DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the drawings, specification, and to claims 10-12 and 22 are noted.
The amendments overcome the objections to the drawings and claims, and the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s position is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered combining the teachings of Shaik and Koseoglu ‘388 to arrive at the instantly claimed process, arguing that the inclusion of a coking unit as in Koseoglu ‘388 would completely change the process flow of the high boiling fraction in Shaik and would destroy the intended purpose.
This argument is not found persuasive. The office respectfully disagrees that inclusion of a coking unit in Shaik would completely change the process flow of the high boiling fraction and would destroy the intended purpose of Shaik. While inclusion of a coking step entails some alterations of the process flow, the high boiling fraction is still subjected to hydrogenation downstream of coking. Additionally, the intended purpose does not change, given that Koseoglu ‘388 discloses that hydrogenated middle distillate (produced after the coking step) is processed in a petrochemicals production complex to produce light olefins. This objective is consistent with Shaik. Finally, the office is of the position that Koseoglu ‘388 provides the motivation to include delayed coking upstream of hydrogenation, indicating that the integrated process substantially increases the proportion of crude oil that is converted to high purity chemicals that traditionally command high market prices (see [0431]).
For these reasons, the prior art rejection is maintained.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaik et al (US 2020/0291310) in view of Koseoglu (US 2021/0246388), as evidenced by and/or in further view of Koseoglu (US 2017/0029724).
Regarding claim 1, Shaik discloses a process for converting whole crudes and other heavy hydrocarbon streams to produce olefins and/or aromatics, comprising (see Fig. 1):
separating a whole crude 1 into at least a light boiling fraction 5, a medium boiling fraction 9, and a high boiling residue fraction 15 (see [0066]);
destructively hydrogenating 27 the medium boiling fraction and the high boiling fraction to produce a hydrotreated effluent 13 (see [0066]-[0067]); and
feeding the hydrotreated effluent and the light boiling fraction to a steam cracker 7 to convert hydrocarbons therein into one or more light olefins 23 and a pyrolysis oil 25 (see [0066]-[0067]).
Shaik differs from the instant claim in that the reference does not disclose a step of processing the high boiling fraction in a delayed coking unit prior to destructive hydrogenation, where delayed coking produces a delayed coking liquid, which is sent to the destructive hydrogenation, and an anode grade coke product.
Koseoglu ‘388 is directed to a process for converting crude oil to petrochemicals entailing integrated deep hydrogenation of coker gas oil. A heavy residue fraction 1126 of crude oil 1102 is processed in a delayed coking unit 1300 to produce coker gas oil 1334 and coke 1338. The coker gas oil is then hydrogenated 1200 to produce hydrogenated middle distillates 1202 which are processed in a petrochemicals production complex 1215 to produce light olefins. The petrochemicals production complex may include steam cracking (see [0011]; [0085] [0092]; [0098]; claim 1). Koseoglu ‘388 discloses that the integrated process substantially increases the proportion of crude oil that is converted to high purity chemicals that traditionally command high market prices (see [0431]).
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 Shaik by first subjecting the high boiling fraction to delayed coking prior to destructive hydrogenation, such that delayed coking liquids obtained therefrom are process by destructive hydrogenation, as suggested by Koseoglu ‘388, in order to increase the proportion of crude oil that is converted to high purity chemicals.
Koseoglu ‘388 does not explicitly disclose that the coke produced is anode grade coke. However, Koseoglu ‘724 discloses delayed coking to produce anode grade coke which is in high demand, for instance, in the electrode industry (see [0019]-[0021]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to select conditions for delayed coking which are conducive to the production of anode grade coke in order to provide a coke product which is in high demand in the industry.
Regarding claim 2, Shaik discloses wherein the light boiling fraction has two or more of the following properties (see [0177]-[0186]):
a 95% boiling point temperature in the range from about 130 to about 200°C;
a hydrogen content of at least 14 wt%;
a BMCI of less than 5;
an API gravity of greater than 40°;
a sulfur content of less than 1000 ppm;
a nitrogen content of less than 10 ppm;
a viscosity, measured at 40°C, of less than 1 cSt;
less than 1 wt% MCRT; and
less than 1 ppm total metals.
Regarding claim 3, Shaik discloses wherein the medium boiling fraction has two or more of the following properties (see [0187]-[0197]):
a 5% boiling point temperature in the range from about 130 to about 200°C;
a 95% boiling point temperature in the range from about 400 to about 600°C;
a hydrogen content in the range from about 12 to about 14 wt%;
a BMCI in the range from about 5 to less than 50;
an API gravity in the range from about 10 to about 40°;
a sulfur content in the range from about 1000 to about 10,000 ppm;
a nitrogen content in the range from about 1 to about 100 ppm;
a viscosity, measured at 40°C, of greater than 1 cSt;
less than 5 wt% MCRT; and
less than 50 ppm total metals.
Regarding claim 4, Shaik discloses wherein the high boiling residue fraction has two or more of the following properties (see [0198]-[0207]):
a 5% boiling point temperature in the range from about 400 to about 600°C;
a hydrogen content of less than 12 wt%;
a BMCI of greater than 50;
an API gravity of less than 10°;
a sulfur content of greater than 10,000 ppm;
a nitrogen content of greater than 100 ppm;
a viscosity, measured at 100°C, of greater than 100 cSt;
greater than 5 wt% MCRT; and
greater than 50 ppm total metals.
Regarding claim 5, Shaik discloses wherein an overall chemicals production of the feedstock is at least 65 wt%, based on the total amount of olefins produced as compared to a total feedstock rate (see [0220]).
Regarding claim 6, Shaik in view of Koseoglu ‘388 discloses wherein destructively hydrogenating comprises converting hydrocarbons in the delayed coking liquid product to one or more steam crackable products (see Shaik: [0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Shaik discloses wherein separating the whole crude comprises (see Fig. 6; [0104]-[0108]):
feeding the whole crude into a heater 500, producing a pre-heated hydrocarbon feedstock 502;
separating the pre-heated hydrocarbon feedstock in a separator 504 into the light boiling fraction and an intermediate fraction 506;
feeding the intermediate fraction back to the heater, producing a heated intermediate fraction 516;
feeding a hydrogen stream 522 to a hot hydrogen stripper 518;
separating the heated intermediate fraction in the hot hydrogen stripper into the medium boiling fraction and a hot hydrogen stripper bottoms fraction 520; and
cooling the hot hydrogen stripper bottoms fraction via indirect heat exchange against the intermediate fraction producing the high boiling residue fraction.
Regarding claim 8, Shaik discloses wherein the light boiling fraction does not comprise hydrocarbons having a boiling point of greater than 160°C (see [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Shaik discloses recycling the pyrolysis oil (see [0069]). Recycling specifically to the delayed coking unit in light of the combination with Koseoglu ‘388 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and associated with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the 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 10, Shaik in view of Koseoglu ‘388 discloses wherein the destructive hydrogenation of the medium boiling fraction and the delayed coking liquid product comprises (see Shaik: [0016]-[0017]):
destructively hydrogenating the medium boiling fraction in a first hydroprocessing unit; and
destructively hydrogenating the delayed coking liquid product in a second hydroprocessing unit
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Shaik discloses wherein destructively hydrogenating the medium boiling fraction and the delayed coking liquid product comprises converting the medium boiling fraction and the delayed coking liquid product, respectively, to primarily steam crackable products (see Shaik: [0067]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-33 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Shaik in view of Koseoglu ‘388, as cited above, is considered to be the closest prior art. In comparison to claim 1, claim 22 sets forth additional steps entailing treatment of the high boiling residue fraction, including first hydrocracking the high boiling residue fraction in a first resid conditioning unit to produce a hydrocracked effluent, processing a resid fraction of the hydrocracked effluent in a delayed coking unit, and hydrocracking the delayed coking liquid product in a second resid conditioning unit to produce a second hydrocracked effluent, and wherein the first and second hydrocracked effluent are separated in a second integrated separation device to produce the resid fraction and a partially conditioned fraction.
While Koseoglu ‘388 is considered to provide motivation for inclusion of a delayed coking step, the combination of references fails to disclose all of the steps as outlined in the instant claim 22 (as presently understood in light of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b)). Nor does there appear to be adequate suggestions in the prior art which would lead a person of ordinary skill to modify Shaik in such a way as to arrive at the claimed embodiment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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