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 Objections
Claims 2 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: “a sample cetane number” should be –the (or said) sample cetane number—to make clear Applicant is referring back to the sample cetane number introduced in claim 1.
Claim 8: “a sample sulfur concentration” should be –the (or said) sample sulfur concentration—to make clear Applicant is referring back to the sample sulfur concentration introduced in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-6, 10-12 and 17-19 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.
Claims 4, 10 and 17 and are unclear because the variable “SI” is not defined therein. The office believes that “SI” is the severity index and has interpreted each of the claims accordingly.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what the relationship is between “a feedstock consisting of a reference middle distillate” and recitation of the same in claim 1. Are they the same or different? The office understands them to be the same and recommends amending claim 5 to recite –the feedstock consisting of the reference middle distillate—.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what the relationship is between “a feedstock consisting of a reference middle distillate” and recitation of the same in claim 7. Are they the same or different? The office understands them to be the same and recommends amending claim 11 to recite –the feedstock consisting of the reference middle distillate—.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear what the relationship is between “a feedstock consisting of a reference middle distillate” and recitation of the same in claim 14. Are they the same or different? The office understands them to be the same and recommends amending claim 18 to recite –the feedstock consisting of the reference middle distillate—.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koseoglu.
Regarding claim 1, Koseoglu discloses a method for evaluating a middle distillate (gas oil) sample comprising (see Abstract; Fig. 2; col. 3, lines 38-40, wherein the boiling range of the gas oil is 150-400°C and therefore within the scope of the claimed middle distillate):
analyzing the middle distillate sample to determine a sample sulfur concentration (step S210) (see col. 4, lines 9-11);
providing a target sulfur concentration of a target product stream from a reactor under design for hydrodesulfurization (HDS) of a feedstock consisting of the middle distillate sample (steps S215, S220), the reactor including a defined temperature, liquid hourly space velocity (LHSV), catalyst age, and hydrogen to oil ratio (see col. 4, lines 55-62; Table 2); and
calculating a sulfur conversion to achieve the target sulfur concentration of the target product stream, as a function of the sample sulfur concentration and the target sulfur concentration, by dividing the difference in sulfur concentration of the sample and the target product by the sulfur concentration of the sample (step S225) (see col. 4, line 63 – col. 5, line 7).
Koseoglu further discloses determining optimal operating conditions which achieve the target sulfur concentration (see col. 1, lines 8-10 and 53-56). This is accomplished by calculating a reaction order and a rate constant, wherein the rate constant is a function of temperature, hydrogen partial pressure (HPP) and catalyst age. Thereafter, the operating severity index is calculated using a reference middle distillate, which can then be used to determine optimal operating severity index for other feedstocks (see col. 9, lines 5-67).
Koseoglu differs from the claimed method in that the reference focuses on temperature as the operating condition to manipulate in order to achieve the target sulfur concentration. However, as discussed above, Koseolgu clearly states that the reaction kinetics also depend on HPP (see also col. 6, lines 5-29). In other words, HPP is a variable that could also be manipulated to effect changes in reaction kinetics. Choosing to manipulate HPP instead of temperature to achieve the desired sulfur conversion would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teachings in Koseoglu, amount to nothing more than routine experimentation, and would be associated with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Koseoglu discloses wherein the sample requisite model parameters (HPP, as discussed above) is determined by simulation and the process further comprises analyzing the middle distillate to determine a sample cetane number (see col. 4, lines 17-19; Example 1).
Regarding claim 3, Koseoglu discloses generating a database of hydrocarbon feed measurements (see col. 2, lines 1-7; claim 1). A computer comprising a processor coupled to a non-volatile memory is implied as it would be required in order to store and communicate the generated information.
Regarding claim 5, Koseoglu discloses calculating a plurality of indices corresponding to a plurality of middle distillate samples to produce a database of severity indices (see Examples 1 & 2; claim 1). Selecting HPP as the manipulating variable instead of temperature is obvious for the same reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 6, assigning a ranking value for a given middle distillate sample in the database would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and amounts to routine experimentation based on the information available in the database. Stated another way, determining which feed to process in the hydrotreater based on the calculated severity indices in the database would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and associated with at least a reasonable expectation of success. Assigning a ranking value as claimed does not provide a patentably distinguishing feature over the cited prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7, 9, 13-16 and 20 are allowed.
Claim 8 requires overcoming the claim objection and claims 10-12 and 17-19 require overcoming the 112(b) rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 4, Koseoglu is considered to be the closest prior art. Koseoglu does not disclose or suggest calculating a relative to cost to process the feedstock consisting of the middle distillate sample. The reference does not make the further connection between severity index and the cost to process the feedstock to produce a product having the target sulfur value. This is considered to provide a distinguishing feature over the prior art, as no additional references appear to provide the motivation to modify Koseoglu in such a way as to arrive at the claimed embodiment.
With respect to independent claims 7 and 14, again, Koseoglu is considered to be the closest prior art. Koseoglu discloses reaction kinetics for HDS depending on variables including temperature, HPP, and catalyst age (see col. 6, lines 10-15). While the reference briefly mentions measuring “other properties” of the gas oil, including cetane number (see col. 4, lines 17-19), it fails to establish a relationship between cetane number and a severity index of a hydrotreating reaction, as required by the aforementioned claims. Nor does there appear to be adequate teachings and/or suggestions which would remedy the deficiencies of Koseoglu and lead a person of ordinary skill in the art at the arrive at the embodiments encompassed by independent claims 7 and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights