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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 13, and 19 are amended. Claims 14 and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-13 and 15-19 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 10 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 and 15-19 under USC 103 over Nubel in view of Kuechler have been fully considered and are persuasive. The process of Nubel in view of Kuechler requires a separation step between the first and second oligomerization steps in order to make the product of the first oligomerization of Nubel suitable as a feed to the second oligomerization step of Kuechler. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new interpretations of previously presented prior art Lilga et al. (US 2016/0194257) and Nubel et al. (US 4,788,373) in view of the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 13, the claim recites “dimerizing a last ethylene stream of said multiple ethylene streams…to produce a dimerized olefin stream.” For consistency, this should be “to produce a last dimerized olefin stream”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga et al. (US 2016/0194257) in view of Nubel et al. (US 4,788,373).
With regard to claim 1, Lilga teaches a two-step process for oligomerization of ethylene (paragraph [0017], first sentence) comprising the following:
a) ethylene from any source is fed to a first oligomerization reactor (dimerization) comprising a catalyst bed to produce a product (paragraph [0048]) including butenes, hexenes, and octenes (dimers and oligomers) (paragraph [0051]). Lilga teaches the catalyst for the first oligomerization comprises nickel (Group VIII metal) on an amorphous silica-alumina support (paragraphs [0102]-[0103]).
b) passing the effluent from the first oligomerization to a second oligomerization with an oligomerization catalyst to produce oligomers (paragraph [0053]). Lilga teaches that the effluent passes directly from the first oligomerization to the second oligomerization without separation (Figure 1).
Lilga does not specifically teach that the source of the ethylene is an ethylene stream diluted with a paraffin stream.
Nubel teaches a method for oligomerization of ethylene to a product rich in butenes (column 1, lines 60-61) over a catalyst comprising nickel on amorphous silica-alumina (column 2, lines 15-21). This is equivalent to the first stage oligomerization of Lilga. Nubel further teaches that the ethylene can be an ethylene stream diluted with one or more hydrocarbons including saturated hydrocarbons (column 1, lines 4-9). Thus, Nubel teaches that diluted ethylene is a suitable ethylene source for oligomerization of ethylene to a product comprising butenes over a nickel on silica-alumina catalyst.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the diluted ethylene of Nubel in the process of Lilga, because Lilga teaches the two step oligomerization and that the source of the ethylene is any source (paragraph [0048]), Lilga and Nubel each teach oligomerization of ethylene to a product comprising butenes over a nickel on amorphous silica-alumina catalyst, and Nubel teaches that ethylene diluted with paraffins is a suitable ethylene feed for the oligomerization process (column 2, lines 4-9).
With regard to claim 2, Lilga teaches the first oligomerization may be conducted in multiple parallel reactors, where the ethylene is split into multiple feeds and introduced into each of the multiple reactors (paragraph [0052]).
Lilga in view of Nubel fails to specifically teach diluting the first ethylene stream which is passed to the first of the multiple parallel reactors.
However, the choice of feed stream diluted with the saturated hydrocarbons is merely a selection from a finite list of options including each of the first feed stream up to the nth feedstream, and any combination of the feed streams. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to select at least the first ethylene feedstream to dilute with hydrocarbons, because Nubel teaches dilution of the ethylene and Lilga teaches multiple ethylene feed streams, with a reasonable expectation of success, and without undue experimentation, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 10, Nubel teaches that the ethylene stream before dilution is a pure ethylene feed (column 6, lines 28-29). A pure ethylene stream is expected to comprise predominantly (greater than 50 wt% as defined in the instant specification paragraph [0015]) ethylene as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 11, Nubel does not explicitly teach the amount of ethylene in the diluted feedstream. However, Nubel does teach that the exact composition of the feedstream including ethylene and saturated hydrocarbons depends on the use of the butene containing product (column 2, lines 11-13) and it is well known in the art that ethylene is an exothermic reaction and diluting the reactant can control the exothermic rise in temperature in the reactor.
Thus, the amount of ethylene in the feedstream is a result-effective variable, which can be optimized. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of ethylene in the diluted stream to no more than 6 wt%, as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 12, Lilga teaches recycling oligomerized olefins from the second oligomerization step to the second oligomerization reactor (paragraph [0069]).
With regard to claim 13, Lilga teaches a process for oligomerization comprising:
a) ethylene from any source is fed to a first oligomerization reactor (dimerization) comprising a catalyst bed to produce a product (paragraph [0048]) including butenes, hexenes, and octenes (dimers and oligomers) (paragraph [0051]). Lilga teaches the first oligomerization may be conducted in multiple parallel reactors, where the ethylene is split into multiple feeds and introduced into each of the multiple reactors (paragraph [0052]). The multiple reactors with multiple feeds render obvious oligomerizing a first ethylene stream and a last ethylene stream to produce a first and last dimerized effluent stream comprising ethylene dimers and oligomers. Lilga further teaches that the pressure of the first oligomerization step is 0 to 1200 psig (0 to 8.2 MPag), which overlaps the range of about 5.6 to about 8.4 MPag of instant claim 13, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
b) passing the effluent from the first oligomerization to a second oligomerization with an oligomerization catalyst to produce oligomers (paragraph [0053]). Lilga teaches that the effluent passes directly from the first oligomerization to the second oligomerization without separation (Figure 1).
Lilga does not specifically teach i) that the source of the ethylene is an ethylene stream diluted with a paraffin stream or ii) diluting specifically the first of the multiple ethylene streams.
With regard to i), Nubel teaches a method for oligomerization of ethylene to a product rich in butenes (column 1, lines 60-61) over a catalyst comprising nickel on amorphous silica-alumina (column 2, lines 15-21). This is equivalent to the first stage oligomerization of Lilga. Nubel further teaches that the ethylene can be an ethylene stream diluted with one or more hydrocarbons including saturated hydrocarbons (column 1, lines 4-9). Thus, Nubel teaches that diluted ethylene is a suitable ethylene source for oligomerization of ethylene to a product comprising butenes over a nickel on silica-alumina catalyst.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the diluted ethylene of Nubel in the process of Lilga, because Lilga teaches the two step oligomerization and that the source of the ethylene is any source (paragraph [0048]), Lilga and Nubel each teach oligomerization of ethylene to a product comprising butenes over a nickel on amorphous silica-alumina catalyst, and Nubel teaches that ethylene diluted with paraffins is a suitable ethylene feed for the oligomerization process (column 2, lines 4-9).
With regard to ii), Lilga in view of Nubel fails to specifically teach diluting the first ethylene stream which is passed to the first of the multiple parallel reactors.
However, the choice of feed stream diluted with the saturated hydrocarbons is merely a selection from a finite list of options including each of the first feed stream up to the nth feedstream, and any combination of the feed streams. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to select at least the first ethylene feedstream to dilute with hydrocarbons, because Nubel teaches dilution of the ethylene and Lilga teaches multiple ethylene feed streams, with a reasonable expectation of success, and without undue experimentation, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 19, Lilga teaches a process for oligomerization comprising:
a) ethylene from any source is fed to a first oligomerization reactor (dimerization) comprising a catalyst bed to produce a product (paragraph [0048]) including butenes, hexenes, and octenes (dimers and oligomers) (paragraph [0051]). Lilga teaches the first oligomerization may be conducted in multiple parallel reactors, where the ethylene is split into multiple feeds and introduced into each of the multiple reactors (paragraph [0052]). The multiple reactors with multiple feeds render obvious oligomerizing a first ethylene stream and a last ethylene stream to produce a first and last dimerized effluent stream comprising ethylene dimers and oligomers.
b) passing the effluent from the first oligomerization to a second oligomerization with an oligomerization catalyst to produce oligomers (paragraph [0053]). Lilga teaches that the effluent passes directly from the first oligomerization to the second oligomerization without separation (Figure 1).
Lilga fails to teach i) that the source of the ethylene is an ethylene stream diluted with a paraffin stream, or ii) that the diluted ethylene stream comprises no more than 25 wt% ethylene.
With regard to i), Nubel teaches a method for oligomerization of ethylene to a product rich in butenes (column 1, lines 60-61) over a catalyst comprising nickel on amorphous silica-alumina (column 2, lines 15-21). This is equivalent to the first stage oligomerization of Lilga. Nubel further teaches that the ethylene can be an ethylene stream diluted with one or more hydrocarbons including saturated hydrocarbons (column 1, lines 4-9). Thus, Nubel teaches that diluted ethylene is a suitable ethylene source for oligomerization of ethylene to a product comprising butenes over a nickel on silica-alumina catalyst.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the diluted ethylene of Nubel in the process of Lilga, because Lilga teaches the two step oligomerization and that the source of the ethylene is any source (paragraph [0048]), Lilga and Nubel each teach oligomerization of ethylene to a product comprising butenes over a nickel on amorphous silica-alumina catalyst, and Nubel teaches that ethylene diluted with paraffins is a suitable ethylene feed for the oligomerization process (column 2, lines 4-9).
With regard to ii), Lilga in view of Nubel fails to specifically teach diluting the first ethylene stream which is passed to the first of the multiple parallel reactors.
However, the choice of feed stream diluted with the saturated hydrocarbons is merely a selection from a finite list of options including each of the first feed stream up to the nth feedstream, and any combination of the feed streams. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to select at least the first ethylene feedstream to dilute with hydrocarbons, because Nubel teaches dilution of the ethylene and Lilga teaches multiple ethylene feed streams, with a reasonable expectation of success, and without undue experimentation, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to iii), Nubel teach that the exact composition of the feedstream including ethylene and saturated hydrocarbons depends on the use of the butene containing product (column 2, lines 11-13) and it is well known in the art that ethylene is an exothermic reaction and diluting the reactant can control the exothermic rise in temperature in the reactor.
Thus, the amount of ethylene in the feedstream is a result-effective variable, which can be optimized. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of ethylene in the diluted stream to no more than 25 wt%, as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 3-6 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga et al. (US 2016/0194257) in view of Nubel et al. (US 4,788,373) as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Luebke et al. (US 2016/0312131) as evidenced by Smith et al. (US 4,000,211).
With regard to claims 3 and 15, Lilga in view of Nubel teaches the process above comprising multiple ethylene feeds and a paraffin solvent (diluent) added to the first ethylene feed.
Lilga in view of Nubel is silent with regard to cooling the first combined ethylene feed and diluent stream immediately before dimerizing.
Luebke teaches a process of oligomerization of C3 olefins comprising splitting the oligomerization feed into two or more streams, passing each stream to a separate reactor, and diluting each feed stream (paragraph [0008]). Luebke further teaches that to control the highly exothermic reaction, it is known and preferred to cool the diluted streams, including the first stream, before each stream enters a reactor, without any intermediate steps (immediately before as claimed) (paragraphs [0005], [0020], [0046]). While Luebke only specifies C3 oligomerization, Smith teaches that ethylene dimerization is also known to be a highly exothermic reaction (column 1, line 33; column 4, line 36). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the motivation of Luebke would also apply to the ethylene dimerization of Lilga.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the step of cooling the first diluted stream immediately before the first oligomerization step, because Lilga in view of Nubel teaches dimerization of a first ethylene stream diluted with a diluent, Luebke teaches that to further control the exothermic oligomerizations the diluted stream should be cooled before passing to the reactor (paragraphs [0005], [0020]), and Smith evidences that ethylene dimerization is a known exothermic oligomerization (column 1, lines 33, column 4, line 36).
With regard to claims 4 and 16, Lilga in view of Nubel teaches the process above comprising multiple ethylene feeds and a paraffin diluent with the first ethylene feed.
Lilga in view of Nubel is silent with regard to using the effluent from the first ethylene dimerization as the diluent for a second ethylene feed.
Luebke teaches a process of oligomerization of C3 olefins comprising splitting the oligomerization feed into two or more streams, passing each stream to a separate reactor, and diluting each feed stream with the effluent from an upstream zone (paragraph [0008]). Luebke further teaches that this allows for controlling the temperature and using smaller reactors which require less energy (paragraph [0066]). While Luebke only specifies C3 oligomerization, Smith teaches that ethylene dimerization is also known to be a highly exothermic reaction (column 1, line 33; column 4, line 36), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand would require temperature control. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the motivation of Luebke would also apply to the ethylene dimerization of Nubel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dilute the second ethylene feed of Nubel in view of Lilga with the effluent from the first ethylene dimerization, because Nubel in view of Lilga teaches splitting an ethylene feed and diluting at least one feed, Luebke teaches that diluting the feed for oligomerization with the effluent from an upstream zone allows for controlling the temperature and using smaller reactors which require less energy (paragraph [0066]), and Smith teaches that ethylene dimerization is a highly exothermic reaction (column 1, line 33; column 4, line 36), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand would require temperature control.
With regard to claim 5 and 17, Lilga in view of Nubel and Luebke teaches the process of claim 4 as described above, where Luebke teaches that to control the highly exothermic reaction, it is known and preferred to cool the diluted streams before entering the reactor (paragraphs [0005], [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the step of cooling the second diluted ethylene stream before dimerizing the second diluted ethylene stream, because Lilga in view of Nubel teaches dimerization of multiple ethylene streams with a diluent, and Luebke teaches that to further control the exotherm the diluted stream should be cooled before passing to the reactor (paragraphs [0005], [0020]).
With regard to claim 6, Lilga in view of Nubel and Luebke teaches the process of claim 4 above, where Luebke further teaches diluting each feed stream with the effluent from an upstream zone (paragraph [0008]). Luebke further teaches that this allows for controlling the temperature and using smaller reactors which require less energy (paragraph [0066]). While Luebke only specifies C3 oligomerization, Smith teaches that ethylene dimerization is also known to be a highly exothermic reaction (column 1, line 33; column 4, line 36), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand would require temperature control. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the motivation of Luebke would also apply to the ethylene dimerization of Nubel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the step of diluting a last ethylene feed with the effluent from the previous ethylene dimerization step, because Lilga in view of Nubel and Luebke teaches splitting the ethylene feed to multiple reactors and diluting the feeds, Luebke teaches that diluting the feed with the effluent from an upstream zone allows for controlling the temperature and using smaller reactors which require less energy (paragraph [0066]), and Smith teaches that ethylene dimerization is a highly exothermic reaction (column 1, line 33; column 4, line 36), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand would require temperature control.
Claims 7, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga et al. (US 2016/0194257) in view of Nubel et al. (US 4,788,373) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stine et al. (US 6,080,903) and Smith et al. (US 4,000,211).
With regard to claim 7, Lilga in view of Nubel teaches the process above, where the ethylene stream is diluted with one or more other hydrocarbons including saturated hydrocarbons (Nubel column 2, lines 6-8).
Lilga in view of Nubel fails to teach saturating a portion of the olefin oligomerization product and recycling it to the ethylene stream as the saturated hydrocarbon diluent.
Stine teaches a method for oligomerization of light olefins including C3+ olefins (column 1, lines 15-16). Stine further teaches saturating all or a portion of an oligomerization effluent stream which is produced by oligomerization of C4 olefins (column 4, lines 49-51; column 6, lines 46-51) and recycling the heavy paraffins into an oligomerization zone, where the heavy paraffins reduce catalyst fouling and moderate any temperature rise within the reaction zone due to the highly exothermic reaction (column 2, lines 21-23, 43-45).
While Stine does not specifically teach that an ethylene feed can be the feed diluted with the heavy paraffins, Smith teaches that ethylene dimerization is also a highly exothermic reaction (column 1, line 33; column 4, line 36). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the motivation of controlling the exothermic reaction as taught by Stine would also apply to the ethylene dimerization of Lilga in view of Nubel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recycle a saturated olefin oligomerization product of Kuechler to the ethylene dimerization step of Lilga in view of Nubel, because Nubel teaches an the ethylene stream is diluted with saturated hydrocarbons, Smith teaches that the ethylene dimerization is highly exothermic, and Stine teaches recycling a heavy paraffin produced by saturating an oligomerization effluent to an oligomerization reduces catalyst fouling and moderates the temperature rise within the reaction zone (column 2, lines 21-23, 43-45).
With regard to claims 8 and 18, Lilga in view of Nubel, Stein, and Smith teaches the method above with the heavy paraffin diluent. Stine further teaches separating C8 olefins which are passed to saturation (column 7, lines 27-30) and that C8 paraffins are the heavy paraffins (column 8, Example 2, lines 50-51). Therefore, Stine teaches separating a heavy olefin stream, saturating the olefin stream, and recycling the saturated paraffins to the process as the heavy paraffin diluent, as claimed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga et al. (US 2016/0194257) in view of Nubel et al. (US 4,788,373), Stine et al. (US 6,080,903), and Smith et al. (US 4,000,211) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Luebke et al. (US 2016/0137934).
With regard to claim 9, Lilga in view of Nubel, Stine, and Smith teaches dimerization of ethylene and recycling a portion of saturated oligomerization effluent (Stine column 6, lines 46-51).
Lilga in view of Nubel, Stine, and Smith does not specifically teach that the portion which is saturated and recycled can be a diesel stream.
Luebke teaches flexible operation of a light olefin oligomerization process to produce distillates and gasoline (paragraph [0006]). Luebke additionally teaches hydrogenating some of the heavy olefinic product and recycling the product to the reactor inlet (paragraph [0002]) where the recycled hydrogenated product includes the diesel range hydrocarbons (paragraph [0093]). Thus, Luebke teaches that diesel range hydrocarbons are useful as a recycled hydrogenated effluent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recycle a hydrogenated diesel range hydrogenated product from the oligomerization effluent to the ethylene oligomerization reactor as claimed, because Nubel teaches a saturated hydrocarbon diluent; Stine teaches separating, saturating, and recycling a portion of oligomerization effluent as a diluent to control the temperature; and Luebke specifies that separated hydrogenated diesel range effluent is useful as a recycled diluent in oligomerization (paragraph [0002]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier et al. (US 4,749,675) in view of Lilga et al. (US 2016/0194257).
With regard to claim 19, Olivier teaches a method for dimerization of ethylene (column 1, lines 11-12) comprising the following steps:
a) putting the ethylene into liquid phase by using a solvent (diluent) comprising a paraffinic hydrocarbon (column 5, lines 8-12).
b) dimerizing the liquid phase ethylene in a reactor comprising a bed of catalyst to produce a stream comprising ethylene dimers (column 5, lines 23-26).
Olivier does not explicitly teach that the product of dimerization includes oligomers other than dimers. However, Olivier shows that the selectivity to dimers is anywhere from 80-84% (column 7, Table 1), which indicates that the ethylene is converted in an amount of 16-20 wt% to other hydrocarbons. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the other hydrocarbons would include other oligomers, as claimed, because the process is an oligomerization and any conversion of ethylene would be expected to be to oligomers, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Olivier is silent with regard to i) splitting the ethylene stream into multiple streams, ii) diluting at least the first ethylene stream with the saturated hydrocarbons (paraffin diluent), iii) the amount of paraffinic solvent in the ethylene stream, and iv) further oligomerization of the product comprising dimers and other oligomers.
With regard to i), Lilga teaches oligomerization of ethylene to C4 olefins over a solid catalyst bed (paragraphs [0048], [0051]). Lilga further teaches that the oligomerization of ethylene may be conducted in multiple parallel reactors, where the feed stream is introduced into each reactor, in order to manage process heat (paragraph [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to split the ethylene feed of Nubel into multiple feeds to multiple reactors in order to manage process heat as taught by Lilga (paragraph [0052]).
With regard to ii), while Nubel in view of Lilga does not specify which ethylene feed stream is diluted with the saturated hydrocarbons, the choice of feed stream diluted with the saturated hydrocarbons is merely a selection from a finite list of options including each of the first feed stream up to the nth feedstream, and any combination of the feed streams. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to select at least the first ethylene feedstream to dilute with hydrocarbons, because Nubel teaches dilution of the ethylene and Lilga teaches multiple ethylene feed streams, with a reasonable expectation of success, and without undue experimentation, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to iii), the amount of solvent affects the amount of ethylene solubilized, which makes the amount of solvent a result-effective variable, which can be optimized. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of solvent (diluent) to at least 75 wt% resulting in no more than 25 wt% ethylene, as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to iv), Kuechler teaches a method comprising:
c) oligomerization of a stream comprising at least one C3 to C8 olefin over an oligomerization catalyst to produce an oligomerization effluent stream (column 2, lines 62-66). Kuechler further teaches that oligomerization of the light olefins is a simple and efficient process to produce desirable fuel products, which particularly include light distillate products (column 1, lines 27-28; column 2, lines 54-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further oligomerize the ethylene oligomerization product of Olivier as taught by Kuechler, because Olivier teaches a process for producing an ethylene oligomerization product including dimers (C4) and other oligomers, and Kuechler teaches that it is desirable to oligomerize a stream comprising at least one C3-C8 olefin to produce distillate fuels (column 1, lines 27-28; column 2, lines 54-56).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772