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 .
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 5 and 14 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the light naphtha" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said aromatics stream" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,122,966 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite substantially the same process of converting naphtha to light olefins, including reacting naphtha with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst to produce light paraffinic hydrocarbons, separating the resulting hydrocarbon stream into fractions comprising ethane and propane, and converting ethane into ethylene. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite the additional hydrocracking of pyrolysis gasoline or an aromatics-containing stream to produce cracked naphtha. These additional limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as known hydrocarbon-upgrading operations for converting heavier hydrocarbon streams into useful lighter hydrocarbon products.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as anticipated by Dittrich et al. (US 2016/0369186 A1).
Dittrich teaches contacting naphtha with hydrogen in a first hydrocracking reactor to produce a light paraffinic stream, separating the effluent into ethane, propane and an aromatics-containing C5+ fraction, converting ethane into ethylene, and hydrocracking the aromatics-containing C5+ fraction in a second gasoline hydrocracking reactor (¶¶ [0041]–[0048], [0060]–[0065]; Figs. 1–2). Dittrich's second hydrocracking operation produces BTX-containing hydrocarbons and lighter hydrocarbons.
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Dittrich et al. (US 2016/0369186 A1).
Dittrich teaches hydrocracking an aromatics-containing C5+ fraction in a gasoline hydrocracking reactor and recycling unconverted C5+ hydrocarbons from that operation to the first hydrocracking reactor together with fresh naphtha (¶¶ [0047]–[0048], [0060], [0064]; Figs. 1–2; claim 7).
However, Dittrich does not expressly teach recycling the hydrocracked product fraction identified as the claimed cracked naphtha stream.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to recover and recycle a suitable naphtha-range hydrocarbon product fraction from the gasoline hydrocracking effluent of Dittrich, together with fresh naphtha and hydrogen, to provide additional convertible hydrocarbon feedstock and improve overall hydrocarbon utilization, consistent with the recycle arrangement taught by Dittrich.
Claims 1-6, 8-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Dittrich et al. (US 2016/0369186 A1) in view of Ward ’425 (US 9,856,425 B2).
Claim 1: Dittrich teaches contacting a naphtha stream with hydrogen in a first feed hydrocracking reactor to produce a light paraffinic stream comprising ethane and propane, separating the reactor effluent into ethane and propane streams, and thermally cracking ethane in a steam-cracking unit to produce ethylene (¶¶ [0046]–[0048], [0060]–[0065]; Figs. 1–2). Dittrich further teaches the recovery of pyrolysis gasoline from steam cracking and gasoline hydrocracking of C5+ hydrocarbons (¶¶ [0042], [0051]–[0052]).
However, Dittrich does not expressly teach hydrocracking a pyrolysis-gasoline stream specifically recovered from its ethane-cracking operation to provide the claimed cracked naphtha stream.
Ward ’425 teaches recovering pyrolysis gasoline from a steam-cracking unit and feeding it to a hydrocracking unit (col. 17, description of streams 23 and 26; Fig. 1; claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to recover a pyrolysis-gasoline-containing byproduct from the steam-cracking operation of Dittrich and direct it to the gasoline hydrocracking unit, as taught by Ward ’425, to convert recoverable hydrocarbon byproducts into valuable lighter hydrocarbons and aromatic products.
Claim 2: Dittrich teaches producing ethylene by thermally cracking ethane in a gas steam-cracking unit (¶¶ [0033]–[0034], [0051], [0060]–[0061]).
Claim 3: Dittrich teaches separating an aromatics-containing C5+ fraction from the first hydrocracking effluent and directing the fraction to a second gasoline hydrocracking unit (¶¶ [0041]–[0042], [0060], [0064]; Figs. 1–2).
Claim 4: Dittrich teaches hydrocracking the aromatics-containing C5+ fraction in a gasoline hydrocracking reactor (¶¶ [0041]–[0042], [0064]). However, Dittrich does not expressly teach hydrocracking the claimed pyrolysis gasoline and aromatics streams together in that reactor.
Ward ’425 teaches feeding pyrolysis gasoline to a hydrocracking reactor (col. 17; Fig. 1; claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to introduce the pyrolysis-gasoline-containing stream of Ward ’425 into the gasoline hydrocracking reactor of Dittrich, together with its aromatics-containing C5+ stream, to upgrade compatible hydrocarbon feedstocks in a common reactor and recover valuable hydrocarbon products.
Claim 5: Dittrich teaches using naphtha as the feedstock for its first hydrocracking reactor (¶¶ [0046], [0060]). However, Dittrich does not expressly limit the naphtha feedstock to light naphtha comprising C4–C7 hydrocarbons.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a naphtha feedstock comprising light naphtha having C4–C7 hydrocarbons in the hydrocracking process of Dittrich, since Dittrich does not restrict its naphtha feedstock to a particular carbon-number range, and such light naphtha comprises hydrocarbons suitable for conversion into lighter paraffinic hydrocarbons, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6: Dittrich teaches charging ethane to a gas steam-cracking unit and thermally converting ethane into ethylene (¶¶ [0033]–[0034], [0051], [0061]).
Claim 8: Dittrich teaches recycling unconverted C5+ hydrocarbons recovered from the gasoline hydrocracking operation, combining them with fresh naphtha, and feeding the combined stream to the first hydrocracking reactor (¶¶ [0047]–[0048], [0060], [0064]; claim 7).
However, Dittrich does not expressly identify the recycled fraction as the claimed cracked naphtha stream produced by hydrocracking pyrolysis gasoline.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to recover and recycle a suitable naphtha-range hydrocarbon fraction from the gasoline hydrocracking effluent to the first hydrocracking reactor, together with fresh naphtha and hydrogen, to increase the utilization of recoverable hydrocarbons and their conversion into light paraffins, consistent with the recycle arrangement taught by Dittrich.
Claim 9: Dittrich teaches directing the separated propane stream to a propane dehydrogenation unit to produce propylene (¶¶ [0028], [0053], [0061], [0064]; Figs. 1–2).
Claim 10: Dittrich teaches processing hydrocarbon feedstocks in a gasoline hydrocracking reactor (¶¶ [0041]–[0042], [0064]). Ward ’425 further teaches feeding a pyrolysis-gasoline-containing stream to a hydrocracking reactor (col. 17; Fig. 1; claim 7). The combination provides the claimed hydrocracking of a feedstock comprising pyrolysis gasoline.
Claim 11: Dittrich teaches separating hydrogen from hydrocracking effluent and recycling recovered hydrogen to the first and second hydrocracking units (¶¶ [0049]–[0050], [0060]–[0064]; Fig. 1).
Claim 12: Dittrich teaches contacting naphtha with hydrogen and catalyst to produce a light paraffinic stream, separating ethane and propane streams, and converting ethane into ethylene in a steam-cracking unit (¶¶ [0046]–[0048], [0060]–[0065]).
However, Dittrich does not expressly teach hydrocracking pyrolysis gasoline recovered specifically from its ethane-cracking operation.
Ward ’425 teaches recovering pyrolysis gasoline from steam cracking and feeding it to a hydrocracking unit (col. 17; Fig. 1; claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to recover a pyrolysis-gasoline-containing byproduct from the ethane steam-cracking operation of Dittrich and hydrocrack the recovered stream in the gasoline hydrocracking reactor, as taught by Ward ’425, to upgrade recoverable hydrocarbons into useful lighter hydrocarbons and aromatic products.
Claim 13: Dittrich teaches separating an aromatics-containing C5+ fraction from the first hydrocracking effluent and hydrocracking the fraction in a second gasoline hydrocracking reactor (¶¶ [0041]–[0042], [0060], [0064]; Figs. 1–2). In the proposed combination, that reactor additionally processes the pyrolysis-gasoline-containing feedstock taught by Ward ’425.
Claim 14: Dittrich teaches hydrocracking an aromatics-containing C5+ stream (¶¶ [0041]–[0042], [0064]). However, Dittrich does not expressly teach hydrocracking that stream together with the claimed pyrolysis gasoline stream.
Ward ’425 teaches feeding pyrolysis gasoline to a hydrocracking unit (col. 17; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to introduce the pyrolysis-gasoline-containing stream into the gasoline hydrocracking reactor of Dittrich together with its aromatics-containing C5+ stream to upgrade both hydrocarbon streams in a common reactor, thereby recovering useful lighter hydrocarbons and aromatic products.
Claim 15: Dittrich expressly teaches charging ethane to a gas steam-cracking unit to produce ethylene (¶¶ [0033]–[0034], [0051], [0061]).
Claim 16: Dittrich teaches recycling unconverted C5+ hydrocarbons from its gasoline hydrocracking operation, combining them with fresh naphtha, and returning the combined stream to the first hydrocracking reactor (¶¶ [0047]–[0048], [0060], [0064]; claim 7).
However, Dittrich does not expressly teach recycling the claimed cracked naphtha product stream.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to recycle a suitable naphtha-range hydrocracking product fraction with fresh naphtha and hydrogen to the first hydrocracking reactor, using the recycle arrangement of Dittrich, to provide additional convertible hydrocarbon feedstock and improve overall hydrocarbon utilization.
Claim 17: Dittrich teaches naphtha as a feedstock for its first hydrocracking reactor (¶¶ [0046], [0060]). However, Dittrich does not expressly specify that the feed comprises light naphtha having C4–C8 hydrocarbons.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ a naphtha feedstock comprising C4–C8 hydrocarbons in the process of Dittrich because such hydrocarbons are suitable naphtha-range feed components for catalytic conversion into lighter paraffins, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 19: Dittrich teaches thermally cracking ethane to produce ethylene (¶¶ [0033]–[0034], [0051], [0061]) but does not expressly teach recovering pyrolysis gasoline from that particular ethane-cracking operation and hydrocracking it.
Ward ’425 teaches recovering pyrolysis gasoline from steam cracking and feeding the recovered stream to a hydrocracking unit (col. 17; Fig. 1; claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to recover a pyrolysis-gasoline-containing byproduct from the ethane steam-cracking operation of Dittrich and hydrocrack it in the gasoline hydrocracking reactor, as taught by Ward ’425, to convert recoverable hydrocarbon byproducts into valuable products.
Claim 20: Dittrich teaches hydrocracking an aromatics-containing C5+ stream in a gasoline hydrocracking reactor (¶¶ [0041]–[0042], [0064]). Ward ’425 teaches hydrocracking pyrolysis gasoline (col. 17; Fig. 1; claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contact the aromatics-containing C5+ stream and the pyrolysis-gasoline-containing stream with a hydrocracking catalyst in the same gasoline hydrocracking reactor, to consolidate upgrading of suitable hydrocarbon feedstocks and recover valuable lighter hydrocarbons and aromatic products.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Dittrich in view of Ward ’425, and further in view of Ward ’711 (US 4,576,711).
Dittrich teaches hydrocracking hydrocarbon feedstocks but does not expressly establish the particular catalyst composition required by claim 7 (¶¶ [0042]–[0046]).
Ward ’711 teaches a hydrocracking catalyst comprising a crystalline Y-type zeolite and metal hydrogenation components selected from Group VIB and VIII metals, including nickel, cobalt, molybdenum and tungsten (col. 2, lines 14–34; col. 7, lines 1–14; col. 11, Table V).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ the known bifunctional hydrocracking catalyst of Ward ’711 in the gasoline hydrocracking reactor of the modified Dittrich process to provide both acidic cracking functionality and metal hydrogenation functionality for converting hydrocarbon feedstocks into lower-molecular-weight products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
