DETAILED ACTION
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 24 June 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on 18/847,333 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15 and 18; and addition of new claims 21-27 are noted.
The claim amendments overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 USC 112(b), with the exception of claim 17, repeated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mountainland does not disclose a feedstock that contains plastic and therefore provides no suggestion as to the catalyst system/reactor type to be used for hydroconversion of a feedstock containing plastics and vacuum residue, as in the process of Balducci.
Mountainland is relied upon for its teachings showing that hydroprocessing in a dual catalyst system is associated with improvements over a non-dual system (see Abstract; [0007]). These teachings would be considered relevant to a person of ordinary skill in the art and the office maintains the position that applying them to the process of Balducci, which entails a feed comprising a petroleum and plastic components, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art with the objective of realizing the improvements noted in Mountainland. Such a modification would be associated with a reasonable expectation of success, even with the differences in feed compositions.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the slurry process used by Balducci is based on technology that is very different from the ebullated bed hydroprocessing used by Mountainland. Applicant contends that Balducci was aware of ebullated bed hydroprocessing but specifically designed their process to use slurry catalysts and that modifying to use porous supported catalysts instead of slurry catalysts would fundamentally change the principle of operation of Balducci.
This argument is not found persuasive. The office respectfully submits that the proposed modification is not using a porous supported catalyst instead of a slurry catalyst, but rather in addition to. As noted above, the office is of the position that Mountainland provides the motivation to make such a modification.
Claim Objections
Claims 18, 26 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18: “it being possible for” is idiomatic language that should be avoided in the claims.
Claim 26: the first part of the claim is redundant with claim 18 and should be deleted, amending the claim to state: —The process as claimed in claim 18, wherein the heating is performed after mixing with the plastic diluent. —
Claim 27: “a second ebullated bed” (line 2) should be –the second ebullated bed—.
Claim 27: repeating step (e) is redundant and potentially confusing. The office recommends amending instead to state –and wherein (e) comprises fractionating…--
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 17 and 25 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the plastic feedstock" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 25, by recitation of “preferably”, it is unclear whether or not the support is required to be alumina.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 and 12-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balducci et al (US 2022/0041937) in view of Mountainland et al (US 2017/0355913), as evidenced by Yang et al (US 2015/0329790).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20, Balducci discloses a process for hydroconversion of a feedstock comprising (see Abstract):
(a) conditioning (pretreating) and introducing the feedstock into a first hydroconversion (HDC) section including at least a first HDC reactor, the feedstock including 5-20% by weight of a plastic fraction and the remainder being a heavy hydrocarbon fraction containing a portion of at least 50% by weight having a boiling point of at least 300°C and containing sulfur and nitrogen (vacuum residue) (see [0056]-[0059]; [0091]; [0127]);
(b) hydroconverting the feedstock in the presence of hydrogen in the first HDC section to obtain a first HDC effluent (see [0059]; [0092]); and
(e) fractionating the first HDC effluent from (b) in a fractionation section to produce a heavy liquid product boiling predominantly at a temperature greater than or equal to 350°C and containing a residual fraction boiling at a temperature greater than or equal to 540°C (see [0060]-[0062]; Tables 1-4).
HDC is performed at a pressure between 155 and 160 atm (15.7 and 16.1 kPa) and a temperature between 420 and 440°C (see [0165]), within the claimed ranges.
Balducci does not disclose: (1) carrying out HDC in an ebullated-bed or hybrid ebullated-entrained HDC reactor comprising a porous supported HDC catalyst; and (2) the conditions of hourly space velocity and hydrogen treat rate used to carry out HDC.
Regarding (1), the office notes that Balducci discloses carrying out HDC in a slurry reactor (see [0059]).
Mountainland is directed to hydroprocessing a vacuum residue feed in a dual catalyst system including a heterogenous catalyst (i.e., porous supported catalyst) and dispersed metal sulfide (i.e., slurry catalyst). The dual catalyst system provides a vacuum residue conversion product of improved quality while operating the reactor at the same or higher severity, temperature, throughput, and/or conversion (see Abstract; [0007]; [0009]; [0043]).
The dual catalyst system reactor of Mountainland is considered to correspond to the claimed hybrid reactor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process of Balducci by carrying out HDC in a hybrid ebullated-entrained HDC reactor comprising a solid supported catalyst in addition to a slurry catalyst, as suggested by Mountainland, in order to improve the quality of the HDC product.
Regarding (2), the claimed conditions of hourly space velocity and hydrogen treat rate are considered to be within the typical ranges known in the art to be suitable for hydroconversion (see, e.g., Mountainland – [0081]; Yang - [0045]). Selecting the optimum conditions for carrying out the HDC process of Balducci in view of Mountainland, so as to obtain products having the desired characteristics, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, the combination of references cited above is considered to teach all of the required steps of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Balducci discloses in (a), the plastic fraction and the heavy hydrocarbon fraction of the feedstock are introduced mixed into the HDC reactor (see [0091]-[0092]).
Regarding claim 3, Balducci discloses in (a), mixing the plastic fraction in form of solid particles with the heavy hydrocarbon fraction in such a way as to form a suspension, then heating the suspension to a temperature above the melting point of the plastic fraction to form the feedstock introduced into the HDC reactor (see [0139]; [0204]).
Regarding claim 4, Balducci discloses in (a), the plastic fraction in form of solid particles is premixed with a plastic diluent to form a first suspension, the first suspension is then mixed with the heavy hydrocarbon fraction to form a second suspension, and the second suspension is heated to a temperature above the melting temperature of the plastic fraction to form the feedstock introduced into the HDC reactor (see [0206]).
Regarding claim 5, Balducci discloses in (a), the plastic fraction in form of solid particles is heated to a temperature above the melting point to form a molten plastic fraction, and the molten plastic fraction is then mixed with the heavy hydrocarbon fraction in such a manner as to form the feedstock introduced into the HDC reactor (see [0201]).
Regarding claim 6, Balducci discloses in (a), the plastic fraction in form of solid particles is heated to a temperature above the melting point of the plastic fraction to form a molten plastic fraction, the molten plastic fraction is then mixed with a plastic diluent to form a dilute molten plastic fraction and mixed with the heavy hydrocarbon fraction to form the feedstock introduced into the HDC reactor (see [0138]-[0139]).
Regarding claim 7, while Balducci does not explicitly disclose introducing the plastic fraction and the heavy hydrocarbon fraction separately into the HDC reactor, such an embodiment as claimed is not considered to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art, wherein selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
Regarding claim 8, Balducci discloses in (a), plastic fraction in form of solid particles is sent to an extruder where it is heated to a temperature greater than the melting temperature of the plastic fraction (see [0134]). Determining the pressure at which to carry out conveying the material to the reactor would require nothing more than routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Balducci discloses pretreatment techniques for the plastic fraction in (a) including chemical pretreatment (i.e., mixing with a plastic diluent) and thermal pretreatment (i.e., heating above melting point); these pre-treatments can be combined to obtain the best stability of the final solution or suspension (see [0131]-[0134]). Arriving at the claimed order of steps is therefore considered prima facie obvious in light of the Balducci disclosure, would be achieved by routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and would be associated with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent a showing of new or unexpected results, the claimed order of steps of pretreating the plastic fraction prior to HDC is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claimed invention over the cited prior art.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Balducci discloses in (a), the plastic fraction in form of solid particles is previously sent to a mixer to be mixed with a plastic diluent and form a suspension at room temperature and the plastic fraction in the form of suspension is introduced into the HDC reactor (see [0132]-[0133]; [0189]).
Regarding claim 13, Mountainland discloses (c) separating the first HDC effluent from (b), to produce a heavy cut boiling predominantly at a temperature greater than or equal to 350°C; and (d) hydroconverting in a second section including a second ebullated bed HDC reactor the heavy cut from (c), the second HDC comprising a second porous supported catalyst and operating in the presence of hydrogen to produce a second HDC effluent (see Fig. 2D; [0007]; [0076] [0079]).
Regarding claims 14, 21 and 22, Balducci discloses the process including introducing a catalyst precursor (molybdenum 2-ethylhexanoate) prior to injection of the feedstock into the HDC reactor, in such a way that a colloidal or molecular catalyst (molybdenum disulfide) is formed when the feedstock reacts with sulfur (see [0163]-[0164]).
Regarding claims 15, 23 and 24, Mountainland discloses a catalyst containing sulfides of nickel, tungsten, and molybdenum on an amorphous support (see [0053]).
Regarding claim 16, Balducci discloses pretreatment techniques for the plastic fraction in (a) including chemical pretreatment (i.e., mixing with a plastic diluent), thermal pretreatment (i.e., heating above melting point), as well as mixing with the heavy hydrocarbon fraction; these pre-treatments can be combined to obtain the best stability of the final solution or suspension (see [0131]-[0134]). Arriving at the claimed order of steps is therefore considered prima facie obvious in light of the Balducci disclosure, would be achieved by routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and would be associated with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent a showing of new or unexpected results, the claimed order of steps of pretreating the plastic fraction prior to HDC are not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claimed invention over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 17, Balducci discloses pretreatment techniques for the plastic fraction in (a) including chemical pretreatment (i.e., mixing with a plastic diluent), thermal pretreatment (i.e., heating above melting point), and mixing in an extruder; these pre-treatments can be combined to obtain the best stability of the final solution or suspension (see [0131]-[0134]). Arriving at the claimed order of steps is therefore considered prima facie obvious in light of the Balducci disclosure, would be achieved by routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and would be associated with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent a showing of new or unexpected results, the claimed order of steps of pretreating the plastic fraction prior to HDC are not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claimed invention over the cited prior art. Furthermore, determining the optimum duration for mixing amounts to nothing more than routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, the claimed mixing time is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claims 18 and 26, Balducci discloses in (a), the plastic fraction in form of solid particles is mixed with a plastic diluent in a mixing section and heated in a heating section to a temperature of 120°C (see [0193]).
Regarding claim 25, Mountainland discloses a support component of the catalyst, as discussed above, but is silent with respect to its specific composition. In this regard, however, the office notes that alumina is a well-known and common support used for catalysts in the field of hydroprocessing (see Yang: [0015]). Selecting alumina as the support would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and associated with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 27, Balducci in view of Mountainland does not explicitly disclose a second HDC step in a second HDC reactor, where effluent from the first reactor is hydroconverted in the second reactor (claim step (d)), prior to the fractionating step.
However, duplication of steps/parts is prima facie obvious absent new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 VI B. In addition, Yang provides evidence that serial stages of HDC is known in the art (see [0054], wherein more than one ebullated bed reactor may be used in series). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily select the appropriate number of reactors to use by routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired conversion of the feedstock to upgraded products. The operating conditions therein are taught and/or obvious in light of the cited references for the same reasons discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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: Balducci in view of Mountainland is considered to be the closest prior art, where Balducci discloses hydroconversion of a mixed feed comprising a plastic fraction and a heavy hydrocarbon fraction, but does not disclose an ebullated bed or hybrid reactor. Mountainland discloses a hybrid ebullated bed reactor for conversion of a heavy hydrocarbon, but not a mixed feed comprising plastic and a heavy hydrocarbon. While the references, when combined, are considered to teach the limitations of claim 1, they are not considered to teach the additional limitations of claim 11, wherein the plastic fraction is premixed with a plastic diluent and with the porous supported HDC catalyst in a distribution and mixing box to form a suspension and the suspension is then injected into the HDC reactor. Nor does there appear to be sufficient teachings and/or suggestions in the prior art which would motivate a person of ordinary skill to modify the cited references in such a way as to arrive at the claimed embodiment.
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 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