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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-20, drawn to a method for producing olefins, classified in C10G69/06.
II. Claims 21 and 22, drawn to a system for producing olefins, classified in B01J19/0006.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the method as claimed can be practiced in another and materially different apparatus, such as an apparatus without an aromatics conversion unit.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Aron Griffith on 29 May 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 21 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites in line 5 “the range”. This should be “a range” for antecedent basis purposes.
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 1-19 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.
With regard to claim 1, the preamble recites “a process for converting whole crudes and other wide boiling hydrocarbon mixtures”. However, the steps of the process do not specify that a whole crude is used, only using the phrase “wide boiling hydrocarbon mixture”. Thus, it is unclear if the process is used to convert whole crudes at all.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that “whole crude” is a specific example of a “wide boiling hydrocarbon mixture” as claimed in the first step (instant specification paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). The Examiner suggests that the preamble be amended to recite “a process for converting wide boiling hydrocarbon mixtures” as the term “wide boiling hydrocarbon mixture” is inclusive of the term “whole crude” according to the specification.
Also with regard to claim 1, the claim recites in line 6 “the light portion”. However, the step only specifies a “low boiling portion” and “liquid potion” prior to that line. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that “the light portion” is meant to be the same fraction as the “low boiling portion”. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 2, the claim recites “the remaining liquid portion”. However, claim 1 only uses the term “liquid portion”. It is unclear if the “remaining liquid portion” is the same fraction as the “liquid portion” of claim 1, because the term “remaining liquid portion” implies that it contains all the hydrocarbons left after separation of the low boiling portion and one or more medium boiling portions, but the phrase “liquid portion” in claim 1 is not limited in such a way. Thus, the phrase “the remaining liquid portion” lacks antecedent basis.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that claim 2 is intended to further limit the liquid portion by specifying that the liquid portion is what remains after the other fractions have been taken off (instant specification paragraph [0004]). Appropriate clarification and amendment are respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 3-19, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Ghamdi (US 2018/0142166) as evidenced by ECHACHEM (Naphtha, full range straight run) and in view of Koseoglu et al. (US 2021/0246389) and Conant et al. (US 2022/0135497, cited on IDS of 01/28/2025).
With regard to claim 1, Al-Ghamdi teaches a process for conversion of crude oil (paragraph [0002]) comprising the following steps (see Figures 1 and 2 and corresponding paragraphs [0075]-[0097]):
a) separating a crude oil feed 102 (claimed wide boiling hydrocarbon mixture) into a naphtha stream 136 (claimed low boiling portion) and a liquid stream 114 (claimed liquid portion) (paragraphs [0078] and [0085]). The naphtha stream is a straight run naphtha stream (paragraph [0079]) which has a boiling end point around 220°C (ECHACHEM first page), which is within the range of about 150 to 550°C of instant claim 1. The stream 126 is a third middle distillate stream which is atmospheric gas oil, which contains heavier hydrocarbons than the naphtha (claimed end boiling point greater than the end boiling point of the light portion) (paragraph [0080]).
b) steam cracking (thermally cracking) the naphtha stream 136 in unit 230 to produce streams comprising ethylene 202 and propylene 204 (claimed one or more light olefin fractions), a pyrolysis gasoline fraction 212, and a pyrolysis oil stream 218 (paragraph [0090]). Al-Ghamdi further teaches that the pyrolysis oil stream 218 can be fractionated into light pyrolysis oil (claimed pyrolysis oil fraction) and heavy pyrolysis oil, where the heavy pyrolysis oil is blended with the fuel oil pool (claimed fuel oil fraction) (paragraph [0097]).
c) hydrogenating the pyrolysis gasoline fraction 212 in unit 600 to obtain a C5 raffinate stream 606 (claimed C5- fraction) and a heavy aromatics C10-C12 stream 642 (C9+ stream) (paragraph [0096]). Al-Ghamdi further teaches the remaining hydrotreated stream is passed to an aromatics extraction zone to obtain a stream comprising C6-C8 aromatics 622 (claimed C6-C8 fraction) (paragraphs [0095]-[0096]).
d) passing the light pyrolysis oil (claimed pyrolysis oil fraction) to a vacuum gas oil hydrocracking zone 320 (paragraph [0097]) to obtain a hydrocracked naphtha fraction 326 (claimed light boiling fraction), a diesel fuel fraction 322 (claimed medium boiling fraction), and an unconverted oil fraction 324 (claimed high boiling fraction) (paragraph [0086]).
e) passing the C5 raffinate 606 (claimed C5- fraction), hydrocracked naphtha fraction 326 (claimed light boiling fraction), and unconverted oil fraction 324 (claimed high boiling fraction) to the steam cracking unit 230 (paragraphs [0086] and [0096]). From the steam cracking unit 230 the ethylene 202 and propylene 204 (claimed one or more light olefin fractions), a pyrolysis gasoline fraction 212, and a pyrolysis oil stream 218 are obtained, as explained above. Thus, the effluents are all collectively separated, as claimed, because they are all produced in the unit 230.
Al-Ghamdi does not specifically teach i) that the naphtha stream is vaporized when obtained; ii) that the C9+ stream from the pyrolysis hydrogenation unit is hydrocracked with the pyrolysis oil; or iii) that the diesel (medium boiling fraction) is steam cracked after being obtained in the hydrocracker.
With regard to i), Al-Ghamdi does not specify whether the naphtha stream is liquid or vapor. However, the state of the naphtha stream when obtained from the separator is merely a design choice from a finite list of options, which are that the naphtha is vapor or liquid. One of ordinary skill in the art is capable of adjusting the conditions in the separator to obtain a vapor naphtha stream, as claimed, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success because distillation is a well-understood art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain the naphtha stream in vapor form, as claimed, by adjusting the conditions of the separator to obtain the vapor stream, because this is a selection from a finite list of options and can be obtained without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to ii), Al-Ghamdi teaches that the heavy stream 642 (claimed C9+ stream) is not further used within the process (paragraph [0096]).
Conant teaches a process for producing hydrocarbons (paragraph [0002]). Conant teaches that the process comprises separating a hydrocarbon mixture into a C5- stream, a C6-C8 stream, and a C9+ stream (paragraph [0006]), and then sending the C9+ stream to hydrocracking (paragraph [0038]). Conant further teaches that the hydrocracking of the C9+ provides hydrocarbons which are used as fuel in other processing units, such as a naphtha cracking furnace and also produces desirable C8-C8 hydrocarbons (paragraph [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of hydrocracking the C9+ stream with the pyrolysis oil of Al-Ghamdi as taught by Conant, because each of Al-Ghamdi and Conant teach hydrocracking hydrocarbon streams to produce additional hydrocarbons, Al-Ghamdi does not teach a use of the C9+ stream within the process, and Conant teaches that a C9+ stream can be hydrocracked to produce fuel for the naphtha cracking as well as additional desirable C6-C8 hydrocarbons (paragraph [0041]) thus producing additional value within the process.
With regard to iii), Al-Ghamdi teaches obtaining the fraction 322 (claimed medium boiling fraction) as diesel fuel (paragraph [0086]).
Koseoglu teaches obtaining a middle distillate fraction from hydrocracking and passing the middle distillate fraction to the steam cracking zone as feed (paragraph [0008]). Koseoglu further teaches that the process results in increased production of steam cracking products including ethylene, propylene, and other valuable petrochemical products (paragraph [0275]) as an alternative to obtaining diesel fuel (paragraph [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of steam cracking the middle distillate diesel product 322 of Al-Ghamdi instead of obtaining as a fuel, because Al-Ghamdi and Koseoglu each teach obtaining a hydrocracked middle distillate product, and Koseoglu teaches that steam cracking the middle distillate product is an alternative to obtaining the product as fuel, where the steam cracking can provide an increased production of ethylene, propylene, and other valuable petrochemical products (paragraphs [0076] and [0275]).
With regard to claim 2, Al-Ghamdi further teaches obtaining middle distillate fraction 126 (claimed one or more medium boiling portion) (paragraph [0080]).
With regard to claim 3, Al-Ghamdi teaches passing the middle distillate fraction 126 to the steam cracking unit 230 (Figure 2).
With regard to claims 8 and 9, Al-Ghamdi teaches the aromatics extraction unit 620 takes the stream comprising C6-C8 aromatics and produces an aromatic stream 622 and a C-C8 containing non-aromatics stream 646, where the stream 646 is routed to the steam cracking zone 230 (paragraph [0096]).
Claims 4-7 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Ghamdi (US 2018/0142166) as evidenced by ECHACHEM (Naphtha, full range straight run) and in view of Koseoglu et al. (US 2021/0246389) and Conant et al. (US 2022/0135497, cited on IDS of 01/28/2025) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Bafna et al. (US 2019/0055483, cited on IDS of 01/28/2025).
With regard to claims 4-7 and 10-13, Al-Ghamdi teaches the method above, where the C6-C8 fraction is subjected to aromatic extraction to obtain aromatics stream 622 (paragraph [0096]).
Al-Ghamdi fails to teach saturation of aromatics in the C6-C8 fraction to produce cycloalkanes and paraffins followed by steam cracking.
Bafna teaches a method for increasing olefin production (paragraph [0082]), where the method comprises the following steps:
a) providing a hydrotreated pyrolysis gasoline stream comprising C6+ hydrocarbons including aromatics (paragraph [0127]),
b) extracting the aromatics from the stream to produce an aromatic stream and a raffinate stream (paragraph [0037]),
c) splitting the hydrotreated stream to obtain C6, C7, and C8 aromatics and then combining at least a portion of the C6, C7, and C8 aromatics (paragraph [0037]),
d) saturating the combined C6, C7, and C8 aromatic stream hydrocarbon stream to produce a first naphthene (claimed cycloalkane) stream (instant claims 4, 6, 10, and 12) (paragraph [0037]), and
e) passing the naphthene stream to a steam cracker to produce olefins (instant claims 5, 7, 11, and 13) (paragraphs [0037] and [0083]).
Bafna further teaches that the process increases olefin production from aromatic rich streams (paragraph [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to pass the aromatic extracted stream 622 to the saturation as taught by Bafna, because each of Al-Ghamdi and Bafna teach producing a hydrotreated pyrolysis gasoline comprising C6-C8 aromatics and extracting the aromatics, and Bafna teaches that saturating at least a portion of the aromatics and then steam cracking the resulting product increases olefin production from aromatic rich streams (paragraph [0002]).
With regard to claims 14-19, Al-Ghamdi teaches the method above, where the C6-C8 fraction is subjected to aromatic extraction to obtain aromatics stream 622 (paragraph [0096]).
Al-Ghamdi fails to teach dealkylation to obtain a benzene fraction and a paraffin faction, followed by saturation of the benzene fraction and steam cracking of both the saturated and paraffin fractions.
Bafna teaches a method for increasing olefin production (paragraph [0082]), where the method comprises the following steps:
a) providing a portion of the hydrotreated pyrolysis gasoline comprising C7+ aromatics,
b) dealkylating the portion to obtain additional benzene (instant claim 14) (paragraphs [0128]-[0129]),
c) extracting the aromatics from a hydrotreated pyrolysis gasoline stream to produce an aromatic stream and a raffinate (claimed paraffin) stream (instant claim 14) (paragraph [0037]),
d) splitting the hydrotreated stream to obtain C6, C7, and C8 aromatics and then combining at least a portion of the C6, C7, and C8 aromatics (paragraph [0037]),
e) saturating the combined C6, C7, and C8 aromatic stream hydrocarbon stream to produce a first naphthene (claimed cycloalkane) stream (instant claims 16 and 18) (paragraph [0037]), and
f) passing the first naphthene stream (instant claims 17 and 19) and the raffinate stream (instant claim 15) to a steam cracker to produce olefins (paragraphs [0037] and [0083]).
Bafna further teaches that the process increases olefin production from aromatic rich streams (paragraph [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to dealkylate the hydrotreated pyrolysis stream, extract aromatics, pass the extracted aromatics to the saturation, and crack the saturated and raffinate streams as taught by Bafna, because each of Al-Ghamdi and Bafna teach producing a hydrotreated pyrolysis gasoline comprising C6-C8 aromatics and extracting the aromatics, and Bafna teaches that dealkylating produces additional benzene and that saturating at least a C6 portion of the aromatics and then steam cracking the resulting product increases olefin production from aromatic rich streams (paragraph [0002]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Ghamdi (US 2018/0142166) in view of Conant et al. (US 2022/0135497, cited on IDS of 01/28/2025).
With regard to claim 20, Al-Ghamdi teaches a process for conversion of crude oil (paragraph [0002]) comprising the following steps (see Figures 1 and 2 and corresponding paragraphs [0075]-[0097]):
a) separating a whole crude oil feed 102 (paragraph [0028]) (claimed wide boiling hydrocarbon mixture) into a naphtha stream 136 (claimed light cut) and a stream 126 (claimed heavy cut) (paragraphs [0078] and [0085]).
b) hydrogenating a pyrolysis gasoline fraction 212 in unit 600 to obtain C5 raffinate stream 606 (claimed C5- stream) and a heavy aromatics C10-C12 stream 642 (claimed C9+ fraction) (paragraph [0096]). Al-Ghamdi further teaches the remaining hydrotreated stream (claimed C6-C8 stream) is passed to an aromatics extraction zone to obtain a non-aromatic stream 646 (claimed non-aromatic hydrocarbon stream) (paragraphs [0095]-[0096]).
c) passing a light pyrolysis oil and stream 126 (heavy cut) to a vacuum gas oil hydrocracking zone 320 (paragraph [0097]) to obtain a hydrocracked naphtha fraction 326 (claimed hydrocracked effluent) paragraph [0086]).
d) steam cracking (thermally cracking) the naphtha stream 326 (claimed hydrocracked effluent), the non-aromatic stream 646, the C5 raffinate 606 (claimed C5- fraction), and the naphtha fraction 136 (claimed light cut) to the steam cracking unit 230 (paragraphs [0079], [0086], and [0096]).
e) separating the steam cracker product into ethylene 202 and propylene 204 (claimed one or more olefin fractions), the pyrolysis gasoline fraction 212, and a pyrolysis oil stream 218 (paragraph [0090]). Al-Ghamdi further teaches that the pyrolysis oil stream 218 can be fractionated (not shown) into the light pyrolysis oil (claimed pyrolysis oil fraction) (paragraph [0097]).
Al-Ghamdi teaches that the heavy stream 642 (claimed C9+ stream) is not further used within the process (paragraph [0096]).
Al-Ghamdi does not teach that the C9+ stream from the pyrolysis hydrogenation unit is hydrocracked with the pyrolysis oil.
Conant teaches a process for producing hydrocarbons (paragraph [0002]). Conant teaches that the process comprises separating a hydrocarbon mixture into a C5- stream, a C6-C8 stream, and a C9+ stream (paragraph [0006]), and then sending the C9+ stream to hydrocracking (paragraph [0038]). Conant further teaches that the hydrocracking of the C9+ provides hydrocarbons which are used as fuel in other processing units, such as a naphtha cracking furnace and also produces desirable C8-C8 hydrocarbons (paragraph [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of hydrocracking the C9+ stream with the pyrolysis oil of Al-Ghamdi as taught by Conant, because each of Al-Ghamdi and Conant teach hydrocracking hydrocarbon streams to produce additional hydrocarbons, and Conant teaches that a C9+ stream can be hydrocracked to produce fuel for the naphtha cracking as well as additional desirable C6-C8 hydrocarbons (paragraph [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights