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 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-5 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 6/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 6, 7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or alternatively 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettger (US 20040118745).
With respect to claim 6, Rettger (US 20040118745) teaches a system comprising:
Mixing the hydrogen and feedstock (figure 3), it is expected or else would have been obvious for the mixing to occur in a mixer.
A hydroprocessing unit fluidly connected to the mixer for receiving the combined stream, the hydroprocessing unit configured to process the hydrocarbons to light products in a primary reactor of the hydroprocessing unit to produce a hydroprocessing product stream. The hydroprocessor feed may be heated in a heater (not shown) thus configured to produce carbon dioxide. (0065) The hydroprocessing unit is configured to produce sour water (0244) which is passed to the sour water stripper 504 for removing hydrogen sulfide and ammonia (Figure 6). It is know that hydrogen sulfide and ammonia may form ammonia bisulfide in the presence of water.
A sour water stripper and treatment unit, i.e. waste water unit is fluidly connected to the hydroprocessing unit (Figure 5). The waste water unit configured to process a sour water stream produced by the hydroprocessing product stream to produce an ammonia stream, a hydrogen sulfide stream which his converted to sulfur, and a stripped water stream.
With respect to claim 7, Rettger teaches a unit for hydrogen production from a portion of the syngas produced and steam to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide (0070).
With respect to claim 9, Rettger teaches wherein the feed is a heavy hydrocarbon feed to the hydroprocessing unit is an intermediate refinery stream from the upgrader.
With respect to claim 10, Rettger teaches wherein the hydroprocessing unit may be a hydrocracking unit or a hydrotreating unit (0061).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettger (US 20040118745) as applied to claims 6. 7, 9, and 10, further in view of Augustsson (US 9216380).
With respect to claim 8, Rettger teaches optionally sending carbon dioxide produced in the hydrogen production unit to a gas processor and membrane. Rettger does not explicitly teach a carbon dioxide recovery system fluidly connected to the waste treatment unit and configured to separate carbon dioxide into a carbon dioxide product.
Augustsson (US 9216380) teaches a carbon capture unit fluidly connected to an ammonia stripper (i.e. waste treatment unit) wherein the gas containing carbon dioxide is fluidly connected to the ammonia stripper and provides heat required for stripping while removing separating carbon dioxide from the gas (col. 2-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to fluidly connect a carbon dioxide recovery system to the waste water unit of Rettger as taught in Augustsson because Augustsson teaches integrating an amine stripping column and carbon dioxide removal and Rettger teaches an amine stripper for treating the wastewater and such integration would allow recovering carbon dioxide with a waste stream, provide energy savings (heat from the carbon dioxide containing gas used in stripping) and do no more than obtain predictable results.
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