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 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 1 and 16-34 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.
The terms “wax oil raw material” (claims 1, 19, and 29), “light diesel oil fraction” (claims 1, 16, and 29-31), “diesel oil fraction” (claims 1, 20-21, 23, 29, and 32), “heavy diesel oil fraction” (claims 21, 23, and 30-32), “inferior diesel oil” (claims 16-17, 19, 21, and 30-31), “light cycle oil” (claims 26, 28, and 33-34), and “heavy cycle oil” (claims 26, 28, and 33-34) are indefinite, since it is unclear what properties or compositional limitations define these oils and oil fractions. While the specification sets forth various preferred properties for these oils and oil fractions, these do not carry the force of a definition. It is noted that the claims that do not explicitly recite these indefinite terms are dependent on claims that do recite them, are therefore also indefinite.
Claim 21 and its dependent claims 22-23 recite the process of claim 16, wherein the diesel oil obtained in step (2) is mixed with “the heavy diesel fraction obtained from cutting the inferior diesel oil fraction”. However, there is no antecedent basis for “the heavy diesel oil fraction”. Claim 16 only recites a light diesel oil fraction obtained by cutting an inferior diesel oil.
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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0002616).
In Figure 2 and paragraphs 24-84 Kumar discloses an apparatus comprising two hydrocracking reactors 40 and 200, corresponding to the first and second hydrocracking units of claim 29 and a hydrocarbon line 18 containing a hydrocarbonaceous stream, corresponding to the wax oil raw material supply unit (and also implying the presence of a source of the hydrocarbonaceous stream, which would also meet the limitations of the wax oil raw material supply unit). In paragraph 25 Kumar discloses that the hydrocarbonaceous stream can be a vacuum gas oil (VGO), which is a wax oil raw material in accordance with paragraph 47 of the current specification. The apparatus of Kumar further comprises a hydrotreating reactor 30 connected to the hydrocarbon line via lines 26 and 28, corresponding to the hydrocracking pretreatment unit of claim 29, a gas-liquid separation unit 50 which takes the effluent 48 from the first hydrocracking unit and contains outlets for a gas phase material 52 and a liquid stream 54. Kumar refers to the entire bottom section of figure 2 as a fractionation section 14′, but any sub-section containing a fractionation column can also be considered a fractionation unit, and in this case the section running from the hot flash drum 80 (which has an inlet for the liquid stream from the gas-liquid separation unit) to the atmospheric fractionation column 130 meets the limitations of the claimed fractionation unit, noting that the atmospheric fractionation column 130 sends a stream 142 to the second hydrocracking reactor through lines 152 and 184′ in Figure 2. The apparatus of Kumar further comprises a vacuum fractionation column 160 which produces a vacuum fractionated stream 182 that is recycled and supplied to the first hydrocracking reactor. The vacuum fractionation unit column of Kumar therefore meets the limitations of the light diesel fraction supply unit of claim 29. It is noted that while Kumar does not specifically disclose passing a diesel oil fraction from the atmospheric fractionation column to the second hydrocracking reactor, or a light diesel oil from the vacuum fractionation unit to the first hydrocracking reactor, the claim is an apparatus claim and that as long as the atmospheric fractionation column is capable of passing a diesel oil fraction to the to the second hydrocracking unit, and the vacuum fractionation column is capable of supplying a light diesel fraction to the first hydrocracking unit, it meets the limitations of the claim, even if Kumar does not explicitly disclose that the fraction is a light diesel oil fraction. Claim 29 is therefore anticipated by Kumar.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 16-28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. Claims 30-34 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 16-28, while the Kumar reference cited in the above rejection teaches an apparatus and method for providing a wax oil raw material (vacuum gas oil) and performing a hydrogenation pretreatment reaction, a first hydrocracking reaction, separating and fractionating, and performing a second hydrocracking, where the hydrogenated wax oil raw material is combined with another oil fraction in the first hydrocracking reactor, Kumar does not disclose specifically combining the hydrogenated wax oil raw material with a light diesel oil fraction (although as noted in paragraph 3 above, “light diesel oil fraction” is indefinite), and does not disclose passing a diesel oil fraction to the second hydrocracking reactor. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Kumar to arrive at the claimed method, since Kumar teaches passing unconverted bottoms fractions to the second hydrocracking reactor (paragraph 82 of Kumar), and indicates in paragraph 76 that these fractions have boiling points above the diesel cut point. Kumar therefore seeks to use the second hydrocracking reaction to convert heavier fractions to diesel, while the currently presented claims perform the second hydrocracking reaction to convert diesel to a new product mixture.
Zhao (CN 103059972 A), a copy and translation of which was filed by applicant on 4/29/24, was cited in the International Search Report. Zhao discloses a method where a raw oil such as a vacuum gas oil is hydrotreated, subjected to a first hydrocracking reaction, separation, fractionated, and a diesel fraction is then subjected to a second hydrocracking reaction. Zhao does not disclose or provide motivation for the hydrogenated raw oil to be mixed with a light diesel oil fraction prior to the first hydrocracking reaction.
Regarding claims 30-34, the apparatus of Kumar does not comprise an additional inferior diesel oil supply unit and first cutting unit (claims 30-32) and does not comprise a second cutting unit (claims 33-34). Kumar teaches in paragraph 84 that the stream 210 from the second hydrocracking reactor is passed to the same fractionation section used to process the stream from the first hydrocracking reactor; one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to modify the apparatus of Kumar to include an additional cutting unit when Kumar teaches that the fractionation section already present is sufficient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights