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 .
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) anticipated by Prins is withdrawn by the examiner in view of the amendment filed on 7/13/2026.
A new Final Office Action is follows.
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 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,180,706 in view of view of Al-Ghamdi et al. (WO 2018/094346 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a process for converting crude oil to olefins utilizing separation, deasphalting, and steam cracking steps. The differences between the two sets of claims would have been obvious to one of skill in the art in view of Al-Ghamdi.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,976,245 in view of Al-Ghamdi et al. (WO 2018/094346 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a process for converting crude oil to olefins utilizing separation, deasphalting, and steam cracking steps. The differences between the two sets of claims would have been obvious to one of skill in the art in view of Al-Ghamdi.
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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Oprins et al. (WO 2018/142351 A1) in view of Al-Ghamdi et al. (WO 2018/094346 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oprins teaches separating crude into hydrocarbon fractions; routing a heavy fraction to solvent deasphalting to form a DAO/DMO fraction and asphalt/pitch fraction; hydroprocessing the DAO/DMO and another crude fraction; and thereafter steam cracking the hydroprocessed material to form light olefins (¶¶[19], [43]–[44], [46]–[63]; Fig. 1). In particular, Oprins ¶[44] teaches combining hydrocarbon fraction 82 with solvent-free DAO/DMO stream 26 and hydrogen and charging the combined stream to hydroprocessing reaction zone 4.
Oprins does not expressly teach hydroprocessing these two feed fractions in separate units.
Al-Ghamdi, however, teaches precisely the use of separate hydroprocessing units for different crude fractions. The second middle-distillate fraction 122 is processed in diesel/distillate hydroprocessing zone 180 (¶[85]), while vacuum gas oil and DAO 864 from SDA zone 860 are processed in the physically separate VGO hydroprocessing zone 320 (¶¶[89], [146], [217]; Fig. 15). Al-Ghamdi further routes hydroprocessed products from these systems to steam cracking: wild naphtha 184 from zone 180 is routed to mixed-feed steam cracking zone 230 (¶[86]), and hydroprocessed gas-oil products from zone 320 are routed to the gas-oil steam cracking zone 250 (¶¶[90]–[91], [245]–[251]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Oprins by separately hydroprocessing the intermediate/medium-boiling fraction and the DAO fraction as taught by Al-Ghamdi, rather than co-processing them in Oprins's common zone 4. Al-Ghamdi demonstrates that refinery fractions having substantially different boiling ranges and compositions are conventionally routed to different hydroprocessing units suited to those respective feeds. Such modification would predictably permit independent selection of hydroprocessing severity and operating conditions while retaining Oprins's downstream steam-cracking arrangement.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the respective medium-boiling and high-boiling-residue property limitations remain subject to the findings previously made with respect to the conventional properties of the corresponding refinery fractions. The amendment to claim 1 does not alter these limitations or the prior findings concerning them.
Regarding claim 4, Oprins and Al-Ghamdi teach processes expressly directed to maximizing conversion of crude-oil feeds into olefinic petrochemicals through hydroprocessing followed by steam cracking (Oprins ¶¶[19], [61]–[63]; Al-Ghamdi ¶¶[64]–[65], [245]–[251]).
The references do not expressly state an overall olefin production of at least 65 wt.%. However, olefin yield is a result-effective variable dependent upon feed quality and cracking severity, including temperature, residence time and degree of upstream hydroconversion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oprins/Al-Ghamdi by optimizing these known operating variables to increase olefin production, including attaining the claimed value, absent evidence that the recited threshold produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 6, Al-Ghamdi expressly teaches recycling/integrating steam-cracker pyrolysis oil into the SDA system. Paragraph [101] teaches that heavy pyrolysis oil may be routed to SDA zone 860 and that all or a substantial portion of pyrolysis oil may be processed in the SDA zone; see also claims 3–4 and ¶¶[284]–[285].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process Oprins by incorporating this recycle into Oprins to increase utilization of heavy steam-cracker products and reduce disposition of pyrolysis oil as low-value fuel.
Regarding claim 7, Al-Ghamdi teaches hydroprocessing middle-distillate fraction 122 in zone 180 and producing wild naphtha 184, which is routed to mixed-feed steam cracking zone 230 (¶¶[85]–[86]). Thus, Al-Ghamdi teaches destructive hydrogenation of the medium-boiling material to lighter, steam-crackable products.
Regarding claim 8, Al-Ghamdi teaches routing DAO 864 to VGO hydroprocessing zone 320 under hydrocracking conditions (¶¶[89], [146], [217]) and thereafter routing the resulting hydroprocessed gas-oil/naphtha products to steam cracking (¶¶[90]–[91], [245]–[251]). Accordingly, converting DAO hydrocarbons to primarily steam-crackable products would have been an obvious application of Al-Ghamdi's expressly disclosed hydroprocessing/cracking integration.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Oprins in view of Al-Ghamdi and further in view of Yeh et al. (WO 2017/117178 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Oprins teaches the basic integrated crude-separation/SDA/hydroprocessing/steam-pyrolysis process (¶¶[19], [43]–[63]). As discussed above, Al-Ghamdi teaches separating different crude fractions and hydroprocessing them in separate units: middle-distillate fraction 122 in hydroprocessing zone 180 and DAO 864 in separate hydroprocessing zone 320 (¶¶[85], [89], [146], [217]; Fig. 15), followed by steam cracking of the resulting upgraded streams (¶¶[86], [90]–[91], [245]–[251]).
Al-Ghamdi additionally teaches the claimed pyrolysis-oil integration. Pyrolysis oil is a heavy C10+ fraction derived from steam cracking (¶[71]). Paragraph [101] teaches that light pyrolysis oil may be blended with DAO from SDA zone 860 and processed in the VGO hydroprocessing zone, while heavy pyrolysis oil may be routed directly to SDA zone 860; all or a substantial portion of pyrolysis oil may be processed in the SDA zone. Similar teachings appear at ¶¶[284]–[285] and claims 3–4.
Yeh teaches the conventional SDA environment, namely contacting heavy hydrocarbon feed with added paraffinic hydrocarbon solvent. Yeh ¶¶[47]–[50] disclose suitable SDA solvents including propane, butane, pentane and other C3-C7 alkane hydrocarbons, alone or in mixtures. Thus, the SDA unit conventionally receives a heavy hydrocarbon feed together with an added liquid hydrocarbon medium.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oprins according to Al-Ghamdi to route recycled pyrolysis oil into the SDA feed system and separately hydroprocess the middle-boiling and DAO/pyrolysis-oil streams. Al-Ghamdi expressly supplies the pyrolysis-oil recycle and the separate hydroprocessing architecture, while Yeh confirms that addition of a liquid hydrocarbon medium to a heavy SDA feed is conventional. Because claim 9 recites no particular dilution ratio, viscosity reduction, or chemical property required of the “diluent,” addition of Al-Ghamdi's recycled pyrolysis-oil stream to the heavy SDA feed predictably dilutes that feed while the conventional paraffinic SDA solvent performs the deasphalting extraction.
Regarding claim 10, the ≥65 wt.% overall chemicals-production limitation would have been obvious for the same reasons stated for claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, Al-Ghamdi expressly teaches that the VGO hydroprocessing zone 320, which may process DAO 864, operates under hydrocracking conditions and produces a hydrocracked naphtha fraction 326 (¶[89]). Therefore, conversion of hydrocarbons originating from the high-boiling residue/DAO fraction to naphtha-range hydrocarbons is expressly suggested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's argument concerning the previous §102 rejection is persuasive to the extent that Oprins alone does not disclose the newly recited separate first and second hydroprocessing units. Oprins ¶[44] instead combines fraction 82 and DAO/DMO stream 26 and processes the combined stream in zone 4. The §102 rejection of claims 1–3 over Oprins is therefore withdrawn.
The amendment, however, does not overcome obviousness. Applicant argues that neither Oprins nor Al-Ghamdi discloses separately hydroprocessing the medium-boiling fraction and DAO fraction. That assertion is not persuasive. Al-Ghamdi ¶[85] expressly processes middle-distillate fraction 122 in hydroprocessing unit 180, whereas ¶[89] expressly processes DAO 864 in a separate VGO hydroprocessing unit 320, as also shown in Fig. 15. Both upgraded streams are thereafter directed to steam-cracking operations. The claimed separation of hydroprocessing duties therefore corresponds to an arrangement expressly taught in the prior art.
Applicant further relies upon the specification's statement that separate trains may improve catalyst life and turnaround time. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive of nonobviousness because Al-Ghamdi already teaches separating hydroprocessing duties according to the nature and boiling range of the respective feeds. A benefit that flows naturally from use of an otherwise obvious prior-art arrangement does not render that arrangement patentable absent persuasive evidence of an unexpected result attributable to the claimed configuration.
Applicant's characterization of amended claim 1 as requiring separate “fixed bed conditioning systems” is also noted. The actual amended claim recites a first and second hydroprocessing unit, not “fixed bed conditioning systems.” The claims are examined according to their actual language.
Regarding amended claim 9, Applicant argues that Yeh's first and second hydroprocessing stages are serial rather than separate parallel systems. That argument does not address the rejection as presently formulated. Yeh is not relied upon for the claimed separate hydroprocessing systems. Al-Ghamdi supplies that teaching through its separate hydroprocessing zones 180 and 320. Yeh is relied upon only for the conventional SDA use of an added liquid hydrocarbon medium.
Applicant's argument that claim 9 has removed the light-boiling fraction is acknowledged. The amended claim presently recites only “at least a medium boiling fraction and a high boiling residue fraction”; the rejection above is based on that actual language and does not require a light-boiling fraction.
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