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 .
Status of Application
Claims 21, 22, 25, 27-40 (31-40 withdrawn) are pending and presented for examination. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 March 2026 has been entered.
Applicants are requested to ensure proper Markush language is being utilized, like in claim 12, the third to last line should read “selected from the group consisting of the rait of silica . . .”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 10 March 2025 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
Applicant’s continued traversal of the Restriction Requirement is noted and will be reconsidered upon the allowability of claim 21.
The rejection of claims 21, 22, 25 and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Espinoza in view of Hospeinpour (with Wang as an evidentiary reference) is WITHDRAWN over the instant traversal.
The traversal is that “Espinoza does not disclose or suggest the presence silica-alumina interphase according to the claims or the silica-alumina being modified to comprise silica and alumina domains and silica-alumina interphase.” However, Wang discloses that this is inherently present.
The traversal continues in that Hosseinpour which discloses addition of gamma zeolite to lower coke formation would not be readily combinable with Espinoza as Espinoza does not discuss the addition of a zeolite (Remarks at 7) which is immaterial as it would probably anticipate if it were to discuss zeolite addition. The traversal continues in that Espinoza only wants amorphous species present and since zeolites are crystalline, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find adding the zeolite would be reasonable as it would “destroy, or at least improperly alter Espinoza’s amorphous support in a manner that is clearly contrary or adverse to the disclosed invention.” (Remarks at 8). This is also not persuasive as there is no teaching away from using a crystalline material in Espinoza.
The traversal continues that the reduction in coke formation would not apply to Espinoza as Espinoza is “concerned with the making and use of amorphous support and catalyst formed therefrom, in particular, for use in Fischer-Tropsch reactions to prepare useful hydrocarbon products . . . Espinoza does not mention a concern or problem with coke formation.” (Remarks at 9). This is persuasive as there would be no nexus between the references for this reason of combining. Espinoza is drawn to hydrocracking while Hosseinpour is drawn to FCC, so an improvement in FCC process would not be readily applicable to hydroprocessing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21, 22, 25 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espinoza in view of “Synthesis of the composite material Y/ASA and its catalytic performance for the cracking of n-decane” to Meng et al. (hereinafter, “Meng at __”) with Wang as an evidentiary reference to the presence of the interphase and domains as discussed in previous Office Actions.
Regarding claims 21, 22, 25 and 27, Espinoza discloses a silica-alumina composite material (Espinoza at “Abstract”, the usage of such in making hydroprocesing catalyst base is not given patentable weight as discussed supra) comprising a first silica-alumina which is modified to comprise silica and alumina domains and a silica-alumina interphase (as evidenced by Wang (Wang evidences that amorphous silica-alumina has silica domains, alumina domains, and an interphase of silica-alumina domains (Wang at 11567, 15:55 of Espinoza discusses addition of nitric acid during extrusion which the Instant Specification at [0006] regards as imbuing an increase in the interphase)) and a second silica-alumina wherein the first and second ASA differ in pore size, surface area, or pore volume (4:50-55)).
However, Espinoza does not expressly state addition of a zeolite.
Meng, in a method of making a catalyst comprising an ASA support, discloses mixing a gamma zeolite into the ASA (Meng at 56 L col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the gamma zeolite of Meng with the ASAs of Espinoza. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being a trapeziform distribution of pores (Id.) and acidic groups (Meng at 63 R col).
Turning to claim 28, first is present at 33-67% and the second at 67-33% (“Claim 8”).
Concerning claims 29 and 30, “Example 7” per “Table 1” discloses the mixture having a surface area of 575, a pore volume of 0.81, a pore diameter average of 5.7, and an Al content of 2.7%. “Example 8” discloses similar values. Individually properties of LASA and HASA are also shown in “Table 1”.
Claims 21, 22, 25 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Development of heavy oil hydrocracking catalysts using amorphous silica-alumina and zeolites as catalyst supports” to Ali et al. (hereinafter, “Ali at __”) In view of Espinoza with Wang as an evidentiary reference as discussed previously.
Regarding claims 21 and 27, Ali discloses a silica-alumina composite material that is suitable for use in making a hydroprocessing catalyst (Ali at “Abstract”) comprising a modified silica-alumina (“Abstract”) which has silica and alumina domains and a silica-alumina interphase (see Wang as discussed infra) which further comprises USY-Y and beta zeolite (Id.).
However, Ali does not expressly state a second ASA which differs in Si:Al, SSA, pore size, pore volume, or domain of silica or alumina size.
Espinoza in a support for hydrocracking involving ASAs discloses that a combination of ASAs can be utilized, a second silica-alumina wherein the first and second differ in pore size, surface area, or pore volume (4:50-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the second ASA of Espinoza in the catalyst support of Ali. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being controlling acidity (6:54-65).
As to claim 22 and 25, nitric acid is utilized under extruding conditions (Espinoza at 15:55 and this can apply to either ASA).
Turning to claim 28, zeolite is present at 40% (Ali at “Table 3, Cat-4”), 30%*21% alumina, 30% of the ASA (and Espinoza 1/3-2/3 can be either ASA).
Concerning claim 29, ASA SSA is 514 m2/g (Ali at “Table 1”).
With respect to claim 30, 310.5 m2/g (Ali at “Table 3, Cat-4”) and a pore diameter of ~5.6 nm.
Conclusion
Claims 21, 22, 25 and 27-30 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights