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 § 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drennan (US 2,315,843) in view of Reddy (US 2004/0255778).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5, Drennan teaches using natural gas (methane) as stripping medium for crude oils (page 1, column 1, lines 35-50). Stripping the crude with the methane gas separates the volatile components from the liquid stream (page 1, column 1, line 35-page 2, column 1, line 50). Drennan sends the volatile components to condenser 28 to recover gas 31 and condensed stream 34 (see figure).
Examiner notes that methane is a feed known in the art to be used as feedstock to produce hydrogen. Reddy teaches methane feeds to make high purity hydrogen [0020], and can be recovered from various other processing units [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used methane from Drennan stripping column, as the feed to the hydrogen production unit of Reddy, since Reddy teaches such methane feeds are suitable for hydrogen production.
Claims 3 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drennan (US 2,315,843) in view of Reddy (US 2004/0255778) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Galeazzi (US 2006/0118466).
Regarding claims 3 and 6-18, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose further integration with hydroprocessing stages.
However, Galeazzi teaches a process including a striping column and two hydrotreatment zones (see figure). Galeazzi sends stripper 10 bottoms 41 to hydrotreatment stage 48, and feeding hydrogen obtained from psa 32/33 to hydrotreatment zone 48.
Therefore, it would have been obvious the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the stripper bottoms of Drennan as feed to a hydrotreatment zone, such as that of Galeazzi, and to have used hydrogen from the PSA of the previous combination as feed to the hydrotreatment zone, since Galeazzi teaches that such streams are suitable feedstocks.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drennan (US 2,315,843) in view of Reddy (US 2004/0255778) and Galeazzi (US 2006/0118466) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jones (US 2023/0287284) and Bourane (US 2013/0197284).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. The previous combination does not further integrate steam cracking.
However, Jones teaches integration of a steam cracker 104 with psa zone 202 and using hydrogen from the psa as feed to the steam cracker 104 (see figure).
Further, Bourane teaches that light gases 63 recovered from hydrotreater 4 may be fed to steam cracker 30 (see figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the hydrogen from the psa from the previous combination as a feed to the steam cracker, as disclosed by Jones, since Jones teaches such hydrogen streams are suitable feedstocks. Further, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used light gases recovered from the hydrotreatment zone as feed to the steam cracker, since Bourane teaches such streams are suitable steam cracker feedstocks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Russell (US 2019/0224611) – teaches integration of hydroprocessing and Psa
Foody (US 2015/0225233) – teaches integration of hydrogen production and hydroprocessing [0086-0105]
Russell (US 2020/0101411) – teaches integration of steam cracking and psa
Foody (US 9,145,300) – teaches using methane feeds to hydrogen production units
Koseoglu (US 2020/0353409) – teaches integration of hydrogen purification with hydroconversion
Grubb (US 2024/0141241) – teaches integration of pyrolysis with hydroprocessing and hydrogen purification
Roy (US 2022/0298430) – cited in ISR teaches hydrogen integration
Liu (CN 115193084A) – cited in ISR teaches methane, ethane, propane as stripping gas
Wang (CN 116836719A) – cited in ISR teaches stripping with non condensable gas circulation
Schwint (US 2016/0303489) – cited in ISR teaches olefin extraction
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights