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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No.11,952,541. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims drawn to a process for hydrotreating a hydrocarbon feedstock utilizing a hydrotreating step, a separation step, a condensing step, and a washing step. There are some minor differences between the two sets of claims and such differences would have been obvious to one of skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brandvold et al. (US 2009/0253947 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.
Therefore, Brandvold teaches the limitation of claim 1 reciting:
contacting at least a portion of the stripper off-gas stream with a caustic stream to provide a sulfur-lean gas stream and a sulfur-rich spent caustic stream.
Claim 2 is anticipated by Brandvold because removal of sulfur compounds using caustic wash inherently comprises selectively removing sulfur from the gas stream.
Claim 14 is anticipated because Brandvold discloses hydrotreating biorenewable feedstocks (see e.g., ¶¶[0005], [0010]).
Claims 15–17 are anticipated because the recited contacting step for sulfur removal using caustic wash is disclosed by Brandvold and the additional limitations relate to process conditions and operational variations that are inherently satisfied in the disclosed sulfur-removal operation.
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 3, 8–11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandvold (US 2009/0253947 A1) in view of Duesel et al. (US 7,214,290 B2).
As discussed above, Brandvold teaches the hydrotreating process and the production of a sulfur-rich spent caustic stream resulting from caustic washing of a gas stream.
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.
Claims 4–7, 12, 13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandvold (US 2009/0253947 A1) in view of Ladkat et al. (US 2017/0183581 A1).
Brandvold teaches the hydrotreating process including the stripper and gas separation steps as discussed above.
Ladkat teaches hydrogen recovery systems associated with hydrotreating processes in which stripper off-gas streams are contacted with sponge oil in a sponge absorber column to recover LPG hydrocarbons (see e.g., Ladkat ¶¶[0074]–[0076]). Ladkat further teaches:
• sponge absorber systems producing sponge off-gas streams• fractionation of LPG-rich streams• recycling of hydrocarbon streams to fractionation units• hydrogen recovery from purge gas streams and recycle to the hydrotreating reactor (see e.g., ¶¶[0076]–[0086]).
These teachings correspond to the sponge absorber, LPG recovery, fractionation, and hydrogen recovery steps recited in claims 4–7, 12, 13, and 18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the sponge absorber and LPG recovery operations of Ladkat into the hydrotreating system of Brandvold in order to improve recovery of hydrocarbons and hydrogen from the process gas streams.
Regarding claim 20, Brandvold teaches hydrotreating a feedstock, separating hydrotreated effluent into liquid and gas streams, and recycling hydrogen-containing gas streams to the hydrotreating reactor.
Ladkat teaches hydrogen recovery systems for hydroprocessing operations in which hydrogen-containing gas streams are purified using pressure swing adsorption (PSA) units comprising solid adsorbent media to remove impurities from hydrogen streams (Ladkat ¶¶[0080]–[0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to purify the purge gas stream of the hydrotreating system of Brandvold using the hydrogen purification techniques of Ladkat in order to improve hydrogen recovery and reactor efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Brandvold does not teach contacting at least a portion of the stripper off-gas stream with a caustic stream, asserting that Brandvold instead teaches amine treatment. This argument is not persuasive.
Brandvold discloses a process for producing hydrocarbon fuels in which hydrogen from a reaction zone is recycled and sulfur-containing components are removed from the gas stream prior to recycle. Brandvold teaches that sulfur-containing components such as hydrogen sulfide must be removed before hydrogen recycle and that removal may be accomplished using amine absorption or by caustic wash. See Brandvold ¶[0049]. Thus, Brandvold explicitly teaches caustic washing as an alternative technique for removing sulfur components from the hydrogen-containing gas stream.
Conclusion
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