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 .
Election-of-Species
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on June 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
In applicant’s claims dated 6/15/2026, claim 3 was withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: applicant made a typographical mistake in the last line of claim 1 by having a period symbol appear after the word “cation”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 uses the phrase “foaming pig”, and it is not clear what this phrase means. Is applicant trying to recite that the pig somehow causes foaming? Applicant’s specification uses the phrase “foaming pig” but doesn’t explain how a pipeline pig might cause foaming. Is it merely a typographical mistake where applicant meant to recite “foam pig”? For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant intended to recite “foam pig” instead of “foaming pig”.
Claim 9 recites that the first organo sulfate compound and the second organo sulfate compound each comprise a combination of a salt of dodecyl benzene sulfonate, isopropyl naphthalene sulfonate, and lignosulfonate. However, it is not clear how the first organo sulfate compound (singular) or the second organo sulfate compound (singular) could each somehow be three different compounds. A single compound can not somehow be three different compounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0106519 by Allred in view of U.S. 2018/0291256 by Alwattari in view of U.S. 2023/0124266 by Vallavanatt in view of U.S. 2025/0011639 by Moloney.
With regard to claim 1, Allred teaches a method for cleaning a pipeline of a cracking unit, wherein the method comprising introducing an inhibition composition into the pipeline, wherein the inhibition composition comprises sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate as a surfactant, wherein the inhibition composition comprises the sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate diluted in a hydrocarbon liquid, wherein the method comprises introducing the inhibition solution into the pipeline via a pig traveling at a velocity through the pipeline (Abstract; Par. 0017, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0050, 0052, 0053, 0056, 0058, 0060, 0065, and 0070, 0101, and 0103). Allred teaches repeating the pigging-and-inhibition-composition application (Par. 0070), and thus Allred is considered to teach an embodiment wherein an instance of the pigging-and-inhibition-composition application occurs after a previous instance of the pigging-and-inhibition-composition application, wherein said previous instance of the pigging-and-inhibition-composition application corresponds to applicant’s cleaning pig.
Allred does not teach that the pig is pushed through the pipeline with a displacement fluid. However, in the art of cleaning a pipeline with a pig, it is well-known that a pig can be successfully be pushed through a pipeline via a displacement fluid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred such that, when a pig is propelled through the pipeline, the propelling is achieved via displacement fluid pushing the rear of the pig. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of cleaning a pipeline with a pig, it is well-known that a pig can be successfully be pushed through a pipeline via a displacement fluid.
As discussed, Allred teaches using sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate as a surfactant. Sodium is a +1 cation. Allred does not teach providing the dodecylbenzene sulfonate via a +2 cation.
Alwattari teaches that dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant can also be provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (Par. 0160 and claim 75 of Alwattari).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred by having the dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant provided in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate instead of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate. Alwattari teaches that dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant can also be provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate. Motivation for performing the modification would be that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate to be just as successful at provided dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant as sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate. Allred provides no indication that the sodium ion of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate provides some benefit to his method other than being an ion with which dodecylbenzene sulfonate can be provided.
As discussed, the combination of Allred in view of Alwattari teaches using the pipeline-cleaning method in a cracking unit (Par. 0103 of Allred).
The combination of Allred in view of Alwattari does not recite that cracking can be performed via a coker furnace.
In the “Background” section of their document, Vallavanatt teaches that many refineries performing cracking via a coker furnace by passing an oil feed through a pipeline of the coker furnace (Par. 0003). Vallavanatt teaches that the interior of such an oil-handling pipeline is susceptible to contamination buildup over time (Par. 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Alwattari by deploying their pipeline-interior-cleaning technique on a pipeline used in a cracking process to carry feed oil in a coker furnace, wherein the pipeline is used to channel an oil feed (reads on coker feed) once the cleaning is completed. As discussed, the combination of Allred in view of Alwattari teaches using the pipeline-cleaning method in a cracking unit (Par. 0103 of Allred). Vallavanatt teaches that a pipeline used for channeling feed oil for cracking in a coker furnace can become contaminated, and motivation for performing the modification would be to use the cleaning technique of Allred in view of Alwattari to clean such a pipeline.
The combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt, as developed thus far, does not teach introducing a second organo sulfate compound with a divalent cation into the oil feed of the pipeline.
Moloney teaches that corrosion of oil-handling equipment can be advantageously prevented by injecting a corrosion-inhibiting agent into an oil feed upstream of said equipment, and Moloney teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise dodecyl benzene sulfonate (Abstract; Par. 0006-0008, 0049, and 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt by introducing a corrosion-inhibiting agent as taught by Moloney into the oil feed of the pipeline of the cracking unit upstream of the cracking unit, wherein the corrosion-inhibiting agent comprises dodecyl benzene sulfonate. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Moloney, who teaches that corrosion of oil-handling equipment can be advantageously prevented by injecting a corrosion-inhibiting agent into an oil feed upstream of said equipment, and Moloney teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise dodecyl benzene sulfonate.
Dodecyl benzene sulfonate is an anionic surfactant, and the combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney is silent with regard to whether or not the dodecyl benzene sulfonate is provided with a monovalent (+1) cation or divalent (+2) cation. However, as discussed earlier, Alwattari teaches that dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant can successfully be provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (Par. 0160 and claim 75 of Alwattari). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney such that the dodecyl benzene sulfonate is provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Alwattari, who teaches that dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant can successfully be provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate.
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney teaches an embodiment wherein the inhibition composition is introduced into the coker furnace pipeline between two pigs (see Figure 3 of Allred) traveling at a velocity through the pipeline (Par. 0039 and 0065 of Allred).
The combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney is silent about the velocity of the pigs. However, Allred is considered to teach that the speed of the pigs is a result-effective variable because Allred teaches that the first pig applies the inhibition composition in order to have nanoparticles of the inhibition composition diffuse into undesired pipeline deposits (this diffusion assists the removal of the deposits) and the second pig scrapes away the deposits that have been affected by the nanoparticles, wherein the speed of the pigs thus clearly affects how long the nanoparticles have to perform their role of diffusing into the to-be-scraped-away deposits (Par. 0065-0070). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney by optimizing the velocity of the pair of pigs in the pipeline, as that velocity is a result-effective variable that affects how long it takes for the pigs to move through the pipeline and how much time the nanoparticles have for diffusion until scraping is performed by the second pig.
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney teaches an embodiment wherein the inhibition composition is introduced into the coker furnace pipeline between two pigs (see Figure 3 of Allred) traveling at a velocity through the pipeline (Par. 0039 and 0065 of Allred).
The combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney is silent about the velocity of the pigs. However, Allred is considered to teach that the speed of the pigs is a result-effective variable because Allred teaches that the first pig applies the inhibition composition in order to have nanoparticles of the inhibition composition diffuse into undesired pipeline deposits (this diffusion assists the removal of the deposits) and the second pig scrapes away the deposits that have been affected by the nanoparticles, wherein the speed of the pigs thus clearly affects how long the nanoparticles have to perform their role of diffusing into the to-be-scraped-away deposits (Par. 0065-0070). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney by optimizing the velocity of the pair of pigs in the pipeline, as that velocity is a result-effective variable that affects how long it takes for the pigs to move through the pipeline and how much time the nanoparticles have for diffusion until scraping is performed by the second pig.
The combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney does not recite that the pigs are made with foam. However, in the art of using a pig to clean a pipeline, it is well-known that a pipeline pig can successfully be made with foam. For example, Allred teaches that a pipeline-cleaning pig can successfully be with foam (Par. 0022 of Allred). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney by having each of the pipeline pigs made with foam. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of using a pig to clean a pipeline, it is well-known that a pipeline pig can successfully be made with foam – Allred being an example of such a teaching.
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney teaches an embodiment wherein a single pig coats the inhibition composition over the interior of the pipeline such that nanoparticles in the coating have time to diffuse into to-be-removed contaminants (Par. 0067 and 0068 of Allred). Allred is silent with regard to the thickness of this coating. However, since the combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney teaches performing the same method steps as recited by applicant with the same materials as recited by applicant, it is reasonably expected that the same result will occur – namely, that the composition coating will have the same coating as that recited by applicant in claim 5. If that “reasonably expected” argument is not persuasive, here is another argument: a point of the cleaning composition is to deliver nanoparticles to to-be-removed pipeline contaminants, and thus the thickness of the composition coating can be considered a result-effective variable that affects how much composition is needed to clean a length of a pipeline and how many nanoparticles are delivered to the interior surface of the pipeline. Allred teaches that some coating thicknesses may be more desired than others (see Par. 0040 of Allred), thus strengthening the idea that the coating thickness is a result-effective variable. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney by optimizing the thickness of the composition coating, as that thickness is considered a result-effective variable.
With regard to claim 6, in the combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney, the inhibition composition and the corrosion-inhibiting agent both comprise calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate.
With regard to claim 11, in the combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney, the inhibition composition has a pH in the range of 6 to 8 (Par. 0060 of Allred), and, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, this pH range of 6 to 8 is considered to render applicant’s claimed pH range of about 7.1 to 9.5 obvious due to the overlap of the ranges.
With regard to claim 12, in the combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney, the inhibition composition has a pH in the range of 6 to 8 (Par. 0060 of Allred), and, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, this pH range of 6 to 8 is considered to render applicant’s claimed pH range of about 7.1 to 8.0 obvious due to the overlap of the ranges.
With regard to claim 13, the combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney does not specify that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate in the corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced into the coker feed in a concentration of from about 25 ppm to about 250 ppm. However, Moloney is considered to teach that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate concentration is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that the dodecylbenzene sulfonate serves as a paraffin inhibitor (Par. 0049 of Moloney), and enough dodecylbenzene sulfonate needs to be provided in order to successfully perform the paraffin inhibitor role without being provided at a wastefully-high concentration. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney such that the concentration of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate when introduced into the coker feed is optimized, as that concentration is considered to be a result-effective variable.
With regard to claim 14, the combination of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney does not specify that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate in the corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced into the coker feed in a concentration of from about 25 ppm to about 250 ppm. However, Moloney is considered to teach that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate concentration is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that the dodecylbenzene sulfonate serves as a paraffin inhibitor (Par. 0049 of Moloney), and enough dodecylbenzene sulfonate needs to be provided in order to successfully perform the paraffin inhibitor role without being provided at a wastefully-high concentration. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Alwattari in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney such that the concentration of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate when introduced into the coker feed is optimized, as that concentration is considered to be a result-effective variable.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0106519 by Allred in view of U.S. 2023/0124266 by Vallavanatt in view of U.S. 2025/0011639 by Moloney in view of U.S. 2018/0291256 by Alwattari.
With regard to claim 1, Allred teaches a method for cleaning a pipeline of a cracking unit, wherein the method comprising introducing an cleaning composition into the pipeline, wherein the method comprises introducing the inhibition solution into the pipeline via a pig traveling at a velocity through the pipeline (Abstract; Par. 0017, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0050, 0052, 0053, 0056, 0058, 0060, 0065, and 0070, 0101, and 0103).
Allred does not teach that the pig is pushed through the pipeline with a displacement fluid. However, in the art of cleaning a pipeline with a pig, it is well-known that a pig can be successfully be pushed through a pipeline via a displacement fluid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred such that, when a pig is propelled through the pipeline, the propelling is achieved via displacement fluid pushing the rear of the pig. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of cleaning a pipeline with a pig, it is well-known that a pig can be successfully be pushed through a pipeline via a displacement fluid.
As discussed, Allred teaches using the pipeline-cleaning method in a cracking unit (Par. 0103 of Allred).
Allred does not recite that cracking can be performed via a coker furnace.
In the “Background” section of their document, Vallavanatt teaches that many refineries performing cracking via a coker furnace by passing an oil feed through a pipeline of the coker furnace (Par. 0003). Vallavanatt teaches that the interior of such an oil-handling pipeline is susceptible to contamination buildup over time (Par. 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred by deploying their pipeline-interior-cleaning technique on a pipeline used in a cracking process to carry feed oil in a coker furnace, wherein the pipeline is used to channel an oil feed (reads on coker feed) once the cleaning is completed. As discussed, Allred teaches using the pipeline-cleaning method in a cracking unit (Par. 0103 of Allred). Vallavanatt teaches that a pipeline used for channeling feed oil for cracking in a coker furnace can become contaminated, and motivation for performing the modification would be to use the cleaning technique of Allred to clean such a pipeline.
The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt, as developed thus far, does not teach introducing an organo sulfate compound with a divalent cation into the oil feed of the pipeline.
Moloney teaches that corrosion of oil-handling equipment can be advantageously prevented by injecting a corrosion-inhibiting agent into an oil feed upstream of said equipment, and Moloney teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise dodecyl benzene sulfonate diluted in a hydrocarbon solvent (Abstract; Par. 0006-0008, 0040, 0049, and 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt by introducing a corrosion-inhibiting agent as taught by Moloney into the oil feed of the pipeline of the cracking unit upstream of the cracking unit after pig-cleaning is performed, wherein the corrosion-inhibiting agent comprises dodecyl benzene sulfonate. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Moloney, who teaches that corrosion of oil-handling equipment can be advantageously prevented by injecting a corrosion-inhibiting agent into an oil feed upstream of said equipment, and Moloney teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise dodecyl benzene sulfonate.
Dodecyl benzene sulfonate is an anionic surfactant, and the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney is silent with regard to whether or not the dodecyl benzene sulfonate is provided with a monovalent (+1) cation or divalent (+2) cation. However, Alwattari teaches that dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant can successfully be provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (Par. 0160 and claim 75 of Alwattari). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney such that the dodecyl benzene sulfonate is provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Alwattari, who teaches that dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant can successfully be provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate.
In this developed combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, pig-cleaning is performed on a pipeline of a coker furnace, then the coker feed is introduced into the pipeline (such that cracking of the coker feed can occur), and corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced into the coker feed in order to limit corrosion of the pipeline. In the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate of the corrosion-inhibiting agent can be considered to read on applicant’s first organo suflate compound with a divalent cation. The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, as developed thus far, does not teach a step of introducing a second organo sulfate compound into the coker feed. However, in the art of pipeline maintenance, it is well-known to repeat a cleaning routine for a pipeline over the lifetime of the pipeline such that the pipeline can be maintained in a cleaner state over its lifetime. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari by – over the lifetime of the pipeline – repeating the steps of performing pig cleaning, coke-feed introducing after said pig cleaning, and introducing the corrosion-inhibiting agent into the coker feed. As discussed, in the art of pipeline maintenance, it is well-known to repeat a cleaning routine for a pipeline over the lifetime of the pipeline such that the pipeline can be maintained in a cleaner state over its lifetime. The motivation for repeating those steps would be allow pig-cleaning of the pipeline to be advantageously performed multiple times of the lifetime of the pipeline. In this modified method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, a step of introducing the corrosion-inhibiting agent into coker feed after a pig-cleaning step corresponds to applicant’s step of introducing inhibition combination comprising first organo sulfate compound, and a later step of introducing the corrosion-inhibiting agent into coker feed after a later iteration of pig cleaning corresponds to applicant’s step of introducing a second orgno sulfate compound into coker feed.
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent forms a coating having a thickness on the pipeline interior (Par. 0100). The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari does not specify the thickness of the coating. However, since the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari teaches performing the same as recited by applicant with the same materials as recited by applicant, it is reasonably expected that the same result will occur – namely, that the composition coating will have the same coating as that recited by applicant in claim 5. If that “reasonably expected” argument is not persuasive, here is another argument: the thickness of the coating can be considered a result-effective variable because the coating has to be thick enough to effectively prevent corrosion of the pipeline while not being so thick that too much corrosion-inhibiting agent is being wasted. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari by optimizing the thickness of the coating, as that thickness can be considered a result-effective variable.
With regard to claim 6, in the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, the first organo sulfate compound and the second organo sulfate compound are each calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate.
With regard to claim 10, the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari teaches having the hydrocarbon solvent of the corrosion-inhibiting agent be diesel (Par. 0040 of Moloney). The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari does not specify the dilution ratio of the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate to the diesel. However, Moloney is considered to teach that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate concentration is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that the dodecylbenzene sulfonate serves as a paraffin inhibitor (Par. 0049 of Moloney), and enough dodecylbenzene sulfonate needs to be provided in order to successfully perform the paraffin inhibitor role without being provided at a wastefully-high concentration. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari such that the concentration of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate in the corrosion-inhibiting agent is optimized, as that concentration is considered to be a result-effective variable.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise a alkaline pH modifier (Par. 0062 of Moloney), but the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari doesn’t specify that the corrosion-inhibiting agent has a pH from about 7.1 to about 9.5. However, Moloney teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise an alkaline pH modifier (Par. 0062 of Moloney), Moloney is considered to teach that some pH values are more preferable than others. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari such that the pH of the corrosion-inhibiting agent is optimized, as Moloney can be considered to teach that the pH is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that some pH values are more preferable than others.
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise a alkaline pH modifier (Par. 0062 of Moloney), but the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari doesn’t specify that the corrosion-inhibiting agent has a pH from about 7.1 to about 8.0. However, Moloney teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise an alkaline pH modifier (Par. 0062 of Moloney), Moloney is considered to teach that some pH values are more preferable than others. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari such that the pH of the corrosion-inhibiting agent is optimized, as Moloney can be considered to teach that the pH is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that some pH values are more preferable than others.
With regard to claim 13, the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari does not specify that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate in the corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced into the coker feed in a concentration of from about 25 ppm to about 250 ppm. However, Moloney is considered to teach that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate concentration is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that the dodecylbenzene sulfonate serves as a paraffin inhibitor (Par. 0049 of Moloney), and enough dodecylbenzene sulfonate needs to be provided in order to successfully perform the paraffin inhibitor role without being provided at a wastefully-high concentration. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari such that the concentration of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate when introduced into the coker feed is optimized, as that concentration is considered to be a result-effective variable.
With regard to claim 14, the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari does not specify that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate in the corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced into the coker feed in a concentration of from about 25 ppm to about 250 ppm. However, Moloney is considered to teach that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate concentration is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that the dodecylbenzene sulfonate serves as a paraffin inhibitor (Par. 0049 of Moloney), and enough dodecylbenzene sulfonate needs to be provided in order to successfully perform the paraffin inhibitor role without being provided at a wastefully-high concentration. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari such that the concentration of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate when introduced into the coker feed is optimized, as that concentration is considered to be a result-effective variable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0106519 by Allred in view of U.S. 2023/0124266 by Vallavanatt in view of U.S. 2025/0011639 by Moloney in view of U.S. 2018/0291256 by Alwattari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2014/0166575 by Bose.
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattar teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise “naphthalene sulfonic acid and derivatives” (Par. 0053 of Moloney) as a dispersant.
The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari does not recite that isopropyl naphthalene surfactant is an example of such “naphthalene sulfonic acid and derivatives”.
Bose teaches that a calcium salt of naphthalene sulfonate can be used an example of “dispersants or surfactants” (Par. 0065). Although Bose does not clarify if calcium salt of naphthalene sulfonate is a dispersant, it is well-known in the art of dispersants that naphthalene sulfonate functions as a dispersant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari such that a calcium salt of naphthalene sulfonate is used as a dispersant in the corrosion-inhibiting agent. The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattar teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise “naphthalene sulfonic acid and derivatives” (Par. 0053 of Moloney) as a dispersant, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Bose teaches that a calcium salt of naphthalene sulfonate can be used an example of “dispersants or surfactants” (Par. 0065). Although Bose does not clarify if calcium salt of naphthalene sulfonate is a dispersant, it is well-known in the art of dispersants that naphthalene sulfonate functions as a dispersant.
In this combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Bose, a calcium salt of naphthalene sulfonate is used as a dispersant in the corrosion-inhibiting agent used in the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Bose. The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Bose does not recite that the naphthalene sulfonate is specifically isopropyl naphthalene sulfonate. In accordance with MPEP 2144.08, Obviousness of Species When Prior Art Teaches Genus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Bose such that the naphthalene sulfonate used as dispersant is isopropyl naphthalene sulfonate because the addition of an isopropyl group can be considered a small chemical modification that would not reasonably be expected to significantly alter the dispersant role of the naphthalene sulfonate. In this developed combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Bose, the calcium salt of isopropyl naphthalene sulfonate (of the corrosion-inhibiting agent) could be considered to correspond to the first and second organo sulfate compounds.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0106519 by Allred in view of U.S. 2023/0124266 by Vallavanatt in view of U.S. 2025/0011639 by Moloney in view of U.S. 2018/0291256 by Alwattari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 3,928,211 to Browning.
With regard to claim 8, in the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, the corrosion-inhibiting agent also comprises lignosulfonate as a dispersant (Par. 0053 of Moloney). The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari does not recite that the lignosulfonate is provided via a divalent cation.
Browning teaches that when attempting to provide lignosulfonate as a dispersant, it can successfully be provided in the form of a calcium salt (Col. 8, lines 15-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari by having the lignosulfonate dispersant of the corrosion-inhibiting agent provided as a calcium salt. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Browning, who teaches that when attempting to provide lignosulfonate as a dispersant, it can successfully be provided in the form of a calcium salt. In this developed combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Bose, the lignosulfonate calcium salt (of the corrosion-inhibiting agent) could be considered to correspond to the first and second organo sulfate compounds.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0106519 by Allred in view of U.S. 2023/0124266 by Vallavanatt in view of U.S. 2025/0011639 by Moloney in view of U.S. 2018/0291256 by Alwattari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2014/0166575 by Bose in view of U.S. 3,928,211 to Browning.
With regard to claim 9, in the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, corrosion-inhibiting agent comprises calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate. The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattar teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise “naphthalene sulfonic acid and derivatives” (Par. 0053 of Moloney) as a dispersant.
The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari does not recite that isopropyl naphthalene surfactant is an example of such “naphthalene sulfonic acid and derivatives”.
Bose teaches that a calcium salt of naphthalene sulfonate can be used an example of “dispersants or surfactants” (Par. 0065). Although Bose does not clarify if calcium salt of naphthalene sulfonate is a dispersant, it is well-known in the art of dispersants that naphthalene sulfonate functions as a dispersant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari such that a calcium salt of naphthalene sulfonate is used as a dispersant in the corrosion-inhibiting agent. The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattar teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise “naphthalene sulfonic acid and derivatives” (Par. 0053 of Moloney) as a dispersant, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Bose teaches that a calcium salt of naphthalene sulfonate can be used an example of “dispersants or surfactants” (Par. 0065). Although Bose does not clarify if calcium salt of naphthalene sulfonate is a dispersant, it is well-known in the art of dispersants that naphthalene sulfonate functions as a dispersant.
In this combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Bose, a calcium salt of naphthalene sulfonate is used as a dispersant in the corrosion-inhibiting agent used in the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Bose. The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Bose does not recite that the naphthalene sulfonate is specifically isopropyl naphthalene sulfonate. In accordance with MPEP 2144.08, Obviousness of Species When Prior Art Teaches Genus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Bose such that the naphthalene sulfonate used as dispersant is isopropyl naphthalene sulfonate because the addition of an isopropyl group can be considered a small chemical modification that would not reasonably be expected to significantly alter the dispersant role of the naphthalene sulfonate.
In the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Bose, the corrosion-inhibiting agent also comprises lignosulfonate as a dispersant (Par. 0053 of Moloney). The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Bose does not recite that the lignosulfonate is provided via a divalent cation.
Browning teaches that when attempting to provide lignosulfonate as a dispersant, it can successfully be provided in the form of a calcium salt (Col. 8, lines 15-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Bose by having the lignosulfonate dispersant of the corrosion-inhibiting agent provided as a calcium salt. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Browning, who teaches that when attempting to provide lignosulfonate as a dispersant, it can successfully be provided in the form of a calcium salt.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0106519 by Allred in view of U.S. 2023/0124266 by Vallavanatt in view of U.S. 2025/0011639 by Moloney in view of U.S. 2018/0291256 by Alwattari in view of U.S. 2021/0238469 by Barnes.
With regard to claim 15, Allred teaches a method for cleaning a pipeline of a cracking unit, wherein the method comprising introducing an cleaning composition into the pipeline, wherein the method comprises introducing the inhibition solution into the pipeline via a pig traveling at a velocity through the pipeline (Abstract; Par. 0017, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0050, 0052, 0053, 0056, 0058, 0060, 0065, and 0070, 0101, and 0103).
Allred does not teach that the pig is pushed through the pipeline with a displacement fluid. However, in the art of cleaning a pipeline with a pig, it is well-known that a pig can be successfully be pushed through a pipeline via a displacement fluid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred such that, when a pig is propelled through the pipeline, the propelling is achieved via displacement fluid pushing the rear of the pig. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of cleaning a pipeline with a pig, it is well-known that a pig can be successfully be pushed through a pipeline via a displacement fluid.
As discussed, Allred teaches using the pipeline-cleaning method in a cracking unit (Par. 0103 of Allred).
Allred does not recite that cracking can be performed via a coker furnace.
In the “Background” section of their document, Vallavanatt teaches that many refineries performing cracking via a coker furnace by passing an oil feed through a pipeline of the coker furnace (Par. 0003). Vallavanatt teaches that the interior of such an oil-handling pipeline is susceptible to contamination buildup over time (Par. 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred by deploying their pipeline-interior-cleaning technique on a pipeline used in a cracking process to carry feed oil in a coker furnace, wherein the pipeline is used to channel an oil feed (reads on coker feed) once the cleaning is completed. As discussed, Allred teaches using the pipeline-cleaning method in a cracking unit (Par. 0103 of Allred). Vallavanatt teaches that a pipeline used for channeling feed oil for cracking in a coker furnace can become contaminated, and motivation for performing the modification would be to use the cleaning technique of Allred to clean such a pipeline.
The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt, as developed thus far, does not teach introducing an organo sulfate compound with a divalent cation into the oil feed of the pipeline.
Moloney teaches that corrosion of oil-handling equipment can be advantageously prevented by injecting a corrosion-inhibiting agent into an oil feed upstream of said equipment, and Moloney teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise dodecyl benzene sulfonate diluted in a hydrocarbon solvent (Abstract; Par. 0006-0008, 0040, 0049, and 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt by introducing a corrosion-inhibiting agent as taught by Moloney into the oil feed of the pipeline of the cracking unit upstream of the cracking unit after pig-cleaning is performed, wherein the corrosion-inhibiting agent comprises dodecyl benzene sulfonate. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Moloney, who teaches that corrosion of oil-handling equipment can be advantageously prevented by injecting a corrosion-inhibiting agent into an oil feed upstream of said equipment, and Moloney teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise dodecyl benzene sulfonate.
Dodecyl benzene sulfonate is an anionic surfactant, and the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney is silent with regard to whether or not the dodecyl benzene sulfonate is provided with a monovalent (+1) cation or divalent (+2) cation. However, Alwattari teaches that dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant can successfully be provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (Par. 0160 and claim 75 of Alwattari). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney such that the dodecyl benzene sulfonate is provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Alwattari, who teaches that dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant can successfully be provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate.
In this developed combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, pig-cleaning is performed on a pipeline of a coker furnace, then the coker feed is introduced into the pipeline (such that cracking of the coker feed can occur), and corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced into the coker feed in order to limit corrosion of the pipeline. In the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate of the corrosion-inhibiting agent can be considered to read on applicant’s first organo suflate compound with a divalent cation. The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, as developed thus far, does not teach a step of introducing a second organo sulfate compound into the coker feed. However, in the art of pipeline maintenance, it is well-known to repeat a cleaning routine for a pipeline over the lifetime of the pipeline such that the pipeline can be maintained in a cleaner state over its lifetime. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari by – over the lifetime of the pipeline – repeating the steps of performing pig cleaning, coke-feed introducing after said pig cleaning, and introducing the corrosion-inhibiting agent into the coker feed. As discussed, in the art of pipeline maintenance, it is well-known to repeat a cleaning routine for a pipeline over the lifetime of the pipeline such that the pipeline can be maintained in a cleaner state over its lifetime. The motivation for repeating those steps would be allow pig-cleaning of the pipeline to be advantageously performed multiple times of the lifetime of the pipeline. In this modified method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, a step of introducing the corrosion-inhibiting agent into coker feed after a pig-cleaning step corresponds to applicant’s step of introducing inhibition combination comprising first organo sulfate compound, and a later step of introducing the corrosion-inhibiting agent into coker feed after a later iteration of pig cleaning corresponds to applicant’s step of introducing a second orgno sulfate compound into coker feed.
The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari does not teach that the introducing of the corrosion-inhibiting agent into coker feed involves introducing the corrosion-inhibiting agent in an intermittent fashion.
Barnes teaches that, when attempting to supply a corrosion inhibitor agent into a stream in a conduit, such supplying can successfully be performed by adding the corrosion inhibitor agent into the stream in an intermittent fashion (Abstract; claims 15 and 17 of Barnes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari such that, when the corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced into coker feed, the corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced in an intermittent manner. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Barnes, who teaches that, when attempting to supply a corrosion inhibitor agent into a stream in a conduit, such supplying can successfully be performed by adding the corrosion inhibitor agent into the stream in an intermittent fashion.
With regard to claim 16, the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Barnes teaches having the hydrocarbon solvent of the corrosion-inhibiting agent be diesel (Par. 0040 of Moloney). The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Barnes does not specify the dilution ratio of the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate to the diesel. However, Moloney is considered to teach that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate concentration is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that the dodecylbenzene sulfonate serves as a paraffin inhibitor (Par. 0049 of Moloney), and enough dodecylbenzene sulfonate needs to be provided in order to successfully perform the paraffin inhibitor role without being provided at a wastefully-high concentration. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Barnes such that the concentration of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate in the corrosion-inhibiting agent is optimized, as that concentration is considered to be a result-effective variable.
With regard to claim 17, the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Barnes teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise a alkaline pH modifier (Par. 0062 of Moloney), but the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Barnes doesn’t specify that the corrosion-inhibiting agent has a pH from about 7.1 to about 8.0. However, Moloney teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise an alkaline pH modifier (Par. 0062 of Moloney), Moloney is considered to teach that some pH values are more preferable than others. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Barnes such that the pH of the corrosion-inhibiting agent is optimized, as Moloney can be considered to teach that the pH is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that some pH values are more preferable than others.
With regard to claim 18, the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Barnes does not specify that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate in the corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced into the coker feed in a concentration of from about 25 ppm to about 250 ppm. However, Moloney is considered to teach that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate concentration is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that the dodecylbenzene sulfonate serves as a paraffin inhibitor (Par. 0049 of Moloney), and enough dodecylbenzene sulfonate needs to be provided in order to successfully perform the paraffin inhibitor role without being provided at a wastefully-high concentration. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Barnes such that the concentration of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate when introduced into the coker feed is optimized, as that concentration is considered to be a result-effective variable.
With regard to claim 19, the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Barnes does not specify that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate in the corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced into the coker feed in a concentration of from about 25 ppm to about 250 ppm. However, Moloney is considered to teach that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate concentration is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that the dodecylbenzene sulfonate serves as a paraffin inhibitor (Par. 0049 of Moloney), and enough dodecylbenzene sulfonate needs to be provided in order to successfully perform the paraffin inhibitor role without being provided at a wastefully-high concentration. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari in view of Barnes such that the concentration of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate when introduced into the coker feed is optimized, as that concentration is considered to be a result-effective variable.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0106519 by Allred in view of U.S. 2023/0124266 by Vallavanatt in view of U.S. 2025/0011639 by Moloney in view of U.S. 2018/0291256 by Alwattari in view of U.S. 2021/0238469 by Barnes.
With regard to claim 20, Allred teaches a method for cleaning a pipeline of a cracking unit, wherein the method comprising introducing an cleaning composition into the pipeline, wherein the method comprises introducing the inhibition solution into the pipeline via a pig traveling at a velocity through the pipeline (Abstract; Par. 0017, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0050, 0052, 0053, 0056, 0058, 0060, 0065, and 0070, 0101, and 0103).
Allred does not teach that the pig is pushed through the pipeline with a displacement fluid. However, in the art of cleaning a pipeline with a pig, it is well-known that a pig can be successfully be pushed through a pipeline via a displacement fluid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred such that, when a pig is propelled through the pipeline, the propelling is achieved via displacement fluid pushing the rear of the pig. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of cleaning a pipeline with a pig, it is well-known that a pig can be successfully be pushed through a pipeline via a displacement fluid.
As discussed, Allred teaches using the pipeline-cleaning method in a cracking unit (Par. 0103 of Allred).
Allred does not recite that cracking can be performed via a coker furnace.
In the “Background” section of their document, Vallavanatt teaches that many refineries performing cracking via a coker furnace by passing an oil feed through a pipeline of the coker furnace (Par. 0003). Vallavanatt teaches that the interior of such an oil-handling pipeline is susceptible to contamination buildup over time (Par. 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred by deploying their pipeline-interior-cleaning technique on a pipeline used in a cracking process to carry feed oil in a coker furnace, wherein the pipeline is used to channel an oil feed (reads on coker feed) once the cleaning is completed. As discussed, Allred teaches using the pipeline-cleaning method in a cracking unit (Par. 0103 of Allred). Vallavanatt teaches that a pipeline used for channeling feed oil for cracking in a coker furnace can become contaminated, and motivation for performing the modification would be to use the cleaning technique of Allred to clean such a pipeline.
The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt, as developed thus far, does not teach introducing an organo sulfate compound with a divalent cation into the oil feed of the pipeline.
Moloney teaches that corrosion of oil-handling equipment can be advantageously prevented by injecting a corrosion-inhibiting agent into an oil feed upstream of said equipment, and Moloney teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise dodecyl benzene sulfonate diluted in a hydrocarbon solvent (Abstract; Par. 0006-0008, 0040, 0049, and 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt by introducing a corrosion-inhibiting agent as taught by Moloney into the oil feed of the pipeline of the cracking unit upstream of the cracking unit after pig-cleaning is performed, wherein the corrosion-inhibiting agent comprises dodecyl benzene sulfonate. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Moloney, who teaches that corrosion of oil-handling equipment can be advantageously prevented by injecting a corrosion-inhibiting agent into an oil feed upstream of said equipment, and Moloney teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise dodecyl benzene sulfonate.
Dodecyl benzene sulfonate is an anionic surfactant, and the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney is silent with regard to whether or not the dodecyl benzene sulfonate is provided with a monovalent (+1) cation or divalent (+2) cation. However, Alwattari teaches that dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant can successfully be provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (Par. 0160 and claim 75 of Alwattari). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney such that the dodecyl benzene sulfonate is provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Alwattari, who teaches that dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant can successfully be provided via a +2 cation – namely, in the form of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate.
In this developed combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, pig-cleaning is performed on a pipeline of a coker furnace, then the coker feed is introduced into the pipeline (such that cracking of the coker feed can occur), and corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced into the coker feed in order to limit corrosion of the pipeline. In the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate of the corrosion-inhibiting agent can be considered to read on applicant’s first organo suflate compound with a divalent cation. The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, as developed thus far, does not teach a step of introducing a second organo sulfate compound into the coker feed. However, in the art of pipeline maintenance, it is well-known to repeat a cleaning routine for a pipeline over the lifetime of the pipeline such that the pipeline can be maintained in a cleaner state over its lifetime. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari by – over the lifetime of the pipeline – repeating the steps of performing pig cleaning, coke-feed introducing after said pig cleaning, and introducing the corrosion-inhibiting agent into the coker feed. As discussed, in the art of pipeline maintenance, it is well-known to repeat a cleaning routine for a pipeline over the lifetime of the pipeline such that the pipeline can be maintained in a cleaner state over its lifetime. The motivation for repeating those steps would be allow pig-cleaning of the pipeline to be advantageously performed multiple times of the lifetime of the pipeline. In this modified method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari, a step of introducing the corrosion-inhibiting agent into coker feed after a pig-cleaning step corresponds to applicant’s step of introducing inhibition combination comprising first organo sulfate compound, and a later step of introducing the corrosion-inhibiting agent into coker feed after a later iteration of pig cleaning corresponds to applicant’s step of introducing a second orgno sulfate compound into coker feed.
The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise an alkaline pH modifier (Par. 0062 of Moloney), but the combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari doesn’t specify that the corrosion-inhibiting agent has a pH from about 7.1 to about 8.0. However, Moloney teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting agent can comprise an alkaline pH modifier (Par. 0062 of Moloney), Moloney is considered to teach that some pH values are more preferable than others. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari such that the pH of the corrosion-inhibiting agent is optimized, as Moloney can be considered to teach that the pH is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that some pH values are more preferable than others.
The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari teaches having the hydrocarbon solvent of the corrosion-inhibiting agent be diesel (Par. 0040 of Moloney). The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari does not specify the dilution ratio of the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate to the diesel. However, Moloney is considered to teach that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate concentration is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that the dodecylbenzene sulfonate serves as a paraffin inhibitor (Par. 0049 of Moloney), and enough dodecylbenzene sulfonate needs to be provided in order to successfully perform the paraffin inhibitor role without being provided at a wastefully-high concentration. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari such that the concentration of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate in the corrosion-inhibiting agent is optimized, as that concentration is considered to be a result-effective variable.
The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari does not specify that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate in the corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced into the coker feed in a concentration of from about 25 ppm to about 250 ppm. However, Moloney is considered to teach that the calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate concentration is a result-effective variable because Moloney teaches that the dodecylbenzene sulfonate serves as a paraffin inhibitor (Par. 0049 of Moloney), and enough dodecylbenzene sulfonate needs to be provided into the feed in order to successfully perform the paraffin inhibitor role without being provided at a wastefully-high concentration. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari such that the concentration of calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate when introduced into the coker feed is optimized, as that concentration is considered to be a result-effective variable.
The combination of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari does not teach that the introducing of the corrosion-inhibiting agent into coker feed involves introducing the corrosion-inhibiting agent in an intermittent fashion.
Barnes teaches that, when attempting to supply a corrosion inhibitor agent into a stream in a conduit, such supplying can successfully be performed by adding the corrosion inhibitor agent into the stream in an intermittent fashion (Abstract; claims 15 and 17 of Barnes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Allred in view of Vallavanatt in view of Moloney in view of Alwattari such that, when the corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced into coker feed, the corrosion-inhibiting agent is introduced in an intermittent manner. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Barnes, who teaches that, when attempting to supply a corrosion inhibitor agent into a stream in a conduit, such supplying can successfully be performed by adding the corrosion inhibitor agent into the stream in an intermittent fashion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights