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 2/6/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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) 1-3, 5-9, 12-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakeem (EP3356496).
With respect to claim 1, Hakeem discloses a process and apparatus of reducing the chloride content of a pyrolysis oil feed by contacting the feed stream with a catalyst in the presence of hydrogen gas. Abstract. The feed is subject to hydrotreatment in the presence of hydrogen and catalyst forming an effluent comprising reduced chlorine and HCL. Par. [0006]. The HCL is removed from the effluent using one or more of stripping, washing, and neutralizing. Par. [0006]; [0011]. Neutralizing may involve contacting the effluent with a neutralizing agent in solid, liquid, or solution form (e.g. amines, hydroxide, carbonates, etc.). Par. [0035]. The mixture is separated “in a distillation apparatus, a neutralization chamber, a scrubbing chamber, and the like.” Par. [0035]. This includes a cold separator for separating caustic, gas and oil. The product has less than 10 wppm chloride. Par. [0036].
With respect to claims 8-9, Hakeem teaches hydrogen gas that exits the reactor vessel after the contacting may be recirculated back into the reactor vessel, after appropriate separation of the hydrogen gas from the hydrocarbon product stream. Par. [0030]. Hakeem also teaches wherein HCL may be removed from the gas. Par. [0035]. Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove any residual HCL from the hydrogen stream prior to returning back to the reactor to minimize introducing HCL back into the process.
With respect to claim 13, Hakeem teaches an oil feed, a tank having an inlet and outlet would have been obvious to hold oil supply. Hakeem teaches supplying hydrogen at a pressure, thus a compressor is expected. Hakeem teaches a reaction zone comprising catalyst having an inlet for feed and an outlet for effluent. Hakeem teaches a separator for separating neutralizing agent gas and oil connected to the effluent outlet. Use of neutralizing agent requires a neutralizing agent source and connection.
With respect to claim 2, Hakeem discloses a contact temperature of 60-300 C, which requires heating to such temperature, overlapping that claimed. Par. [0006].
With respect to claim 3, Hakeem discloses carrying out hydrodechlorination experiments using hydrogenation catalysts and teaches selecting catalyst more selective to chlorine removal than olefin saturation. It would have been within the skill of one in the art at the time of filing to subject the feed to diene saturation prior to chloride removal to improve selectivity for conversion to HCL.
With respect to claims 5-7, Hakeem discloses reacting with hydrogen and teaches using a series of reactors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the hydrogen using compression and two divided stream.
With respect to claims 12 and 20, Hakeem teaches passing a mineral oil stream to the processing unit. Par. [0019]. This would require an oil supply.
With respect to claim 14, Hakeem teaches heating feed to a reaction temperature which requires a heat source for heating the feed line.
With respect to claim 15, Hakeem teaches using two reactors in series or single reactor with a series of beds.
Claim(s) 4, 10, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakeem (EP3356496) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 20, further in view of Haverly (US 20230399572).
With respect to claims 4, 10, 16 and 17, Hakeem is silent regarding cooling in a cooler downstream of the hydrodechlorination. However such is well known in the art. Haverly teachese organochlorines undergo hydrodechlorination in hydroprocessing ractions of pyrolysis oils. The effluent is cooled and separated in a cold separator. Gases are removed from the cold separator and passed through an adsorbent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time fo the invention to include filtration and adsorbption in the process of hakeem to ensure cholorid removal from the process.
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