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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18632698 filed 4/11/24.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 3/25/25 and 5/24/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 4/11/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WARD ET AL. (US PG PUB 20190039970) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as WARD.
Regarding claims 1-20:
WARD teaches in para [0018] The term “crude oil” as used herein refers to the petroleum extracted from geologic formations in its unrefined form. The term crude oil will also be understood to include that which has been subjected to water-oil separations and/or gas-oil separation and/or desalting and/or stabilization. Any crude oil is suitable as the source material for the process of this invention, including Arabian Heavy, Arabian Light, other Gulf crudes, Brent, North Sea crudes, North and West African crudes, Indonesian, Chinese crudes and mixtures thereof, but also shale oil, tar sands, gas condensates and bio-based oils. The crude oil used as feed to the process of the present invention preferably is conventional petroleum having an API gravity of more than 20° API as measured by the ASTM D287 standard. More preferably, the crude oil used in the process of the present invention is a light crude oil having an API gravity of more than 30° API. Most preferably, the crude oil used in the process of the present invention comprises Arabian Light Crude Oil. Arabian Light Crude Oil typically has an API gravity of between 32-36° API and a sulfur content of between 1.5-4.5 wt-%.
WARD teaches in para [0021] The term “gases produced by the crude distillation unit” or “gases fraction” as used herein refers to the fraction obtained in a crude oil distillation process that is gaseous at ambient temperatures. Accordingly, the “gases fraction” derived by crude distillation mainly comprises C1-C4 hydrocarbons and may further comprise impurities such as hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide. In this specification, other petroleum fractions obtained by crude oil distillation are referred to as “naphtha”, “kerosene”, “gasoil” and “resid”. The terms naphtha, kerosene, gasoil and resid are used herein having their generally accepted meaning in the field of petroleum refinery processes; see Alfke et al. (2007) Oil Refining, Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry and Speight (2005) Petroleum Refinery Processes, Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. In this respect, it is to be noted that there may be overlap between the different crude oil distillation fractions due to the complex mixture of the hydrocarbon compounds comprised in the crude oil and the technical limits to the crude oil distillation process. Preferably, the term “naphtha” as used herein relates to the petroleum fraction obtained by crude oil distillation having a boiling point range of about 20-200° C., more preferably of about 30-190° C. Preferably, light naphtha is the fraction having a boiling point range of about 20-100° C., more preferably of about 30-90° C. Heavy naphtha preferably has a boiling point range of about 80-200° C., more preferably of about 90-190° C. Preferably, the term “kerosene” as used herein relates to the petroleum fraction obtained by crude oil distillation having a boiling point range of about 180-270° C., more preferably of about 190-260° C. Preferably, the term “gasoil” as used herein relates to the petroleum fraction obtained by crude oil distillation having a boiling point range of about 250-360° C., more preferably of about 260-350° C. Preferably, the term “resid” as used herein relates to the petroleum fraction obtained by crude oil distillation having a boiling point of more than about 340° C., more preferably of more than about 350° C.
WARD teaches in para [0022] As used herein, the term “refinery unit” relates to a section of a petrochemical plant complex for the chemical conversion of crude oil to petrochemicals and fuels. In this respect, it is to be noted that a unit for olefins synthesis, such as a steam cracker, is also considered to represent a “refinery unit”. In this specification, different hydrocarbons streams produced by refinery units or produced in refinery unit operations are referred to as: refinery unit-derived gases, refinery unit-derived light-distillate, refinery unit-derived middle-distillate and refinery unit-derived heavy-distillate. Accordingly, a refinery unit derived distillate is obtained as the result of a chemical conversion followed by a separation, e.g. by distillation or by extraction, which is in contrast to a crude oil fraction. The term “refinery unit-derived gases” relates to the fraction of the products produced in a refinery unit that is gaseous at ambient temperatures. Accordingly, the refinery unit-derived gas stream may comprise gaseous compounds such as LPG and methane. Other components comprised in the refiner unit-derived gas stream may be hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide. The terms light-distillate, middle-distillate and heavy-distillate are used herein having their generally accepted meaning in the field of petroleum refinery processes; see Speight, J. G. (2005) loc.cit. In this respect, it is to be noted that there may be overlap between different distillation fractions due to the complex mixture of the hydrocarbon compounds comprised in the product stream produced by refinery unit operations and the technical limits to the distillation process used to separate the different fractions. Preferably, the refinery-unit derived light-distillate is the hydrocarbon distillate obtained in a refinery unit process having a boiling point range of about 20-200° C., more preferably of about 30-190° C. The “light-distillate” is often relatively rich in aromatic hydrocarbons having one aromatic ring. Preferably, the refinery-unit derived middle-distillate is the hydrocarbon distillate obtained in a refinery unit process having a boiling point range of about 180-360° C., more preferably of about 190-350° C. The “middle-distillate” is relatively rich in aromatic hydrocarbons having two aromatic rings. Preferably, the refinery-unit derived heavy-distillate is the hydrocarbon distillate obtained in a refinery unit process having a boiling point of more than about 340° C., more preferably of more than about 350° C. The “heavy-distillate” is relatively rich in hydrocarbons having condensed aromatic rings.
WARD teaches in para [0029] The process involves crude distillation, which comprises separating different crude oil fractions based on a difference in boiling point. As used herein, the term “crude distillation unit” or “crude oil distillation unit” relates to the fractionating column that is used to separate crude oil into fractions by fractional distillation; see Alfke et al. (2007) loc.cit. Preferably, the crude oil is processed in an atmospheric distillation unit to separate gas oil and lighter fractions from higher boiling components (atmospheric residuum or “resid”). In the present invention, it is not required to pass the resid to a vacuum distillation unit for further fractionation of the resid, and it is possible to process the resid as a single fraction. In case of relatively heavy crude oil feeds, however, it may be advantageous to further fractionate the resid using a vacuum distillation unit to further separate the resid into a vacuum gas oil fraction and vacuum residue fraction. In case vacuum distillation is used, the vacuum gas oil fraction and vacuum residue fraction may be processed separately in the subsequent refinery units. For instance, the vacuum residue fraction may be specifically subjected to solvent deasphalting before further processing. Preferably, the term “vacuum gas oil” as used herein relates to the petroleum fraction obtained by crude oil distillation having a having a boiling point range of about 340-560° C., more preferably of about 350-550° C. Preferably, the term “vacuum resid” as used herein relates to the petroleum fraction obtained by crude oil distillation having a boiling point of more than about 540° C., more preferably of more than about 550° C.
WARD teaches in para [0058] As used herein, the term “fluid catalytic cracker unit” or “FCC unit” relates to a refinery unit to convert high-boiling, high-molecular weight hydrocarbon fractions of petroleum crude oils to lower boiling point hydrocarbon fractions and olefinic gases. In FCC unit, cracking takes place generally using a very active zeolite-based catalyst in a short-contact time vertical or upward-sloped pipe called the “riser”. Pre-heated feed is sprayed into the base of the riser via feed nozzles where it contacts extremely hot fluidized catalyst. Preferred process conditions used for fluid catalytic cracking generally include a temperature of 425-700° C. and a pressure of 10-800 kPa gauge. The hot catalyst vaporizes the feed and catalyzes the cracking reactions that break down the high-molecular weight hydrocarbons into lighter components including LPG, light-distillate and middle-distillate. The catalyst/hydrocarbon mixture flows upward through the riser for a few seconds, and then the mixture is separated via cyclones. The catalyst-free hydrocarbons are routed to a main fractionator (a component of the FCC unit for separation into fuel gas, LPG, light distillate, middle distillate and heavy-distillate). “Spent” catalyst is disengaged from the cracked hydrocarbon vapors and sent to a stripper where it is contacted with steam to remove hydrocarbons remaining in the catalyst pores. The “spent” catalyst then flows into a fluidized-bed regenerator where air (or in some cases air plus oxygen) is used to burn off the coke to restore catalyst activity and also provide the necessary heat for the next reaction cycle, cracking being an endothermic reaction. The “regenerated” catalyst then flows to the base of the riser, repeating the cycle. The process of the present invention may comprise several FCC units operated at different process conditions, depending on the hydrocarbon feed and the desired product slate. As used herein, the term “low-severity FCC” or “refinery FCC” relates to a FCC process that is optimized towards the production of light-distillate that is relatively rich in aromatics (“FCC-gasoline”). As most conventional refineries are optimized towards gasoline production, conventional FCC process operating conditions can be considered to represent low-severity FCC. Preferred process conditions used for refinery FCC generally include a temperature of 425-570° C. and a pressure of 10-800 kPa gauge. As used herein, the term “high-severity FCC” or “petrochemicals FCC” relates to FCC process that is optimized towards the production of olefins. High-severity FCC processes are known from the prior art. Preferred process conditions used for high-severity FCC generally include a temperature of 540-700° C. and a pressure of 10-800 kPa gauge. In the present invention a high-severity FCC is preferred.
WARD teaches in para [0068] If, in the context of the present invention, a refinery unit is fed with more than one feed stream, said feed streams may be combined to form one single inlet into the refinery unit or may form separate inlets to the refinery unit.
WARD teaches in para [0069] Furthermore, the crude distillation unit (10) may comprise an outlet for resid (400). The process installation of the present invention may further comprise a resid upgrading unit (40) comprising an inlet for resid (400) and refinery unit-derived heavy-distillate (401), an outlet for LPG produced by resid upgrading (223) and an outlet for liquid resid upgrading effluent (326). This aspect of the present invention is presented in FIG. 2 (FIG. 2). The liquid resid upgrading effluent (326) comprises light-distillate and middle-distillate that preferably is subjected to aromatic ring opening.
WARD teaches in para [0070] The process installation of the present invention may further comprise a fluid catalytic cracking unit (60) comprising an inlet for a part of the liquid resid upgrading effluent (326) and optionally light-distillate produced by aromatic ring opening (328) and an outlet for middle-distillate, and optionally light-distillate, produced by fluid catalytic cracking (324) and olefins produced by fluid catalytic cracking (540). This aspect of the present invention is presented in FIG. 2 (FIG. 2).
WARD teaches in para [0071] The fluid catalytic cracking unit (60) may further comprise an outlet for methane (720). Furthermore, the process installation comprising a fluid catalytic cracking unit (60) may comprise an outlet for the part of the liquid resid upgrading effluent that is not subjected to fluid catalytic cracking (327), which may be recycled to the resid upgrading unit (40). In case part of the light-distillate produced by aromatic ring opening is subjected to fluid catalytic cracking, the process installation unit comprises an aromatic ring opening unit (26) having an outlet for light-distillate (328) which is combined with for a part of the liquid resid upgrading effluent (326). The fluid catalytic cracking unit (60) may further comprise an outlet for heavy-distillate produced fluid catalytic cracking (410) which may be recycled to the resid upgrading unit (40) to further upgrade said heavy-distillate; see also FIG. 3.
WARD teaches in para [0018] The crude oil used as feed to the process of the present invention preferably is conventional petroleum having an API gravity of more than 20°
WARD teaches in para [0135] The naphtha, kerosene and gas oil fractions (cut point 350° C.) of the crude distillation are subjected to aromatic ring opening that is operated under process conditions to open all aromatic rings and convert the remaining paraffins and naphthenes into LPG (intermediate). This LPG is separated into an ethane-, propane- and butane fraction. The ethane and butane fractions are being steam cracked. The propane fraction is dehydrogenated into propylene (with ultimate selectivities of propane to propylene 90%).
Therefore, from the teachings of WARD, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process by varying the claimed ranges; however, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary. Especially, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In addition, from the teachings of the all the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
In addition, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable
Additionally, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Nevertheless, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 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 Singh can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771