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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 30 April 2026 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 7-26, 29-43, 45-60, and 62-63 are pending.
The previous rejections have been updated in view of amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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 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.
Claims 7-8, 12-17, 20-26, 29-31, 35-37, 39-43, and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harandi (US 5,146,032) in view of Chester (US 4,663,492) and Gayubo (Role of Water in the Kinetic Modeling of Catalyst Deactivation in the MTG Process) alone, or further as evidenced by Liederman (Mobil Methanol to Gasoline Process).
Regarding claims 7, 20-21, 23, 30, 39-40, 43, and 46, Harandi teaches reacting olefin (which reads on the claimed hydrocarbon) with methanol (which reads on the claimed water oxygenate) over a catalyst to form conversion product (column 3, line 55-68; column 5, lines 1-65; column 8, lines 21-40); the catalyst comprising HZSM-5 zeolite and binder (column 6, lines 1-5); the methanol (oxygenate) contains 0-50% water (column 7, lines 55-65); which reads on the claimed range; and conducting the reaction at a temperature of 177-371°C and 4237-20780 kpa (column 8, lines 31-38), which overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Harandi does not explicitly disclose (1) steam treating the catalyst at 450-500°C to increase mechanical strength and ability to operate in superheated steam environment (2) the claimed product properties including the claimed sulfur reduction (3) newly amended limitations regarding water increase.
Regarding (1), Chester teaches steam treating H-ZSM-5 at temperatures of 300-650°C to improve stability of methanol-to-gasoline catalysts (column 3, lines 15-column 4, line 53). Chester further teaches that the steaming creates increased stability and resistance to ageing under oxygenate conversion conditions of elevated temperature and pressure (abstract, column 3, lines 1-5). Examiner considers this to translate to the claimed improved operation in superheated steam environments/strength. It is further expected that the same improvements as claimed would be obtained, since the same steaming at the same temperatures is performed to the same HZSM-5 zeolite used for the same type of methanol to gasoline reaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have obtained the HZSM-5 required by Harandi by the steam treatment of Chester, since Chester teaches such HZSM-5 zeolites which have been steam treated are well suited to reaction of methanol to form gasoline.
Regarding (2), Harandi teaches the conversion products include gasoline and aromatic hydrocarbons (column 12, lines 24-25). Harandi teaches olefin hydrocarbon feedstock with methanol converted to gasoline products using ZSM-5 (column 1, lines 10-20 and column 5, lines 1-60). Applicant’s instant specification similarly teaches light olefin feedstock with methanol converted to gasoline (page 6, lines 1-18). In this regard, it is expected that the light olefin feed of Harandi would also contain the same sulfur content which is reduced by the methanol to gasoline process, since the same steps are performed to the same feeds as claimed.
The previous combination teaches the same process steps as claimed to produce the same gasoline as claimed, therefore, it is expected that the previous combination would result in the same high octane gasoline having the same reduced sulfur content as claimed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Alternatively, Liederman teaches that methanol to gasoline processes produce gasoline products having no detectable impurities such as sulfur (see page 341, column 2).
Therefore, it is expected that the methanol to gasoline process of the previous combination would produce a conversion having product having the same or similar sulfur content as claimed, since Liederman teaches that these processes produce gasoline products that are high quality and do not contain detectable concentrations of sulfur. Examiner additionally notes that while sulfur content is reduced by 84%, the hydrocarbon feed described in the instant specification only contains 0.0063 wt% sulfur (see instant spec, table 2). In this regard, the feed does not have significant amounts of sulfur to be removed. It does not appear that sulfur reduction is a significant part of the reaction. Additionally, the prior art teaches similar olefin feedstocks obtained by similar cracking or pyrolysis processes, and are thus expected to contain similar sulfur contents.
Regarding (3), Harandi teaches the methanol (oxygenate) contains 0-50% water (column 7, lines 55-65). In this regard, Examiner notes that the person having ordinary skill in the art may use the Harandi disclosure to select operating conditions of 0% water or 20% water, which would read on the claimed increase in water content.
Further, Gayubo teaches that it is well known to increase water content in methanol to gasoline reactions in order to reduce catalyst fouling (see page 1561). Gayubo teaches increasing water content results in reduced coke content on catalyst (see figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Gayubo method of increasing water content, in the methanol to gasoline process of the previous combination, for the benefit of obtaining a decrease in catalyst fouling.
Regarding claims 8 and 31, Chester teaches the steam treatment, as discussed above. Chester teaches using any known binder or matrix in combination with the zeolite (column 4, lines 22-27).
Regarding claims 12-14, 16, and 35, Harandi teaches that the olefin hydrocarbon feed can be derived from thermal or catalytic cracking operations (column 7, lines 55-65).
Regarding claims 15 and 36, Harandi teaches the hydrocarbon feed contains olefins in mixture with paraffins (column 2, lines 10-13 and column 8, lines 1-15). Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to appropriately select the amount of olefins as claimed. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, Harandi teaches the methanol feed contains 0-50% water (column 7, lines 55-65), which Examiner considers to overlap with the claimed “up to 70% methanol”.
Regarding claim 22, 24-25, and 41-42, Harandi teaches WHSV of 0.01-100 (column 11, lines 35-45). Harandi teaches pressures of 38-10440 kpa and temperatures of 177-538°C (column 11, lines 26-45). Examiner additionally notes that optimization of process conditions is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 26, Harandi teaches using zeolites having silica/alumina ratio of 25-70 (column 5, lines 1-68), which overlaps with the claimed range for each type of zeolite. Further, Givens teaches aqueous alkaline treatment using sodium oxide, sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide to form zeolites (column 4, lines 1-15), as discussed with respect to claims above.
It further would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used each silica/alumina ratio based off availability or economics.
Regarding claims 29 and 45, Harandi teaches 0-50% water in the methanol stream, combined with olefin feed (column 7, lines 55-65). Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately determined the amounts of each component with respect to each other, in order to obtain the desired gasoline product. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Claims 9 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harandi (US 5,146,032) in view of Chester (US 4,663,492) and Gayubo (Role of Water in the Kinetic Modeling of Catalyst Deactivation in the MTG Process) alone, or further as evidenced by Liederman (Mobil Methanol to Gasoline Process) as applied to claims 8 and 31 above, and further in view of Drake (US 6,077,984).
Regarding claims 9 and 32, the previous combinations teaches the limitations of claims 8 and 31 as discussed above.
Chester teaches using any known binder or matrix in combination with the zeolite (column 4, lines 22-27).
Chester does not explicitly disclose the binder is sodium silicate or alumina.
However, Drake teaches common inorganic binder matrix materials in zeolite based catalysts include sodium silicate and alumina (column 6, lines 30-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the well-known binder materials disclosed by Drake in the catalyst of the previous combination, since they are known binders suitable as per disclosure of Chester.
Claims 10-11 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harandi (US 5,146,032) in view of Chester (US 4,663,492) and Gayubo (Role of Water in the Kinetic Modeling of Catalyst Deactivation in the MTG Process) alone, or further as evidenced by Liederman (Mobil Methanol to Gasoline Process) as applied to claims 7 and 30 above, and further in view of Kuvettu (US 2003/0166453).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 33-34, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claims 7 and 30 as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose pseudoboehmite binder.
However, Kevettu teaches a similar ZSM-5 zeolite for producing high octane gasoline [0053], [0064]. Kevettu teaches using pseudoboehmite as the alumina binder in combination with silica [0059-0061].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected the alumina in the Binder of Harandi to be pseuodoboehmite form, since Kevettu teaches such form is suitable in use for zeolites used for producing high octane gasoline.
Claims 18-19, 37-38, 47-48, 52-60, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harandi (US 5,146,032) in view of Chester (US 4,663,492) and Gayubo (Role of Water in the Kinetic Modeling of Catalyst Deactivation in the MTG Process) alone, or further as evidenced by Liederman (Mobil Methanol to Gasoline Process) as applied to claims 7 and 30 above, and further in view of Xie (US 2007/0038010).
Regarding claims 18-19, 38, 47, 55, and 58, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claims 7 and 30 above.
Harandi teaches the C3+ olefin hydrocarbon feed is obtained from thermal or catalytic cracking effluents (column 7, lines 55-67). Examiner notes that such c3 olefins read on the claimed reedstocks.
Harandi teaches that the oxygenate is methanol because it is widely available, but could also include other lower aliphatic alcohols or mixtures thereof (column 4, lines 45-65). Harandi further teaches that the methanol stream may contain 0-50% water (column 7, lines 55-65).
Further, Xie teaches a similar process for reaction of olefins and oxygenate to form gasoline [0002], [0022]. Xie teaches suitable oxygenates including methanol and ethanol.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to use ethanol as the lower aliphatic alcohol in mixture with the methanol disclosed by Harandi, since Harandi teaches such mixtures are suitable, and Xie teaches Xie is an example of a lower aliphatic alcohol which can be used for such a purpose. Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected the amount of water as disclosed by Harandi, and the amounts of ethanol and methanol based on availability, as disclosed by Harandi.
Regarding claims 48, Chester teaches the steam treatment, as discussed above. Chester teaches the binder comprises sodium silicate and aluminum oxide (column 4, lines 5-50).
Regarding claims 53, Harandi teaches the hydrocarbon feed contains olefins in mixture with paraffins (column 2, lines 10-13 and column 8, lines 1-15). Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to appropriately select the amount of olefins as claimed. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claims 52 and 54, Harandi teaches that the olefin hydrocarbon feed can be derived from thermal or catalytic cracking operations (column 7, lines 55-65).
Regarding claims 56-57, Harandi teaches the conversion products include gasoline and aromatic hydrocarbons (column 12, lines 24-25).
The previous combination teaches the same process steps as claimed to produce the same gasoline as claimed, therefore, it is expected that the previous combination would result in the same high octane gasoline having the same reduced sulfur content as claimed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Regarding claim 59, Harandi teaches WHSV of 0.01-100 (column 11, lines 35-45). Harandi teaches pressures of 38-10440 kpa and temperatures of 177-538°C (column 11, lines 26-45). Examiner additionally notes that optimization of process conditions is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Regarding claims 37 and 60, Harandi teaches using zeolites having silica/alumina ratio of 25-70 (column 5, lines 1-68), which overlaps with the claimed range for each type of zeolite. Further, Givens teaches aqueous alkaline treatment using sodium oxide, sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide to form zeolites (column 4, lines 1-15), as discussed with respect to claims above.
It further would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used each silica/alumina ratio based off availability or economics.
Regarding claim 62, Harandi teaches 0-50% water in the methanol stream, combined with olefin feed (column 7, lines 55-65). Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately determined the amounts of each component with respect to each other, in order to obtain the desired gasoline product. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Claims 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harandi (US 5,146,032) in view of Chester (US 4,663,492) and Gayubo (Role of Water in the Kinetic Modeling of Catalyst Deactivation in the MTG Process) alone, or further as evidenced by Liederman (Mobil Methanol to Gasoline Process) and Xie (US 2007/0038010) as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of Drake (US 6,077,984).
Regarding claim 49, the previous combinations teaches the limitations of claim 48 as discussed above.
Chester teaches using any known binder or matrix in combination with the zeolite (column 4, lines 22-27).
Chester does not explicitly disclose the binder is sodium silicate or alumina.
However, Drake teaches common inorganic binder matrix materials in zeolite based catalysts include sodium silicate and alumina (column 6, lines 30-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the well-known binder materials disclosed by Drake in the catalyst of the previous combination, since they are known binders suitable as per disclosure of Chester.
Claims 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harandi (US 5,146,032) in view of Chester (4,663,492) and Gayubo (Role of Water in the Kinetic Modeling of Catalyst Deactivation in the MTG Process) alone, or further as evidenced by Liederman (Mobil Methanol to Gasoline Process) and Xie (US 2007/0038010) as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of Kevettu (US 2003/0166453).
Regarding claims 50-51, the pervious combination teaches the limitations of claim 47 above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose pseudoboehmite binder.
However, Kevettu teaches a similar ZSM-5 zeolite for producing high octane gasoline [0053], [0064]. Kevettu teaches using pseudoboehmite as the alumina binder in combination with silica [0059-0061].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected the alumina in the Binder of Harandi to be pseuodoboehmite form, since Kevettu teaches such form is suitable in use for zeolites used for producing high octane gasoline.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 April 2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments to be:
The claimed temperature range of 290-460˚C and pressure of 1-50 bars differs from Harandi temperatures of 177-371˚C and pressures of 42.37-207.8 bars.
The claim teaches steam treatment to improve strength and ability to operate in superheated steam environments. Chester reference does not address “mechanical strength” or “ability to operate”. Examiner has not explained why the result is “expected to”. Examiner has not provided support for inherency.
Examiner has used similar “expected to” rationale to address the sulfur reduction.
The rejection relies on hindsight combination.
The prior art does not address increase in water content.
Regarding Applicant’s first argument, Examiner notes that the Harandi ranges overlap with those claimed. Please see MPEP 2144.05 regarding overlapping ranges.
Regarding Applicant’s second argument, Chester teaches the same process steps of steam treatment at temperatures of 300-650˚C as disclosed by the claim language. Chester additionally teaches improved stability. Examiner notes that catalyst stability can cover may aspects, including mechanical and hydrothermal. In this regard, it is expected that the same improvements with respect to mechanical strength and ability to operate would be achieved, since the same process steps of the steam treatment of the catalyst are performed at the same temperatures claimed. In this regard, it is not clear what the difference in the steam treatment step is. Examiner inquires if there is a difference in the steam treatment step performed, in order to achieve the mechanical strength/ability to operate.
Regarding Applicant’s third argument, Examiner notes that the prior art teaches the same process steps applied to the same feedstocks, at the same conditions as claimed. Therefore, it is expected that the same or similar results would be achieved. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard. Examiner inquires if there is a particular step performed which differs from the prior art combination.
Regarding Applicant’s fourth argument, In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding Applicant’s fifth argument, Harandi teaches 0-50% water content in the methanol (column 7, lines 55-65). Examiner notes that the person having ordinary skill in the art may use the Harandi disclosure to select operating conditions of 0% water or 20% water, which would read on the claimed increase in water content.
Further, Gayubo teaches that it is well known to increase water content in methanol to gasoline reactions in order to reduce catalyst fouling (see page 1561). Gayubo teaches increasing water content results in reduced coke content on catalyst (see figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Gayubo method of increasing water content, in the methanol to gasoline process of the previous combination, for the benefit of obtaining a decrease in catalyst fouling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 102513142 – Wang teaches hydrothermal ageing to increase stability of HZSM-5 catalysts in methanol to gasoline reactions
US 3,960,978 – Givens teaches steam treatment of ZSM-5
RU 2372988 – cited in ISR.
Chen (US 4,627,911) – reaction of methanol and gas oil over zsm 5 to make gasoline.
US 10,556,846 – related application.
US 2017/0145317 – related application.
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 MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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 C 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights