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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to correspondence filed on 01/07/2026.
Claims 1-26 are pending. Claims 27-28 are canceled. Claims 1-2, 13-15, 18-20 and 24-26 are amended.
The previous rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) is withdrawn, necessitated by the Applicant amendment.
The previous rejections of claims 1-18, 20-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn, necessitated by the Applicant amendment.
However, after reconsideration of the record new rejections are entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 12, the Applicant’s specification does not appear to define what is meant by a "conventional" hydrocracking catalyst and how such catalyst is to be distinguished from any other (non-conventional?) hydrocracking catalyst.
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.
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) 1-5, 13-15, 19-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 2015/0306583) in view of Maesen et al (US 2017/0043328).
With respect to claim 1, Zhang discloses a two-stage hydrocracking process comprising:
a) hydrocracking a hydrocarbon feed in a first hydrocracking stage under hydrocracking conditions (see paragraph 0087); and
b) passing an effluent from the first hydrocracking stage to a second hydrocracking stage wherein the effluent is hydrocracked under hydrocracking conditions (see paragraph 0087-0091), with the catalyst in the second hydrocracking stage having a base consisting of alumina, an amorphous silica-alumina (ASA) (see abstract, paragraph 0054), and a zeolite USY zeolite (see paragraph 0063, 0067), wherein the base is impregnated with at least one Group 6 and at least one Group 8-10 metal (see paragraph 0069).
Zhang fails to disclose wherein the catalyst further comprises an organic acid, as claimed.
However, in a related hydrocracking process, Maesen discloses hydrocracking catalyst comprising a USY, catalyst support and group 6 and group 8-10 (see abstract), further includes an organic acid is utilized as a peptizing agent to implement metals on the support (see paragraph 0101).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in view of Maesen with the claimed organic acid, as Maesen discloses the organic acids are conventionally utilized as peptizing agents in the impregnation of metals on supports.
With respect to claim 2-5, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Zhang further discloses wherein the base comprises is 5 to 55 wt. % alumina, 15 to 85 wt. % ASA, and 0.1 to 75 wt. % USY zeolite (see paragraph 0054).
With respect to claim 13, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Zhang discloses wherein metals include Nickel and Tungsten (see paragraph 0069) and Maesen further discloses utilizing citric acid (see paragraph 0101).
With respect to claim 14, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 13.
Zhang discloses utilizing nickel in an amount 3.8 wt. % and tungsten in an amount of 25.3 wt.% (see paragraph 0099).
With respect to claim 15, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Maesen further discloses utilizing citric acid (see paragraph 0101).
With respect to claim 19, Zhang discloses a hydrocracking catalyst having a base consisting of alumina, an amorphous silica-alumina (ASA) (see abstract, paragraph 0054), and a USY zeolite (see paragraph 0054 and 0067), with the wherein the base is impregnated with at least one Group 6 metal and at least one Group 8-10 metal (see paragraph 0069).
Zhang fails to disclose wherein the catalyst further comprises an organic acid, as claimed.
However, in a related hydrocracking process, Maesen discloses hydrocracking catalyst comprising a USY, catalyst support and group 6 and group 8-10 (see abstract), further includes an organic acid is utilized as a peptizing agent to implement metals on the support (see paragraph 0101).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in view of Maesen with the claimed organic acid, as Maesen discloses the organic acids are conventionally utilized as peptizing agents in the impregnation of metals on supports.
With respect to claim 20-23, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 19.
Zhang further discloses wherein the base comprises is 5 to 55 wt. % alumina, 15 to 85 wt. % ASA, and 0.1 to 75 wt. % USY zeolite (see paragraph 0054).
With respect to claim 24, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 19.
Zhang discloses wherein metals include Nickel and Tungsten (see paragraph 0069) and Maesen further discloses utilizing citric acid (see paragraph 0101).
With respect to claim 25, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 24.
Zhang discloses utilizing nickel in an amount 3.8 wt. % and tungsten in an amount of 25.3 wt.% (see paragraph 0099).
With respect to claim 26, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 19.
Maesen further discloses utilizing citric acid (see paragraph 0101).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 2015/0306583) and Maesen as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Matsushita (CA 2651741).
With respect to claim 6-8, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination teaches wherein the process produces naphtha products (see Zhang paragraph 0096).
Zhang does not explicitly the characteristics of the products made, as claimed.
However, Zhang discloses a hydrocracking process utilizing the same feedstock, catalyst and process conditions (see abstract, paragraph 0079-0080).
In a related process for Matsushita discloses wherein a conventional hydrocracking process produces a product comprising a gasoline fraction (naphtha product) of at least 58 wt.% (see paragraph 0087) and kerosene (C9-C16) concentration is present in an amount of at least 14 wt.% (see paragraph 0087).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in view of Matsushita, as said product characteristics are conventionally produced in hydrocracking processes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Maesen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon et al (US 2009/0045100).
With respect to claim 9, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein effluent from the second hydrocracking stage comprises unconverted oil which is recycled back to the second hydrocracking stage, as recycled bottom oil (RBO).
However, in a related two stage hydrocracking process (see abstract), Yoon discloses recycling unconverted bottom oil to the second stage hydrocracking reactor (see paragraph 0026).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior combination with the conventional bottom recycle as claimed, in view of Yoon, as said recycle is conventional performed to control reactor efficiency and/or reactor pressure (see Yoon paragraph 0010-0011).
With respect to claims 10-11, the prior combination discloses the limitation of claim 9.
The prior combination does not explicitly recite characteristics of the RBO, as claimed.
However, Zhang discloses a hydrocracking process utilizing the same feedstock, catalyst and process conditions (see abstract, paragraph 0079-0080).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to find the characteristics of the RBO, as claimed, through routine experimentation, as differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 16-18, Zhang discloses wherein the catalyst in the second hydrocracking stage is prepared by a method comprising:
the steps of (a) forming an extrudable mass containing the catalyst support base (see Zhang paragraph 0072-0075),
(b) extruding the mass to form a shaped extrudate (see Zhang paragraph 0073),
(c) calcining the mass to form a calcined extrudate (see Zhang paragraph 0075),
(e) contacting the shaped extrudate with the impregnation solution (see Zhang paragraph 0077), and
preparing an impregnation solution containing at least one metal nitrate or metal carbonate and an ammonium containing component (see paragraph 0099)
(f) drying the impregnated extrudate at a temperature sufficient to remove the impregnation solution solvent, and to form a dried impregnated extrudate (see Zhang paragraph 0077).
Zhang does not disclose wherein solution comprises an organic acid and adjusting the pH of the impregnation solution to between 1 and 5.5 with a hydroxide base.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 12, Zhang discloses a substantial portion of the claimed invention.
Examiner notes, Zhang prefers that the invention catalyst be utilized in the first hydrocracking stage, optionally the second (see paragraph 0087).
Thus, Zhang does not teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date to modify the process such that first hydrocracking stage employs a conventional hydrocracking catalyst.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771