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 .
This communication is in response to the reply and amendment filed 6/8/2026.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the amendments requiring fractionating the plurality of listed fractions. Additional art is provided below to address the claims as amended.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram (US 2019/0023999) in view of Al-Ghamdi (US 2018/0142468).
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, Sundaram is directed a process and apparatus for processing hydrocarbon mixtures including whole crudes and condensates (0026). Sundaram teaches:
contacting a condensate feedstock 19 with steam 32 to volatilize a portion of the hydrocarbons (0050-0053);
recovering a vapor phase 42 comprising volatilized hydrocarbons with a cut point selected based on the feed, with examples given of 200-450C (0040; 0050-0053), which includes 300C as claimed, and liquid which includes hydrocarbons boiling in the VGO and above;
optionally separating the liquid fraction into a second vapor distillate and liquid stream;
hydroprocessing the liquid fraction from the first or second separator, fractionating the effluent in an atmospheric or vacuum column to produce light fractions, diesel, VGO and collect a reside, and optionally recycling residue fraction to the hydrocracking reactor (0055; 0094);
the vapor phase is passed to a steam cracking reactor to convert at least a portion of the hydrocarbons therein to a steam cracker effluent comprising one or more olefins and a pyrolysis oil stream (Figure 2; 0052).
Sundaram is silent regarding wherein the liquid product is separated in the second separator under vacuum distillation to produce a light VGO fraction, a heavy VGO fraction, and a vacuum residue fraction.
Al-Ghamdi, directed to process for conversion of crude oil to petrochemicals using VGO hydroprocessing and steam cracking, teaches subjecting the crude oil to a first distillation, followed by vacuum distillation. [0080] The vacuum gas oil and gas oil are independently subject to hydrotreating and then a portion or all of the hydrotreated effluents are subject to steam cracking to produce valuable chemicals. [0078]-[0081]. The vacuum residue is recovered for treatment. [0084]. The individual hydroprocessing units use conditions and catalyst tailored for the conditioning and conversion of the specific fraction. e.g. [0180]
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 process and system of Sundaram by subjecting the first liquid stream to distillation to produce separate vacuum gas oil fractions and a residue and hydrotreating the VGO fractions separately because both are directed to production of chemicals from crude oil using hydroprocessing and steam cracking, Al-Ghamdi teaches hydroprocessing of multiple distillates followed by steam cracking of each of the individual fractions under tailored conditioning and conversion conditions, and such combination merely results in predictable results. It would have been with in the skill of one in the art to use only one vacuum distillation column given the upstream separation cut point of 450C.
With respect to claims 2 and 9, Al-Ghamdi discloses vacuum gas oil and gas oil are independently subject to hydrotreating and then a portion or all of the hydrotreated effluents are subject to steam cracking to produce valuable chemicals. [0078]-[0081].
With respect to claims 3-4 and 10-11, Sundaram does not teach the boiling points of the condensates treated, but teaches wherein the feed may be whole crude oil condensate, as well as lighter petroleum fractions (0026). Condensate compositions vary with a particular feed but are known in the art. Given the teachings of whole condensates as well as the wide boiling range feeds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to process condensate having boiling material as claimed.
With respect to claims 5 and 14, Sundaram teaches preheating the condensate feedstock to partially vaporize prior to contacting (0050).
With respect to claims 6, Sundaram teaches products including butene (0105).
With respect to claim 7, Sundaram teaches recycling product (0105) and operating for 100% ethylene or propylene production. It would have been obvious to recycle products to achieve desired light olefin production. Al-Ghamdi teaches subjecting the pyrolysis oil to hydrotreating with the VGO.
With respect to claims 12-13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include mixers for blending product fractions to be collected downstream without unexpected result.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
Prosecution Insights