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 application filed 10/30/2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
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) 1-3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2018/0291288).
With respect to claim 1, Brown teaches a process comprising the steps of:
(a) deasphalting the residual hydrocarbonaceous feedstock to obtain a deasphalted product and an asphalt product (0081);
(b) coker gas oil 176, or coker gas oil and slurry oil (0096; 0112; 0077), can be added to the deasphalted oil 145 for further treatment in hydroprocessing unit 150 (0035);
(c) a feed can initially be exposed to a demetallization catalyst prior to exposing the feed to a hydrotreating catalyst (0116; 0110);
(d) hydrotreating at least part of the hydrodemetallized product from step (c) to produce a hydrotreated product (0107; 0110);
(e) hydrocracking at least part of the hydrotreated product from step (d) to produce a hydrocracked product (0107; 0110); and
(f) subjecting at least part of the hydrocracked product from step (e) to a separation treatment to produce e.g. diesel or low sulfur fuel oil (0115) (i.e. at least a middle distillate fraction).
Regarding wherein the hydrogen deficient feedstock has a hydrogen (H) content of at least 6 wt% to at most 11.3 wt%, Brown teaches wherein the catalytic slurry oils can have . . . hydrogen contents of less than 8.5 wt %, or less than 7.5 wt %, or less than 7.0 wt % (0138). Thus, where catalytic slurry oil is mixed with the deasphalted oil, the hydrogen deficient feedstock has a hydrogen content in a range overlapping that claimed. Additionally, while Brown is silent regarding the specific hydrogen content of the coker gas oil, it is known that such is a hydrogen deficient stream.
Regarding wherein at least 50 wt% of the deasphalted oil product has a boiling point above 550 °C, Brown teaches the disclosed solvent deasphalting conditions represent a general range, and the conditions will vary depending on the feed (0093). In one example, the deasphalted oil has a T50 distillation point of 566° C or less (0171; claim 18), which falls within the claimed range.
With respect to claim 2, Brown teaches wherein up to about 90 wt % of the feedstock to deasphalting can correspond to vacuum resid (0074), indicating at least 10% corresponds to the amount of hydrogen deficient feedstock, which overlaps the claimed range of up to about 50 wt% of the mixed deasphalted product.
With respect to claim 3, Brown teaches adding the same hydrogen deficient feeds to the deasphalted oil in ranges overlapping those claimed. Where the deficient feed in a range of at least 10% is added, it is expected that the mixed deasphalted product has a hydrogen content less than at least 0.1 wt% of the deasphalted product via the addition of the hydrogen deficient feedstock.
With respect to claim 5, Brown teaches wherein at least a portion of the coker heavy liquids can be combined with a catalytic slurry oil (i.e. slurry oil from FCC unit) and/or a vacuum resid fraction for use as a feed to a hydrotreater (or another hydroprocessing unit) (0096; 0077).
With respect to claim 7, Brown teaches wherein the liquid hydroprocessed effluent, which includes the middle distillate fraction, may include sulfur down to 0 ppmw (0111). Additionally, Brown teaches wherein the products may be used as low sulfur or ultra-low sulfur middle distillates (e.g. fuel oil or diesel) (0115). Ultra-low sulfur diesel may have a sulfur content of less than 15 or less than 10 ppm (0042).
With respect to claim 8, Brown teaches wherein “[t]he reaction conditions during demetallization and/or hydrotreatment and/or hydrocracking of the deasphalted oil can be selected to generate a desired level of conversion of a feed. . . . Suitable amounts of conversion of molecules boiling above 1050° F (566° C) to molecules boiling below 566° C include e.g. 30-100%” (0110). Thus, where gas oil fraction with a boiling point of 371C is withdrawn and unconverted oil is set at 566C, the separation treatment in step (f) produces a heavy residual fraction of which 80 wt% has a boiling point above 370 °C.
With respect to claim 10, Brown teaches wherein the rock fraction (i.e. the asphaltic product in step (a)) can also be used as feed to gasification processes such as partial oxidation, fluid bed combustion or coking processes (0081). “The coke is then passed to the gasifier where it reacts, at elevated temperatures, with air and steam to form a mixture of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, nitrogen, water vapor, and hydrogen sulfide” (0098).
Claim(s) 4, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 above, further in view of Kiiski (US 20230134111).
With respect to claims 4 and 6, Brown teaches the limitations as discussed above. Brown is silent regarding wherein at least a portion of the hydrogen deficient feedstock includes a portion of renewable origin, such as tall oil pitch.
Kiiski, directed to the design of a process for preparing aviation fuel components, teaches subjecting a feedstock from fossil fuel together with a secondary feedstock of biological origin to hydrotreating reactions followed by hydrocracking (abstract; 0035-0048). The secondary feedstock may include tall oil pitch. The fossil fuel feedstocks exemplified includes light, full and heavy cut gas oils or vacuum gas oils (0030), which overlaps in boiling range with the deasphalted oils. Kiiski teaches wherein the fossil fuel feedstock makes up 75-95% by and the second feedstock 5-25% by weight (0011).
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 feed to the hydroprocessing reactors of Brown by adding a renewable feed such as tall oil as taught in Kiiski because both are directed to the production of distillate fuels using hydrotreating and hydrocracking of residual feeds, adding a renewable feed provides the benefit of allowing sustainable fuel production, allowing for feed flexibility, and allowing production of renewable fuels in existing traditional fossil fuel refining facilities, and given it is known in the art to process tall oil with traditional fossil fuels boiling in overlapping ranges and properties, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine a renewable fuel with the deasphalted oil, optionally with the heavy coker oil, to obtain the predictable result of production of fuel products.
With respect to claim 9, it is well known that hydrocracking produces some amount of fuel gas products. Brown teaches producing a light ends fraction 452 (0152, Figure 1). Where the feed to the cracking reactor includes renewable origin, the fuel gas produced will also have a portion of renewable origin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights