DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18856430 filed 10/11/24.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 9/16/25 and 10/11/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 10/11/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOEHN ET AL. (US PG PUB 20190031965) in its entirety. Hereby referred to as HOEHN.
Regarding claims 1-15:
HOEHN teaches in para [0021] In FIG. 1, the apparatus and process 10 comprise a hydroprocessing unit for hydrotreating a hydrocarbon resid stream which includes a hydroprocessing unit 12, a separation section 14, a fractionation section 16 and a hydrogen recovery section 18. [0022] A hydrocarbon resid stream in resid line 20 and a hydrogen stream in a hydrogen line 22 are fed to the hydroprocessing unit 12. A stream of water in water feed line 24 may also delivered to the hydroprocessing unit 12.
HOEHN teaches in para [0031] The first hydroprocessing unit 12 may also comprise three more hydroprocessing reactors 36, 38, 40 comprising three desulfurization reactors including a first desulfurization reactor 36, a second desulfurization reactor 38 and a third desulfurization reactor 40. More or less desulfurization reactors may be used, and each desulfurization reactor 36, 38 and 40 may comprise a part of a desulfurization reactor or comprise one or more desulfurization reactors. Each desulfurization reactor 36, 38 and 40 may comprise part of a catalyst bed or one or more catalyst beds in one or more desulfurization reactor vessels. In FIG. 1, the three desulfurization reactors 36, 38 and 40 each comprise a single bed of hydrodesulfurization (HDS) catalyst.
HOEHN teaches in para [0032] A demetallized stream exits the third demetallization reactor 34 with a reduced concentration of metals, sulfur and nitrogen relative to the resid stream in line 20 and is fed to the a first desulfurization reactor 36, a second desulfurization reactor 38 and a third desulfurization reactor 40 which may include a HDS catalyst. The HDS catalyst may comprise nickel or cobalt and molybdenum on gamma alumina to convert organic sulfur to hydrogen sulfide. The HDS catalyst may have a monomodal distribution of mesoporous pore sizes with at least 50% of the pores on the catalyst particle being in the range of 10-50 nm. The first desulfurization reactor 36, the second desulfurization reactor 38 and the third desulfurization reactor 40 may be operated in series with the effluent from the first desulfurization reactor 36 cascading into an inlet of the second desulfurization reactor 38 and the effluent of the second desulfurization reactor cascading into an inlet of the third desulfurization reactor 40. The first desulfurization reactor 36, the second desulfurization reactor 38 and the third desulfurization reactor 40 desulfurize the demetallized resid feed to reduce the sulfur concentration in the demetallized resid stream by about 40 to about 100 wt % and typically about 65 to about 95 wt % to produce a hydroprocessed resid stream exiting the third desulfurization reactor 40 of the hydroprocessing unit 12 in a hydroprocessed resid effluent line 42. The bulk of the desulfurization may occur in first demetallation reactor 30, the second demetallation reactor 32 and the third demetallation reactor 34.
HOEHN teaches in para [0034] The hydroprocessed resid stream may exit the last desulfurization reactor 40 of the hydroprocessing unit 12 in the hydroprocessed resid effluent line 42, be cooled by heat exchange with the resid feed stream in line 26 and enter the separation section 14 comprising a hot separator 50. The separation section 14 comprises one or more separators in downstream communication with the hydroprocessing unit 12 including the hot separator 50. The hydroprocessed resid effluent line 42 delivers a cooled hydroprocessed resid effluent stream to the hot separator 50. Accordingly, the hot separator 50 is in downstream communication with a hydroprocessing reactor comprising the first demetallation reactor 30, the second demetallation reactor 32, the third demetallation reactor 34, the first desulfurization reactor 36, the second desulfurization reactor 38 and the third desulfurization reactor 40 in the hydroprocessing unit 12.
HOEHN teaches in para [0035] The hot separator 50 separates the hydroprocessed resid effluent stream to provide a hydrocarbonaceous, hot vapor stream in a hot overhead line 52 and a hydrocarbonaceous, hot liquid stream in a hot bottoms line 54. The hot separator 50 may operate at about 177° C. (350° F.) to about 385° C. (725° F.) and preferably operates at about 232° C. (450° F.) to about 315° C. (600° F.). The hot separator 50 may be operated at a slightly lower pressure than the last desulfurization reactor 40 accounting for pressure drop through intervening equipment. The hot separator 50 may be operated at pressures between about 3.4 MPa (gauge) (493 psig) and about 20.4 MPa (gauge) (2959 psig). The hydrocarbonaceous, hot vapor stream in the hot overhead line 52 may have a temperature of the operating temperature of the hot separator 50. The hot liquid stream in the hot bottoms line 54 may be fed to a hot flash drum 72.
HOEHN teaches in para [0036] The hot vapor stream in the first hot overhead line 52 may be cooled in a cooler 53 before entering a cold separator 56. The cold separator 56 may be in downstream communication with the hot overhead line 52. Accordingly, the cold separator 56 is in downstream communication with a hydroprocessing reactor comprising the first demetallation reactor 30, the second demetallation reactor 32, the third demetallation reactor 34, the first desulfurization reactor 36, the second desulfurization reactor 38 and the third desulfurization reactor 40 in the hydroprocessing unit 12.
HOEHN teaches in para [0037] As a consequence of the reactions taking place in the hydroprocessing unit 12 wherein nitrogen, chlorine and sulfur are reacted from the feed, ammonia, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen sulfide are formed. The hot separator 50 removes a predominant portion of the hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen chloride and ammonia from the hot liquid stream in the hot bottoms line 54 into the hot vapor stream in the hot overhead line 52. At a characteristic sublimation temperature, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide will combine to form ammonium bisulfide and ammonia, and hydrogen chloride will combine to form ammonium chloride. Each compound has a characteristic sublimation temperature that may allow the compound to coat equipment, particularly heat exchange equipment, impairing its performance. To prevent such deposition of ammonium bisulfide or ammonium chloride salts in the hot overhead line 52 transporting the first stage vapor stream, a suitable amount of wash water may be introduced into the hot overhead line 52 by a first water wash line 51.
HOEHN teaches in para [0038] The cooled hot vapor stream may be separated in the cold separator 56 to provide a cold vapor stream comprising a hydrogen-rich gas stream including ammonia, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen sulfide and methane in a cold overhead line 58 and a cold liquid stream in a cold bottoms line 60. The cold separator 56 serves to separate hydrogen rich gas from hydrocarbon liquid in the hot vapor stream which is heavily laden with methane, thus making it unsuitable for recycle to the hydroprocessing unit 12 without purging to avoid methane accumulation. The cold separator 46 may be operated at about 100° F. (38° C.) to about 150° F. (66° C.), suitably about 115° F. (46° C.) to about 145° F. (63° C.), and just below the pressure of the last hydroprocessing reactor 40 and the hot separator 50 accounting for pressure drop through intervening equipment to keep hydrogen and light gases in the overhead and normally liquid hydrocarbons in the bottoms. The cold separator 56 may be operated at pressures between about 3 MPa (gauge) (435 psig) and about 20 MPa (gauge) (2,901 psig). The cold separator 56 may also have a boot for collecting an aqueous phase. The cold liquid stream in the cold bottoms line 60 may have a temperature of the operating temperature of the cold separator 56. The cold liquid stream in the cold bottoms line 60 may be delivered to a cold flash drum 78, in an embodiment after mixing with a hot flash vapor stream in a in a hot flash overhead line 74. The cold flash drum 78 may be in downstream communication with the cold bottoms line 60 of the cold separator 56.
From the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process by varying the claimed ranges; however, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary. Especially, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Moreover, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
Still, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Additionally, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights