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 1/8/2025.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
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.
Claim 3 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 3 uses the terms a butene hydrogenation unit (line 2) along with the butane hydrogenation unit (line 3) and the butene hydrogenation unit (line 4). “The butane hydrogenation” unit appears to be a typographical error, but lacks antecedent basis as written.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12, which depends from claims 10 and 9, recites subjecting the second and third naphtha, the UCO, or combination thereof. This includes sending only second and third naphtha, or sending only UCO, or sending both UCO and second/third naphtha. Claims 10 recites sending the UCO to steam cracking and claim 9 recites sending the second naphtha stream to steam cracking. Thus, at minimum the second naphtha and the UCO are sent to steam cracking. Therefore, there cannot be an embodiment where only the second and third naphtha are sent to the steam cracking reactor in claim 12. Claims 13-16 depend from claim 12 and are similarly rejected.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-2 and 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (US 20160369184).
With respect to claim 1, Ward is directed to a process and system for conversion of crude oil to petrochemicals. Ward includes “a crude distillation unit (10) comprising an inlet for crude oil (100), an outlet for naphtha (311) and at least one outlet for kerosene and/or gasoil (330),” [0066] (i.e. crude oil processing unit) and a separation unit (50) for collecting and separating “gases produced in the process of the present invention, such as methane (701), LPG (700) and hydrogen (801),” [0075] (i.e. gaseous hydrocarbon separation unit). “LPG generally consists of a blend of C2-C4 hydrocarbons.” [0028] “[T]he ‘gases fraction’ derived by crude distillation mainly comprises C1-C4 hydrocarbons.” [0022] “[T]he term “gas separation unit” relates to the refinery unit that separates different compounds comprised in the gases produced by the crude distillation unit and/or refinery unit-derived gases. Compounds that may be separated to separate streams in the gas separation unit comprise ethane, propane, butanes, hydrogen and fuel gas mainly comprising methane.” [0076]. The separated LPG fractions are processed in a steam cracking unit (35). [0077] (i.e. a steam cracking unit). “Preferably, the hydrocarbon compounds ethane, propane and butanes are separately cracked in accordingly specialized furnaces to ensure cracking at optimal conditions.” [0051]; see also [0143], [0147]. Additionally, mixtures of ethane, propane, butane may be cracked together, which includes a joint stream of ethane and propane. [0051] The heavier fractions are processed in dedicated units.
Ward does not expressly disclose a storage unit coupled to the gaseous hydrocarbon separation unit and capable of receiving the gaseous stream comprising C4 hydrocarbons; or a storage unit coupled to the gaseous hydrocarbon separation unit and capable of receiving the naphtha.
However, a storage unit for holding product factions is a well-known system and process component in the art of hydrocarbon processing for holding a feed, intermediate, or final product prior to use or sale. Ward teaches operating a continuous process with flexibility in processing different streams in different units. Storage would increase flexibility, for example, by allowing streams to be stored as needed to accommodate changing process flows without needing to shutdown upstream units or for operational flexibility based on market needs. Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and process of Ward by adding a storage unit for intermediate and final products before sending to other units or offsite creating operational flexibility. It is a prima facie case of obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 2, the crude oil processing unit may comprises a crude distillation unit and a vacuum distillation unit. Id. at [0031].
With respect to claim 4, resid produced by crude oil distillation is passed to a resid upgrading unit to produce LPG and liquid effluent. [0038] The resid upgrading unit may include hydrocracking and the liquid effluent includes light-distillate (i.e. naphtha). [0040]; [0042]-[0045]. Hydrocracking produces naphtha. [0108] The naphtha from the resid upgrading unit may is passed to the gasoline treatment unit, which may include steam cracking. [0135]; [0051]
With respect to claim 5, “the distillation unit has an outlet for at least one outlet for kerosene and/or gasoil (330)”. [0066] The system includes a ring opening (hydrocracking) unit configured to produce at least LPG, light distillate (naphtha range “Preferably, the refinery-unit derived light-distillate is the hydrocarbon distillate obtained in a refinery unit process having a boiling point range of about 20-200° C, more preferably of about 30-190° C.” [0035]) and unconverted oil. [0035]; [0066]. The system includes conduits providing light distillate to the steam cracking unit. [0035]; [0066]-[0067]
With respect to claim 6, Ward discloses (a) “subjecting crude oil to crude oil distillation to produce naphtha and one or more of kerosene and gasoil,” [0008], naphtha includes a gaseous hydrocarbon stream comprising hydrocarbons have a boiling point less than 200 °C, [0022], and lighter gases fraction [0022]. (b) The hydrocarbons are separated into a plurality of streams including naphtha, hydrogen, methane, and C2, C3, and C4 hydrocarbon streams [0075-0076]. (c) The C2, C3 and C4 streams may each individual or mixtures thereof be upgraded in a steam cracking unit under conditions sufficient to produce an ethylene product stream and a propylene product stream. [0051]
Ward is silent regarding (d) storing the C4 hydrocarbon stream and the naphtha stream. However, storing feed and products for use, sale, or intermediate holdup is a common, well-known process step. Ward discloses a continuous process with differing process flow schemes allowing adjustment of the product slate produced. Storing butane and naphtha in the process of Ward merely functions as holding for a period of time with no change in the respective functions of storage or process of Ward and achieving predictable product holdup or storage of intermediate or final product streams. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ward by storing all or a portion of the butane and naphtha allowing the benefit of maintaining continuous processing and flexibility in the process of Ward.
With respect to claim 7, the separation step (a) of Ward includes standard crude oil distillation in an atmospheric column, optionally with vacuum distillation. [0031]; [0045] The temperature of the distillation defined at the column inlet or along the column profile, will fall within the range of 50-700° C as claimed.
With respect to claims 8-10, Ward teaches sending gasoil to a unit comprising a dearomatization unit (70) and downstream steam cracking or FCC unit (60) and ring opening unit (22). [0066]-[0067] The products produced are LPG, naphtha, and aromatics or LCO unconverted oil which may be recycled back to the ring opening unit. [0143] The naphtha may be processed steam cracking in a dedicated furnace. [0135], [0142] (Examples 1 and 2, naphtha reformate is sent to gasoline treatment unit of the steam cracker). Alternatively, they may be subject to hydrocracking to produce more LPG and aromatic compounds, [0147] (Example 3).
Alternatively, with respect to the UCO stream, Ward teaches one benefit of the process is that effluent not converted to desired products within a unit may be recycled to that unit or to another unit for increased conversion. [0080]; [0130] Ward also teaches that heavier hydrocarbon feeds including full range and heavy naphtha and gas oil fractions can be steam cracked to give products rich in aromatic hydrocarbons. [0051] Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to send the products of the gasoil upgrading reactor to their respective furnaces to achieve the benefit of increased production of the olefin and aromatic products.
With respect to claim 11, Ward discloses subjecting the heavy hydrocarbon to resid upgrading conditions sufficient to produce LPG, light distillate (i.e. naphtha), middle distillate, heavy distillate and/or coke or pitch. [0038]-[0044]
With respect to claim 12, Ward teaches wherein the light distillate or naphtha streams may be subject to steam cracking. Figure 2; [0135]; [0142]-[0143]
With respect to claim 13, Ward teaches cracking conditions tailored for each stream. [0051] (“In steam cracking gaseous hydrocarbon feeds like ethane, propane and butanes, or mixtures thereof, (gas cracking) or liquid hydrocarbon feeds like naphtha or gasoil (liquid cracking) is diluted with steam and briefly heated in a furnace without the presence of oxygen. . . . Preferably, the hydrocarbon compounds ethane, propane and butanes are separately cracked in accordingly specialized furnaces to ensure cracking at optimal conditions.”); see also [0128] (“The following steam cracker furnace conditions were applied: ethane and propane furnaces: coil outlet temperature (COT)=845° C. and steam-to-oil-ratio=0.37, C4-furnaces and liquid furnaces: COT=820° C.”).
Claim(s) 3 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (US 20160369184) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-13 above, further in view of Lear (WO 2019/016710).
With respect to claim 3, Ward teaches a steam cracking unit having a furnace for processing C4 hydrocarbons. Ward teaches sending multiple C2, C3, C4, and distillate streams from multiple refinery units to a common steam cracker for production of valuable olefin products. Ward is silent regarding wherein the system further comprises a butene hydrogenation unit, a C4 conduit coupled to the steam cracking unit and the butene hydrogenation unit, the C4 conduit capable of providing C4 hydrocarbons from the butene hydrogenation unit to the steam cracking unit.
Leal, directed to the production of propylene and MTBE from steam cracker C4 product, discloses a system comprising an MTBE synthesis unit, connected to a byproduct or raffinate separation unit, a hydrogenation reactor for receiving a portion of the raffinate comprising butane, and conduit for recycling the butane and the hydrogenated hydrocarbons to a steam cracker unit. Figure 1; [0039]. The recycled hydrogenated butane to a steam cracker unit allows production of valuable olefins from the MTBE byproduct.
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ward by sending as one of the C4 feeds to the steam cracker, a product stream from a C4 hydrogenation unit, optionally integrated with in an MTBE processing unit fed with C4 from the same steam cracking unit, as taught in Lear which provides the benefit of increasing production of valuable light olefins from less valuable byproduct and it is a prima facie case of obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, Lear integrates butane hydrogenation unit with a steam cracking reactor for converting an MTBE raffinate into more valuable light olefins and Ward teaches processing various refinery streams in the common steam cracker unit, thus sending the C4 stream of Lear to Ward combines known elements in a known way to yield predictable results of producing at least MTBE from the C4 stream.
With respect to claim 14, Ward taches producing butane, but not wherein the second C4 hydrocarbon stream is further processed to produce methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE).
Leal, directed to the production of propylene and MTBE from butene, discloses a process and system which sends a C4 stream 10, which may originate from a steam cracker, with methanol to a MTBE synthesis unit to produce MTBE and a biproduct raffinate stream. Figure 1; [0033] (“C.sub.4 hydrocarbons stream 10 may be from a byproduct stream of a steam cracker unit. The byproduct stream from the steam cracker unit may comprise 5 to 35 wt.% of n-butane, 1 to 15 wt.% of isobutane, 20 to 50 wt.% of isobutylene, 10 to 35 wt.% of 1-butene, 5 to 20 wt.% of 2-butene, 1 to 3 wt.% of butadiene, and 0 to 1 wt.% of acetylene.”). The raffinate separated in a separation system into a butane stream and a butene stream. Figure 1; [0034]. The butane stream 12 may be processed in a hydrogenation unit 104 and the hydrogenated effluent is recycled back to a steam cracker for further upgrading. Figure 1; [0029]. The butene effluent may be further processed into more valuable propylene product. Figure 1; Abstract; [0029]-[0031].
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ward by sending the C4 product stream from the steam cracking furnace, including a second C4 hydrocarbon stream, to an MTBE unit for upgrading as taught in Lear because both teach producing olefins using steam cracking (Ward directly and Lear using a C4 product of steam cracking for producing MTBE, additional steam cracker feed, and propylene), Lear teaches processing the C4 steam cracked effluent in an MTBE process provides the benefit producing more valuable products, and it is a prima facie case of obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, Ward uses steam cracking to product olefins and C4, Lear uses steam cracked C4 to produce additional products, sending the known product of Ward to the process of Lear for treating such product combines known elements in a known way to yield predictable results of producing at least MTBE from the C4 stream.
With respect to claim 15, Leal discloses sending MTBE byproduct 12 comprising butane to a hydrogenation unit 104 to hydrogenate unsaturated hydrocarbons in stream 12. [0039] “The n-butane and the hydrogenated hydrocarbons may be flowed to a steam cracker unit.” [0039].
With respect to claim 16, Ward discloses “remov[ing] sulfur from certain crude oil fractions to prevent deactivation of the catalyst in downstream refinery processes, such as catalytic reforming or catalytic cracking of fluid. A hydrodesulfurization process of this type is carried out in an ‘HDS unit’ or ‘hydrotreator’; see Alfke (2007) loc. cit. Generally, the hydrodesulfurization reaction takes place in a fixed bed reactor at elevated temperatures of 200-425 ° C, preferably 300-400 ° C and high pressures of manometric 1-20 MPa, preferably manometric 1-13 MPa in the presence of a catalyst comprising elements selected from the group consisting of Ni, Mo, Co, W and Pt, with or without promoters, supported on alumina, in which the catalyst is in the form of sulfide.” [0060] Ward does not expressly teach the resulting content of less than 500 ppm. However, Ward does teach a desire to remove sulfur and that sulfur deactivates downstream catalyst. Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to design the sulfur removal step of Ward to minimize sulfur content, including below 500 ppm. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. MPEP 2144.
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