DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the election filed 6/2/2026.
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-13 are examined herein.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 6/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11, which depends form claim 9, recites recovering a middle fraction having an end boiling point in the range of 150-350C. Claim 9 recites recovering a stream below the middle which has an end boiling point in the range of 150-200C. Where the second end boiling point is 150C, the lighter fraction would have an end boiling point the same as or greater than the intermediate fraction. The claim is not rejected given two streams could be withdrawn in overlapping boiling ranges. However if this result were not intended, the claim should be amended.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram (US 2019/0023999) in view of Harandi (WO 2020/159719) and alternatively in view of Shafi (US 2013/0197283).
With respect to claim 1, Sundaram is directed to an integrated pyrolysis and hydrocracking system for cracking hydrocarbon mixtures such as whole crude oils (abstract). The process comprises (reference numerals correspond to figure 2 and 3):
The hydrocarbon feedstock 22, which may be a mixture of a whole crude 19 and a gas oil 21, and which may include hydrocarbons boiling from naphtha range hydrocarbons to hydrocarbons having a normal boiling point temperature greater than 450° C., may be introduced to a heating coil 24, disposed in the convective section 2 of the pyrolysis heater 1. (0050; 0057) The feedstock may be, for example, a light crude oil or natural gas condensate. (0026)
In the heating coil 24, the hydrocarbon feedstock may be partially vaporized, vaporizing the lighter components in the hydrocarbon feedstock, such as naphtha range hydrocarbons. (0050; 0057) The heated hydrocarbon feedstock 26 is then fed to a separator 27 for separation into a vapor fraction 28 and a liquid fraction 30. (0057)
The steam/hydrocarbon mixture in stream 42 may then be fed to a heating coil 44. The resulting superheated mixture may then be fed via flow line 46 to one or more cracking coils 4 disposed in a radiant zone 3 of the pyrolysis heater 1. (0052)
Hydrogen 59 and the liquid fraction 60, which includes the high boiling point (residue) hydrocarbons in the feed mixture 22, may then be fed to a hydrocracking reactor system 61. (0054)
The hydrocarbon effluent 69 may then be fractionated to separate the effluent hydrocarbons into two or more hydrocarbon fractions. The gas oil fraction(s) 79, or portion(s) thereof, may then be used as stream 21 and combined with whole crude 19 and thermally cracked in the pyrolysis unit. (0055)
In the same or a separate heater, the liquid fraction 30 may be mixed with steam 50 and fed to heating coil 52 disposed in the convective zone 2 of pyrolysis reactor 1. In heating coil 52, the liquid fraction may be partially vaporized, vaporizing the remaining lighter components in the hydrocarbon feedstock, such as mid to gas oil range hydrocarbons. (0060)
The heated liquid fraction containing steam 54 is then fed to a separator 56 for separation into a vapor fraction 58 and a liquid fraction 60. (0060) Superheated steam can be injected via flow lines 72, 74 directly into separators 27, 56, thus, stripping in the liquid. (0062)
The stripped vapor fraction 58 is then superheated 66 and subject to thermal cracking 4.
Sundaram teaches that in some embodiments, it may be desired to further process one or more of the liquid fractions, such as liquid fraction 30 or 60, to remove metals, nitrogen, sulfur, or Conradson Carbon Residue prior to further processing. (0084) In one illustrated embodiment, the entire liquid is hydrotreated, then separated and the vapor further thermally cracked as above. (See 0084-0086) Sundaram recognizes that hydrotreating the entirety of the whole crude involves very large reactor volumes and inefficient in terms of hydrogen addition. (0090) Instead, the processes herein only add hydrogen as required and at the right point in the process and is flexible for crudes with high levels of contaminants (sulfur, nitrogen, metals, CCR). (0090)
Sundaram does not provide an explicit example wherein only the stripped vapor is hydrotreated after separation from the liquid 30. In view of the teaching of Sundaram that hydrotreating may be conducted “at the right point in the process” to remove metals, nitrogen, sulfur and Conradson carbon while minimizing the volume of reactor (0084; 0090), one would be motivated to minimize the volume of feed subject to hydrotreating by apply hydrotreating only at points in the process where contaminant removal is required. While one example teaches hydrotreating the whole of the liquid 30 prior to separation, the art recognizes this is merely one illustration, the hydrotreating is not required to achieve desired separation of liquid 30, and the residue portion of the liquid 30 may be sent directly to hydrocracking without further treatment. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sundaram by hydrotreating the stripped vapor stream improves thermal cracking product and doing so after separation of the liquid reduces hydrotreating reactor volume and associated costs and would allow operation of tailored conditions to minimize undesired side reactions. Where the vapor stream were sent to hydrotreating, it would have been obvious to heat and mix hydrogen with that stream (as known in the art and shown in Sundaram with respect to the other hydroprocessing examples).
Alternatively, Shafi directed to integrated hydroprocessing and steam pyrolysis (abstract), teaches sending a feed to a vapor-liquid separator 20, recovering vapor 21 and liquid residual stream 22, and hydrotreating 4 the vapor stream to produce a hydrotreated effluent. The hydrotreated effluent 5 is subject to separation 6, 9 for the removal of hydrogen 7 and light gases 11 and the liquid effluent 10 is subject to steam cracking 30 to produce light olefins. (Figure; 0016; 0023-0026) The cut point is set to separate a fuel oil range residue (0028). Shafi teaches that selective hydroprocessing of the fraction boiling above fuel oil, after separation of the residual liquid, provides a number of advantages including more active hydrotreating catalyst, less overall hydrogen consumption (0057) (which may be completely provided from within the process, par. 0069), improved deactivate rate, and can be operated at a higher throughput (0034).
While Shafi fails to disclose an initial separation of a lighter fraction, the teaching provides motivation for separating the residual fuel oil range components prior to hydrotreating and steam cracking a feed in an overlapping boiling range. This motivation is more compelling in light of the teaching of Sundaram that hydrotreating may be conducted “at the right point in the process” to minimize the volume of reactor (0084; 0090). Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sundaram by hydrotreating the stripped vapor stream after removal of residual fuel oil fraction as taught in Shafi because both arts directed to integrated hydroprocessing and steam cracking of crude oil for production of olefins, and because Shafi teaches removing fuel oil prior to hydrotreating provides a number of processing benefits listed above and Sundaram teaches that placement of the hydroprocessing reactor can minimize large volumes for processing more stream than needed.
Sundaram is silent regarding separating the stripped vapor to recover stripping medium from a condensed hydrocarbon, which is the hydrocarbon sent to thermal cracking in Sundaram. Harandi, directed to vapor-liquid separation and steam cracking of crude oil, teaches sending a crude oil 203 to a first vapor-liquid stripper (0070), sending the liquid to a second vapor-liquid separator with stripping, wherein the second overhead 507 may be condensed to recover the stripping gas and a liquid hydrocarbon product (0085).
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sundaram by separating the stripping vapor from the overhead hydrocarbon as taught in Harandi because both are directed to vapor-liquid separation and direct steam cracking of crude oil, both teach stripping a first separated liquid to remove residual components, and combining a condensing and stripping gas removal step merely combines elements known in the art for a purpose together to achieve the same purpose.
Sundaram is silent regarding removing a vapor stream comprising hydrogen from the hydroprocessed effluent to recover the crackable heavy hydrocarbons. It would have been obvious to remove the hydrogen prior to thermal cracking to recover hydrogen for reuse and to minimize hydrogenation to alkanes instead of the desired light olefins product. Shafi teaches removing the hydrogen and light gases from the hydrotreated effluent prior to steam cracking the hydrotreated effluent, and therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove hydrogen from the hydroprocessed effluent of Sundaram prior to steam cracking to allow recycle of unused hydrogen and minimize contaminants to the steam cracking reactor (see e.g. 0035) as taught in Shafi.
With respect to claim 2, Sundaram teaches the cracked hydrocarbon product (corresponding to first cracked effluent) may then be recovered via flow line 12 for heat recovery, quenching, and product recovery (not shown) (0052). The cracked products may be combined and separated in a common an olefins recovery section 208, where the hydrocarbons may be separated via fractionation into various hydrocarbon cuts, such as a light petroleum gas fraction 209, a naphtha fraction 210, a jet or diesel fraction 211, and a heavies fraction 212. (0085; Figure 7).
With respect to claim 3, Sundaram teaches wherein the one or more hydrocarbon fractions includes a heavies fraction 212 (0085) which corresponds to the pyrolysis oil fraction. Sundaram teaches combining the liquid heavies fraction 212 with the liquid residue from the stripper. (0089; Figure 7) The mixed stream however is sent to hydrocracking to produce additional olefins or light intermediate for conversion into olefins, opposed to exporting low value fuel oil (0094). However, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate the hydrocracking step on the residual byproduct and instead export the fraction or export a portion of the fraction and hydrocrack the remaining portion where the fuel oil were a desired product, because Sundaram recognizes the liquid heavies may be exported as low value fuel oil (0092-0094; 0103), and elimination of an element (step) and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired, MPEP 2144.04.
With respect to claim 4, Sundaram teaches utilizing dilution steam at various points along the process, including mixing dilution steam 72 with the heated hydrocarbon feedstock 26 at 27 (0051) or directly into the heated or before heating feedstreams 26, 22 (0053). Additionally, steam 40 may be mixed with the vaporized light portion 42. (0052; 0059)
With respect to claim 5, Harandi teaches wherein the stripping medium comprises hydrogen (0040).
With respect to claim 6, Harandi teaches wherein the stripping medium comprises methane, ethane, or natural gas (0040).
With respect to claim 7, Sundaram teaches hydrotreating to remove metal or sulfur or nitrogen, thus the hydroprocessing may comprises one or more of hydrodesulfurization, hydrodenitrification, hydrodemetallization.
With respect to claim 8, Sundaram teaches wherein the vapor is not subjected to hydrocracking (figure 3).
With respect to claim 9, Sundaram teaches wherein the vaporized light portion may be e.g. a full range naphtha with an end point of 203 C(0100). It is know that the end point may vary for a given feed/process and would render obvious a fraction having an end boiling point in a range from 150C to 200C.
With respect to claim 10, Sundaram teaches wherein the volatilized hydrocarbons have an end boiling point in a range from 480C to 560C (0033).
With respect to claim 11, crude oil separation into more than two fractions is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recover a middle fraction having an end point ranging from 150 to 350, e.g. gasoline or diesel, from the crude oil first separation vessel, where diesel or gasoline were a required product.
With respect to claims 12, Sundaram teaches wherein the feed has a specific graving of 0.79, which corresponds to an API greater than 32 or 45, a sulfur content of 0.04% (Table 1).
With respect to claim 13, the exemplified feed of Table 1 in Sundaram has an API gravity and sulfur and end content in the claimed range. The art does not give a specific example of CCR, Nitrogen and percentage boiling above 540C. However, table 1 is merely one light crude. The art lists the same feedstreams disclosed and claimed in the instant application. Therefore the properties are expected to fall in a range overlapping that claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 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 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights