DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for application SN 18/992,751 having an effective date of 09 January 2025 and a Foreign priority date of 09 July 2022 (India). Claims 1-15 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-11, drawn to a method of producing olefins and/or aromatics, recite “aquaprocessing the hydrocarbon feed in the first aquaprocessing unit” and “aquaprocessing the first bottom stream in the second aquaprocessing unit”, etc. Claims 12-15 drawn to a system for producing olefins and/or aromatics, recite “a first aquaprocessing unit” and “a second aquaprocessing unit”. However, the term “aquaprocessing” has no generally recognized technical meaning in the art. The examiner adopts the meaning set forth by applicant in the specification in [0005] which defines “aquaprocessing” as hydrocracking of hydrocarbons in the presence of (a) one or more aquaprocessing catalysts and (b) a solvent to keep asphaltenes dissolved, at a temperature in the range of 280 to 550°C and a pressure in the range of 40 to 200 barg.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy et al (US 2022/0064084 A1).
Narayanaswamy et al [“Narayanaswamy”] discloses system and methods for producing olefins and/or aromatics. Narayanaswamy discloses that the invention relates to the aqua-processing hydro-processing of crude oils and/or heavy oils and/or residues to produce intermediate products, which can then be used to make valuable chemicals such as olefins and aromatics [0002]. Narayanaswamy discloses that the method uses hydrogen and steam to efficiently upgrade crude oils and/or heavy oils and/or residues in the presence of a catalyst. The upgraded products are then fed to conversion units that convert these upgraded products to olefins and aromatics such as ethylene, propylene, butene and benzene [0005].
Figures 1 and 3 of Narayanaswamy disclose a method and a system of producing olefins and/or aromatics, the method comprising:
-flowing a hydrocarbon feed and hydrogen into a first aquaprocessing unit having a first catalyst disposed therein (stages 1 and 2);
-aquaprocessing the hydrocarbon feed in the first aquaprocessing unit wherein the aquaprocessing of the hydrocarbon feed comprising contacting the hydrocarbon feed and the hydrogen with the first catalyst at a temperature in the range of 280 to 400C [0038];
-flowing the effluent of first aquaprocessing into a second aquaprocessing unit having a second catalyst disposed therein (stage 3);
-aquaprocessing the first bottom stream in the second aquaprocessing unit wherein the aquaprocessing of the first bottom stream comprises contacting the feedstream with the second catalyst at a temperature in a range of 400 to 500°C [0047]; and
-processing top stream in a steam cracking unit to produce olefins and/or aromatics (steam 305) wherein top stream has a boiling range of 36-350°C [0054].
The claimed method of producing olefins and/or aromatics differs from Narayanaswamy in that: (i) the first aquaprocessing step produces a first top stream having a boiling point in a range of up to 200°C which is sent to a steam cracking unit to produce olefins and aromatics, and a first bottom stream that comprises diesel and/or fuel oil and has a boiling point in a range of 305 to 650°C; (ii) flowing the first bottom stream into the second aquaprocessing; and (iii) the second aquaprocessing produces a second top stream having a boiling point in a range of up to 305°C and a second bottom stream that comprises one or more of pitch, coke, or fuel oil and has a boiling point in the range of 305 to 650°C. However, the examiner is of the position that the claimed process is an alternative method to the method disclosed in Narayanaswamy, and that adding separation steps would be obvious to the skilled artisan in the art if the known degree of separation was so desired.
In regard to the claimed system for producing olefins and/or aromatics of independent claim 12, Narayanaswamy fails to disclose a means to produce a first top stream having a boiling point in a range of up to 200°C or less, and a first bottom stream that comprises diesel and/or fuel oil having a boiling point in a range of 305 to 650°C. However, the examiner is of the position that the claimed system is an alternative system to that disclosed in Narayanaswamy, and that adding separation means would be obvious to the skilled artisan in the art if the known degree of separation was so desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN M MCAVOY whose telephone number is (571)272-1451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am - 7:00 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, 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.
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
EMcAvoy
August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights