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
This action is responsive to correspondence filed on 12/30/2025.
Claims 1-21 are pending. New claim 21 is entered.
The previous rejection of claims 1-5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) are withdrawn, after reconsideration of the record in view Applicant argument.
The previous rejection of claim 6, 10-17 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn, after reconsideration of the record in view Applicant argument.
However, after reconsideration of the record, new rejections are entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kandel et al (PCT/US2019/056896, published on 03/22/2021, wherein Kendal et al , US 2021/0348064 will used for purposes of the rejection).
With respect to claim 1, Kandel discloses a method comprising:
providing a first tar stream (102) (see paragraph 0087-0088);
(II) combining the first tar stream with a utility fluid (104) to form a first process stream having a viscosity lower than that of the first tar stream (see paragraph 0042 and 0087-0088); and
(III) heating the first process stream in a pre-heater under liquid phase conditions without feeding molecular hydrogen gas into the pre-heater to form a second process stream exiting the pre-heater (108) (see paragraph 0089, heating to a temperature greater than 60°C).
With respect to claim 2, Kandel discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Kandel further discloses (IV) feeding the second process stream into a hydroprocessing reactor (see paragraph 0092); and hydroprocessing the second process stream in the hydroprocessing reactor in the presence of a hydroprocessing catalyst under hydroprocessing conditions to produce a hydroprocessed effluent exiting the hydroprocessing reactor (see paragraph 0092).
With respect to claim 5, Kandel teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Kandel further discloses wherein the first tar stream comprises at least one of: a steam cracker tar (see paragraph 0030).
With respect to claim 6, Kandel teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Kandel further discloses wherein the first tar stream comprises a tar fraction and a steam cracker gas oil fraction, and step (III) has at least one of the following features: b) a temperature of the second process stream in a range from 300°C to 450°C (see paragraph 0055); and(c) a residence time of the first process stream in the pre-heater in a range from 60 seconds to 350 seconds (see paragraph 0056).
With respect to claim 9, Kandel teaches the limitation of claim 1. Kandel further discloses wherein the process further comprising removing solids (106), if any, from the first process stream prior to heating the first process stream (see paragraph 0089).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Emanuele et al (US 2020/0063047).
With respect to 4, Kandel teaches the limitation of claim 1. Kandel does not disclose wherein the bromine number is at least 40 as claimed.
However in a related process for upgrading a tar fraction, Emanuel discloses providing a first tar stream (see paragraph 0049); combining the first tar stream with a utility fluid to form a first process stream having a viscosity lower than that of the first tar stream (see paragraph 0049); and heating the first process stream in a pre-heater under liquid phase conditions to form a second process stream exiting the pre-heater (see paragraph 0053), wherein the bromine number of the first tar stream is at least 40 as determined by ASTM DI 159 (see paragraph 0043).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Kandel in view of Emanuele with the claimed feedstock, having a bromine number of the first tar stream is at least 40, as Emanuele discloses that utilizing said fractions is conventional in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-8 and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 3, the prior combination, Kandel and Emanuele teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The closest prior art Kandel et al (US 2021/0348064), fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize a feedstock with a bromine number of at least 45.
With respect to claim 7-8, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The closest prior art Kandel, fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the fluxed feedstock as claimed.
With respect to claim 10, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The closest prior art Kandel, fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the process, wherein the pre-heater is operable for at least 100 days before an amount of foulant forms in a portion of the pre-heater, the amount of foulant in the portion of the pre-heater having a thickness of 0.25 inches or more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 7-8, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to claims 1-5 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kandel et al (US 2021/0348064).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art Emanuele (US 2020/0063047) discloses a method comprising:
(i) providing a first tar stream (see paragraph 0049);
(iii) combining the first tar stream with a utility fluid to form a first process stream having a viscosity lower than that of the first tar stream (see paragraph 0049); and
(iv) heating the first process stream in a pre-heater under liquid phase conditions without feeding molecular hydrogen gas into the pre-heater to form a second process stream exiting the pre-heater (see paragraph 0053).
Emanuele does not disclose heat soaking the first tar stream in a heat-soaking vessel to obtain a heat-soaked tar stream exiting the heat-soaking vessel.
However, in a related pyrolysis tar conversion process Kandel (US 2019/0367822, referred to as Kandel 822) discloses wherein thermal treatment of pyrolysis tar is accomplished by heat soaking vessel by a two-step process (see paragraph 0073-0078).
Thus, the prior art discloses portions of the Applicant claimed invention.
However, the closest prior art, Emanuele and Kendal, fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process wherein after step (iii) and before step (iv) the first process stream is passed through a guard reactor, as claimed.
With respect to claim 21, the closest prior art Kendal et al (US 2021/0348064) discloses a method comprising:
providing a first tar stream (102) (see paragraph 0087-0088);
(II) combining the first tar stream with a utility fluid (104) to form a first process stream having a viscosity lower than that of the first tar stream (see paragraph 0042 and 0087-0088); and
(III) heating the first process stream in a pre-heater under liquid phase conditions without feeding molecular hydrogen gas into the pre-heater to form a second process stream exiting the pre-heater (108) (see paragraph 0089, heating to a temperature greater than 60°C).
The closest prior art Kandel, fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the fluxed feedstock as claimed.
Therefore, it is the Examiner position that the claimed inventions are patentable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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 571 272-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights