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 Election/Restriction
This is the response to election filed 06/18/2026 for application 18740212.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-22 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/18/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 12-14, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKAH (USPGPUB 2022/0064548).
AKAH teaches an integrated process for conversion of whole crude into light olefins.
Regarding claim 1, AKAH teaches in paragraphs 28-30 a hydrocarbon stream 102 comprising crude oil is introduced to feed separator 104.
From feed separator 104, the contents of hydrocarbon stream 102 is separated into light gas fraction 106, light fraction 107, and heavy fraction 108. (separating the crude oil feedstock to produce)
The light gas fraction 106 is taught in paragraph 31 to have a boiling point less than 35°C. A boiling point of less than 35°C overlaps that of a boiling point of less than 160°C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(a third feed fraction comprising hydrocarbons having a boiling point of less than 160°C)
The light fraction stream 107 is taught in paragraph 32 to have a boiling point of less than 300°C. A boiling point of less than 300°C overlaps that of less than 350°C and greater than 160°C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (a second feed fraction comprising hydrocarbons having a boiling point of greater than or equal to 160°C and less than or equal to 350°C)
The heavy fraction stream 108 is taught in paragraph 33 to have a boiling point of greater than 300°C. A boiling point greater than 300°C overlaps that of a boiling point greater than 350°C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (a first feed fraction comprising hydrocarbons having a boiling point of greater than 350°C)
Light fraction 107 and heavy fraction 108 are taught in paragraph 39 to be sent to a SECC unit. AKAH et al. further teach in paragraph 42 that the SECC unit may have different cracking reaction zone configurations, including one with fluidized catalyst. The SECC unit is taught in paragraphs 40-41 to comprise a catalytic reaction zone that is a reactor. The term “reactor” is also taught in paragraph 19 of AKAH et al. to encompass fluidized bed reactors.
The SECC unit has been therefore been considered to comprise a fluidized catalytic cracking unit. The reactor is taught in paragraph 41 to be a downflow reactor. One or more reaction zones are taught in paragraph 19 and introducing Light fraction 107 and heavy fraction 108 in a first downflow reaction zone and a second downflow reaction zone would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
(cracking the first feed fraction in a first downflow reaction zone of a fluid catalytic cracking unit; cracking the second feed fraction in a second downflow reaction zone of the fluid catalytic cracking unit)
The products from the SECC unit 140 are taught in paragraph converted to fuel gas, C2-C4 alkanes, light olefins, gasoline, light cycle oil and/or heavy cycle oil. Components from a SECC effluent stream can be further separated into product streams and recycle streams.
The catalytically cracked effluent stream 141 from SECC unit 140 is further taught in paragraph 58 to comprise fuel gas, C2-C4 paraffins, light olefins, gasoline, light cycle oil with components having boiling points from 221°C. to 343°C, and/or heavy cycle oil with components having boiling points greater than 343°C. Products from SECC unit 140 is taught in paragraphs 59-60 to be sent to product separation unit 180 wherein a C2-C4 alkanes and methane stream 185 is recovered.
(fractionating an effluent from the fluid catalytic cracking unit to produce an FCC mixed C4 stream comprising C4 hydrocarbons)
The light gas fraction 106 is taught in paragraph 37 to be passed to a steam cracker unit, steam cracking unit 120. The C2-C4 alkanes are taught in paragraph 60 to be passed to steam cracking unit 120.
(processing the third feed fraction and saturated C4 hydrocarbons from the FCC mixed C4 stream in a mixed feed cracking zone of a mixed feed steam cracking unit to produce light olefins.)
Regarding claims 2 and 3, AKAH et al. teach in paragraph 83 that one of the light olefins to be produced is mixed butenes.
Light olefins are taught in Fig. 1 and paragraph 189 to be removed through light olefin stream 183 with product separation unit 180. The concentration of saturated C4 hydrocarbons would therefore be expected to rise in recycle stream 185 comprising C2-C4 alkanes and methane.
Regarding claim 4, the catalytically cracked effluent stream 141 form SECC unit 140 is further taught in paragraph 58 to comprise fuel gas, C2-C4 paraffins, light olefins, gasoline, light cycle oil with components having boiling points from 221°C. to 343°C, and/or heavy cycle oil with components having boiling points greater than 343°C.
Regarding claim 5, C2-C4 and methane stream is taught in paragraph 60 to be passed to steam cracking unit 120.
Regarding claim 6, ethylene is taught in paragraph 59 to be part of the light olefins that are collected as part of a product stream.
Regarding claim 7, heavy component stream 184 is taught in paragraph 61 from separation unit 180 may be sent to hydrotreatment unit 170. The heavy component stream 184 is taught in paragraph 60 to comprise cracked naphtha, light cycle oil with components having boiling points from 221°C. to 343°C, and/or heavy cycle oil with components having boiling points greater than 343°C. from hydrotreatment unit 170. The products from hydrotreatment unit 170 include fuel gas, LPG, naphtha, distillate, gas oil, and/or slurry. One of more streams from the hydrotreatment unit 170 is taught in paragraph 67 to be passed to the steam cracking unit 120.
Regarding claim 10, one product also mentioned as a product is taught in paragraph 46 to be FCC gasoline octane. Streams 172 and 173 are taught in Fig. 1 and paragraph 68 to be from hydrotreatment unit 170 and may be sent back into SECC unit 140. SECC unit 140 is taught in paragraph 68 to convert fractions into products including gasoline.
Regarding claim 9, hydrotreated light fraction streams 172 and hydrotreated heavy fraction stream 173 which comprise the hydrotreated naphtha, are taught in paragraph 67 to be recycled back into SECC unit 140 where the products are separated in product separation unit 180.
One product separated is BTX, which includes benzene, toluene and xylenes which are aromatic compounds that are recovered separately. Other products are sent to steam cracker unit 120.
Regarding claim 12, heavy cycle oil with components having boiling points greater than 343°C may be passed to hydrotreatment unit 160. Hydrotreated heavy fraction stream 173 is taught in Fig 1 and paragraph 68 to have a boiling point of greater than between 280 to 320°C. The hydrotreated heavy fraction stream 173 would be considered to comprise a FCC heavy cycle oil. Hydrotreated heavy fraction stream 173 is sent from hydrotreatment unit 170 and recycled back into SECC unit 140. SECC unit 140 is taught in paragraph 68 to convert fractions into products including gasoline.
Regarding claim 13, Fig 1 shows fractions 107 and 108 are sent to SECC unit 140 directly and fraction 106 is sent to steam cracker 120 directly. AKAH et al. further teach in paragraph 16 that process streams may be directly introduced into the reactor and mixed in the reactor.
Regarding calm 14, crude oil feedstock used in the process that AKAH teaches is taught in paragraph 28 has API gravity of greater than 22 degrees. Examples are given, including one with 28 degrees. 28 degrees is greater than 14 degrees and less than 50 degrees and overlaps the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 21, the light fraction 107 is taught in paragraph 32 to have a final boiling point of less than 300°C. Furthermore, the hydrocarbon feed stream 102 is taught in paragraph 29 and may have a difference between the 5 wt. % boiling point and the 95 wt. % boiling point of at least 100°C.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to select a light fraction 107 with greater than 70% boiling at a temperature greater than 160°C and less than or equal to 350°C since it has been held that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 22, Fig 1 shows heavy fraction 108 being added directly to SECC unit 140. AKAH et al. further teach in paragraph 16 that process streams may be directly introduced into the reactor and mixed in the reactor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BOURANE et al. (USPGPUB 2014/0110308) teach processing whole crude oil feedstock into light olefins by separating the feed into a high boiling fraction and a low boiling fraction. The high boiling fraction and low boiling fractions are processed in separate FCC downflow reactors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights