streams (Brandvold ¶¶[0035]-[0049]). Brandvold further teaches that sulfur-containing components may be removed by caustic wash (¶[0049]).
Ladkat teaches contacting stripper off-gas streams with sponge oil in a sponge absorber column to recover LPG hydrocarbons and reduce hydrocarbon losses from process gas streams (Ladkat ¶¶[0074]-[0076]).
Applicant argues that Brandvold already separates hydrocarbons into a liquid stream and therefore lacks motivation to employ a sponge absorber. However, the question is not whether Brandvold requires a sponge absorber, but whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the known sponge absorber system of Ladkat within the hydrotreating process of Brandvold.
Ladkat expressly teaches that valuable hydrocarbons remain in stripper off-gas streams and can be economically recovered using sponge oil absorption. Recovering additional hydrocarbons from process gas streams and improving hydrogen utilization are recognized objectives in refinery operations. Incorporating the sponge absorber of Ladkat into the process of Brandvold therefore represents the predictable use of a known hydrocarbon recovery technique to improve process efficiency.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 1 are therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights