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 amendment and reply filed 7/30/2026.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 1-3 are modified in view of the claimed amendments but maintained and recited below. Objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (1) the art fails to teach partial upgrading at a temperature greater than 475 to up to 550 C in the absence of hydrogen.
Huq discloses ternal treatment from about 200 to about 475 C. Par. [0007]. “About 475 C” would include a temperature slightly above 475 and overlaps with “greater than 475 C,” which includes e.g. 475.5 C. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Huq also discloses embodiments where “no external source of hydrogen and no hydrogen transfer agent is added to the bitumen feedstock during the subjecting the bitumen feedstock to the thermal treatment.” Par. [0095].
Applicant Argues (2) the art fails to teach the upgraded bitumen including naphtha originating from the thermal upgrading step. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Huq discloses “the thermally treated light stream 90 from the separation step 81 can also be blended with the asphaltene-reduced stream 92 in the blending step 100 (not shown).” Par. [0185]. Thus, the thermally treated naphtha stream makes up a portion of the final upgraded bitumen.
Applicant Argues (3) the art fails to teach thermally treated naphtha being used as solvent. Applicant argues (i) Huq fails to disclose a solvent comprising naphtha separated from the residue fed to the deasphalting unit and (ii) Koseoglu, cited for such limitations, teaches naphtha from the residue as solvent but not thermally treated the crude oil first. Applicant argues that the cited art thus does not teach the compositional details of the deasphalting process or upgraded bitumen itself.
Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive. In response, Huq discloses the same thermal treatment, separation into upgraded light and residual fractions, deasphalting the residual fraction (absent solvent), and recombining deasphalted oil with light thermally treated fraction. With respect to the solvent, Koseoglu discloses wherein a crude oil is distilled to obtain a residual oil and light components including a naphtha fraction and intermediate fractions between naphtha and residual oil. The residual oil is subject to deasphalting using the naphtha separated from the residual oil in the upstream distillation step. The use of a naphtha separated from the residual oil has the benefits of at least (i) not needing an outside solvent and (ii) not requiring downstream separation and recycle because the combined feed may be treated together. The use of a naphtha range stream separated from the residual bitumen would provide the same benefits. Applicant’s argument regarding the composition of the naphtha from an unprocessed stream not being the same as naphtha distilled from the partially upgraded stream is not persuasive. While the overall composition of the whole bitumen is expected to change and some impurities removed, the naphtha stream would still be expected to perform in the same manner in deasphalting. Applicant has pointed to no evidence or argument to the contrary. Further, Koseoglu mentions using naphtha from downstream hydroprocessing units in addition to naphtha separated from the unprocessed crude.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huq (US 2018/0298289) in view of Koseoglu (US 11,130,920).
With respect to claim 1, Huq teaches process for upgrading bitumen using thermal treatment and deasphalting (abstract). The process includes providing a bitumen, performing thermal upgrading, separating thermally treated light stream from a residue stream, and deasphalting the residue to produce a deasphalted oil upgraded bitumen (e.g. Figure 9; 0007). “The deasphalting step 26 can include the addition of a deasphalting solvent (e.g., an alkane-based solvent such as propane, butane, pentane, hexane and heptane, or a combination thereof; branched hydrocarbons, such as isopentane; and hydrocarbons that include cyclic structures, such as cyclopentane and cyclohexane) to encourage precipitation of asphaltenes present in the thermally treated bitumen stream while a portion of the light and lighter fractions can dissolve therein, and allow for a selective separation of the components according to their solubility properties in order to reject heavier components such as asphaltenes.” Par. (0164). The process decreases bitumen viscosity and increase suitability for pipeline transportation (0002; throughout). Huq discloses blending the deasphalted oil with the thermally treated light stream from the upstream separation step (0185). Additional blending may occur to where needed to achieve predetermined pipeline or other end use requirements (0185).
Huq is silent regarding wherein the deasphalting steps utilizes a naphtha fraction recovered from the distillation of the thermally treated bitumen as the solvent or mixing the distillate/gas oil fraction separated from the original feed with the deasphalted oil forming a partially upgraded bitumen.
However, Koseoglu, directed to partially upgrading of whole crude oil to produce a synthetic crude oil, teaches performing an initial distillation to separate naphtha, distillates and residual fractions (col. 2, line 35+). Koseoglu teaches processing a whole crude oil comprising distillation or other series of separation steps to produce a naphtha stream, a distillate stream, and a residue stream (col. 8, lines 38+; Figure 1A). The residual stream is subjected to deasphalting using the naphtha separated from the residual stream in the prior distillation step (col. 9, lines 27+). The naphtha stream may be used with our without separation or hydroprocessing (col. 9, line 27+). The deasphalted oil may be combined with the middle distillates to form a combined synthetic crude oil stream (col. 10, line 37 to col. 11, line 4).
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Huq using naphtha separated from the feedstream as the deasphalting solvent and recombine with remaining the thermally treated distillate as disclosed in Koseoglu because both are directed to producing synthetic crude oil using distillation and residue deasphalting, Koseoglu teaches the benefits of no or minimized outside solvent requirements and that solvent separation from deasphalted oil is not required. It is obvious to combine process steps according to known methods to do no more than produce predictable results, here of deasphalting the residue and increasing the production of synthetic crude oil.
With respect to claim 2, Huq teaches wherein the thermal upgrading is performed at the following conditions: a residence time of up to 300 minutes (0014), which encompasses the claimed range of 10-120 minutes, and a pressure of 50-1500 psig (0007).
With respect to claim 3, Koseoglu teaches separating a naphtha range fraction which occurs at a cut point of less than 270C (see col. 6, line 58- col. 7, line 26 for disclosure of naphtha cut points) and an atmospheric or vacuum residue for deasphalting, which includes a cut point greater than 400˚C (see e.g. vacuum residue col 7 or table 3).
With respect to claim 4, Huq teaches wherein the upgrading may reduce or eliminate the need for added diluent to meet pipeline specification (0027), thus teaches wherein the partially upgraded bitumen meets pipeline specifications.
With respect to claim 5, Huq teaches wherein the product bitumen may meet pipeline specifications with or without diluent (0022). This includes the specification claimed of a viscosity of less than or equal to 350 cSt at pipeline temperature, a density of less than or equal to 940 kg/m3, an API gravity greater than or equal to 19, a base sediment and water content of less than 0.5 vol.%, and an olefin content of less than 1 wt.%. The product resulting from the combination of Huq in view of Koseoglu will include distillates in the synthetic crude oil which would be expected to further bring the properties of the crude in line with the pipeline specification.
With respect to claim 6, Huq teaches an example wherein 4% diluent were to be added to a thermally treated and deasphalted bitumen (0198). Huq teaches blending with diluent is optional (i.e. 0%) and may occur to where needed to achieve predetermined pipeline or other end use requirements (0185).
With respect to claim 9, Koseoglu teaches wherein “[t]he solvent composition, operating temperature and solvent-to-oil ratio are selected to achieve the desired split between the lighter DAO and heavy asphaltenes products” (col. 1). The temperature and pressure are typically maintained to operate in liquid phase (col. 28), which includes the temperature and pressure claimed. The ratio of naphtha to residue is 2:1 to 1:30 (col. 31).
With respect to claim 10, Huq in view of Koseoglu teach the claim limitations discussed above. Huq teaches wherein the bitumen may be conditioned (0178), may include light fraction or diluent (0008; 0017), i.e. dilbit, or may be diluent-depleted bitumen in which light components have been removed (0082). After thermal treatment the lighter fraction may be removed, i.e. separating the light stream into diluent and second light stream. The thermally upgraded light stream may be blended with the deasphalted oil.
Koseoglu teaches using naphtha derived from the residual stream with or without separation of light components and with or without first hydroprocessing, such as desulfurization as the solvent for deasphalting. Koseoglu also discloses sending a portion of the crude or deasphalted oil to hydroprocessing, separating naphtha 114 from the hydroprocessed effluent and recycling for use as solvent (col. 9).
Huq appears to teach using diluted bitumen as the selected bitumen feedstock. Alternatively, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feedstock of Huq to include dilbit because Huq teaches using bitumen feedstocks which may include light components and teaches using mixtures of hydrocarbon feedstream and dilbit is a mixture of bitumen with hydrocarbon.
With respect to the separation of diluent from the naphtha prior to hydroprocessing and use as a deasphalting solvent, Koseoglu teaches optional separation and hydroprocessing of the light fraction from the distillation column prior to use as a solvent in deasphalting. Where the light fraction from the distillation column includes diluent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined process to separate the diluent from the naphtha prior to use of the naphtha as the deasphalting solvent because Koseoglu teaches optional separation to recover naphtha for use as the solvent and also hydrotreating a mixed feed 108 and separating naphtha from the mixed stream for use in deasphalting, separating diluent allows obtaining the desired naphtha and desired solvent properties, the dilbit solvent could be recycled for reuse if separated and recovered, and it is obvious to combine process steps according to known methods to do no more than produce predictable results, here removal of solvent from a hydrocarbon stream is known and such would provide predictable results of isolating the naphtha for use in solvent deasphalting.
With respect to claim 11, Huq teaches wherein the thermal upgrading is performed at the following conditions: a residence time of up to 300 minutes (0014), which encompasses the claimed range of 10-120 minutes, and a pressure of 50-1500 psig (0007).
With respect to claim 14, Koseoglu teaches deasphalting with the naphtha from the original feed alone or with an additional external solvent (col. 12, lines 34-41).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huq and Koseoglu as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Corscadden (CA 3030277 2020/07/15).
With respect to claims 7 and 12, the art teaches the limitations as discussed above, including separating a high carbon pitch fraction from the deasphalting unit. Huq and Koseoglu are silent regarding converting the high-carbon pitch to a carbon product.
Corscadden is directed to a process for simultaneously producing higher value pipeline crudes and carbon products from a heavy crude feedstock (page 34) such as bitumen (page 35). Corscadden teaches supplying a bitumen feed to a thermal treatment unit 30, recovering a light and a heavy effluent, and subjecting the heavy effluent to deasphalting producing deasphalted oil and asphalt (figure 1; page 4, lines 5+). The asphalt may be treated to produce a carbon fiber product (page 6, lines 1-15). The deasphalted oil is mixed with the lighter hydrocarbon condensed, forming a pipeable crude oil.
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the asphalt of Huq in view of Koseoglu by further treating to produce a carbon fiber product as taught in Corscadden because both are directed to processes for upgrading heavy hydrocarbon or bitumen for producing pipeable crude and asphalt by product, Corscadden teaches using the asphalt to produce a carbon fiber product, and it is a prima facie case of obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With respect to claims 8 and 13, Corscadden teaches producing carbon fiber from the asphalt (page 6, line 15).
Additional Art Made of Record
US 4201659 discloses thermally cracking an asphaltenes-containing oil at a temperature from about 400 to 500 C, separating the effluent in a series of separation steps to obtain at least a light fraction, a heavy fraction, and residual fraction. The residual fraction is subject to deasphalting and the deasphalted oil combined with previously separated light fractions for further upgrading. Col. 2; Figure.
US 2019003990 discloses “a feedstock 12 of heavy hydrocarbon . . . is routed to a reactor 30 where the process fluid 14 is controlled and maintained while it undergoes a mild controlled cracking process. After the mild cracking process, a light top fraction [is separated from] a heavy bottom fraction 34.” Par. [0023]. The heavy bottom fraction is routed to a high performance solvent extraction process 50 and then deasphalted oil blended with a portion of the top light fraction, producing “a hydrocarbon product 60 that has sufficient physical characteristics to enable it to meet the required pipeline transport criteria without having to mix the final hydrocarbon product 60 with diluents from external sources, or requiring much reduced volumes of such diluent.” Par. [0023]. The feedstock may include Canadian Oil sands bitumen. Par. [0024]. The reactor temperature is between 675-775° F. Par. [0031].
US 2014/0262937 discloses subjecting bitumen to distillation to produce a number of fractions, subjecting the residual oil fraction to solvent deasphalting with naphtha derived from the bitumen in downstream upgrading process.
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 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
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
