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 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,180,706. 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. There are minor differences between the two sets of claims and such differences would have been obvious to one of skill in the art.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,976,245. 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. There are 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oprins et al. (WO 2018/142351 A1).
Oprins discloses a process for converting crude oil to olefins comprising separating crude oil into fractions including lighter and heavier components (¶[0019]), subjecting at least a portion of the crude oil, including deasphalted oil derived from a heavy fraction, to hydroprocessing in the presence of hydrogen (¶[0019]–[0020]), and feeding the hydroprocessed stream to a steam cracking (pyrolysis) unit to produce olefins (¶[0019]). Oprins further discloses heating the hydroprocessed stream in a furnace, including convection heating prior to cracking (¶[0065]), and separating process streams into vapor and liquid phases using separation systems (¶[0058]–[0061]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Oprins et al. (WO 2018/142351 A1).
The process of Oprins is as discussed above.
Oprins does not explicitly disclose that overall chemicals production is at least 65 wt. % based on olefins produced relative to feed rate. However, 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 of Oprins to achieve an olefin yield of at least 65 wt. %, because olefin yield in steam cracking and hydroprocessing systems is a result-effective variable dependent on operating parameters such as temperature, residence time, and feed composition, and optimizing such parameters to increase olefin yield is a routine objective in the art.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Oprins et al. (WO 2018/142351 A1) in view of Al-Ghamdi et al. (WO 2018/094346 A1).
Oprins discloses separating crude oil, solvent deasphalting heavy fractions,
hydroprocessing deasphalted oil, and steam cracking to produce olefins (¶[0019]–[0020]).
Al-Ghamdi discloses multi-stage crude separation including atmospheric and vacuum distillation to produce multiple fractions and downstream processing of intermediate streams (¶[0020]–[0026]; Fig. 1). Al-Ghamdi further discloses solvent deasphalting of heavy residue to produce deasphalted oil and pitch, with routing of deasphalted oil to hydroprocessing units (¶[0027]–[0032]). Al-Ghamdi also teaches integration of refinery streams with staged heating, separation, and intermediate stream handling consistent with heater/separator configurations and recycle flows (¶[0020]–[0026]; Fig. 1).
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 to incorporate the staged separation, heating, and intermediate stream handling configurations taught by Al-Ghamdi, because such configurations are well known in refinery practice to improve separation efficiency, heat integration, and downstream processing performance.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Oprins teaches hydroprocessing of heavy fractions (¶[0019]–[0020]), and Al-Ghamdi teaches hydroprocessing of vacuum gas oil and related fractions to produce streams suitable for downstream cracking (¶[0030]–[0032]). It would have been obvious to operate hydroprocessing under conditions that convert hydrocarbons to steam-crackable products, as this is a conventional objective of hydroprocessing prior to cracking.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Oprins et al. (WO 2018/142351 A1) in view of Al-Ghamdi et al. (WO 2018/094346 A1) and further in view of Yeh et al. (WO 2017/117178 A1).
Oprins discloses a process including solvent deasphalting of heavy fractions, hydroprocessing of deasphalted oil, and steam cracking to produce olefins (¶[0019]–[0020]).
Al-Ghamdi discloses separation of crude into multiple fractions, solvent deasphalting of residue, hydroprocessing of deasphalted oil, and integration of pyrolysis oil streams within refinery processing, including recycling and blending pyrolysis oil with deasphalted oil and routing pyrolysis oil within heavy oil processing systems (¶[0045]–[0052]; Fig. 2).
Yeh discloses that solvent deasphalting employs hydrocarbon solvents including propane, butane, pentane, and C5–C7 hydrocarbons, and further teaches that such solvents may be used individually or as mixtures and are defined as hydrocarbon compositions comprising predominantly alkanes (¶[0047]–[0049]). Yeh further teaches mixing heavy hydrocarbon feedstocks with such solvents to effect deasphalting (¶[0045]–[0048]).
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 in view of Al-Ghamdi to recycle pyrolysis oil within the heavy oil processing and solvent deasphalting system, and further to utilize such hydrocarbon streams as diluents in the solvent deasphalting unit as taught by Yeh, because solvent deasphalting processes employ hydrocarbon solvents and mixtures thereof, and Al-Ghamdi teaches integrating pyrolysis oil into SDA-side processing streams, making the use of pyrolysis oil as a diluent a predictable variation.
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
Prosecution Insights