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, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 April 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 12-13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 25-26, 32-34, 37, and 39-40 are pending.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/15/2026 and 3/25/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 12-13, 17, 19, 23, 25-26, 32-34, 37 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vierheilig (US 2006/0060504) in view of Wallenstein (US 2017/0267934), van Houtert (US 26,200,464), Evans (US 2011/0308620), and Huh (US 4,980,049).
Regarding claims 1 and 40, Vierheilig teaches combining a bulk FCC catalyst and a catalytic cracking additive and a hydrocarbon feedstock [0017]. Vierheilig teaches gas oil, cycle oil, and resid hydrocarbon feedstocks [0073], which are the same feedstocks identified in Applicant’s instant specification as containing iron [0031]. Thus, it is expected that the Vierheilig feeds would also contain iron, since they are the same feeds as identified in Applicant’s instant specification. Vierheilig additive comprises a metal trapping material [0024] and can comprise a solid solution (slurry) [0050] of magnesium oxide [0051]. Vierheilig teaches that the metals trapping materials can comprise “one or more metals” [0051], and thus teaches MgO alone, without any calcium component. It is expected that the same depositing would occur, since the same combining is performed, and the feeds are subject to the same FCC conditions as discussed above.
Vierheilig teaches magnesium oxide, magnesium hydroxide, and magnesium carbonate [0051]. Vierheilig teaches the MgO is present in 2-20% [0051, and that the metals trapping material comprises 5-60% of the additive [0067], which corresponds to overlapping amounts of MgO per catalyst overall. Vierheilig teaches selecting a specific dosage of the trapping agent materials, in order to achieve the desired trapping of metals in the process. Vierheilig teaches gas oil, cycle oil, and resid hydrocarbon feedstocks [0073], which are the same feedstocks identified in Applicant’s instant specification as containing iron [0031]. Thus, it is expected that the Vierheilig feeds would also contain iron in the same or similar amounts, since they are the same feeds as identified in Applicant’s instant specification.
Vierheilig teaches the same feeds, bulk catalyst, and MgO additive, as applied to the claims above. Therefore, it is expected that the same iron content and iron MgO ratio would be present in the equilibrium would be present, since the same steps are performed to the same feeds at the same conditions as claimed. Alternatively, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected the amount of MgO with respect to the amount of iron in the feedstock, for the benefit of obtaining the desired metal trapping activity.
Vierheilig does not explicitly disclose (1) the diffusion constant claimed (2) the average particle size of the magnesium compound in the slurry (3) magnetic susceptibility (4) organic solvent comprising hydrocarbon.
Regarding (1), Wallenstein teaches a similar process for fluidized catalytic cracking [0015-0016] of resid feeds [0030] containing iron components [0031] with zeolite cracking catalysts [0024]. Wallenstein teaches that monitoring the diffusion of the equilibrium catalyst can help evaluate the operation [0031]. Wallenstein teaches diffusion coefficients of greater than 5 mm2/min [0072].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have monitored the diffusion coefficients, as disclosed by Wallenstein, in order to achieve desired cracking behavior.
Regarding (2), van Houtert teaches a method for adding magnesia to zeolites in FCC processes (column 5, lines 1-15). Van Houtert teaches combining a dispersion of inorganic oxide in water with the zeolite in a slurry (column 6, lines 1-40). Van Houtert teaches using inorganic oxide having a particle size of 10-5000nm, preferable 10-1000 nm, more preferably 15-500 nm (column 5, lines 55-60), overlapping with the claimed range. Van Houtert teaches that the use of the specific particle size of the metal oxide results in improved performance (column 3, lines 1-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the van Houtert particle size, in the process of Vierheilig, for the benefit of obtaining the desired improved performance.
Regarding (3), Evans teaches that magnetic susceptibility of fcc catalysts increases with various components including iron elements [0056].
Therefore, it is expected that the prior art catalyst having the same iron components would have the same or similar magnetic susceptibility, since the presence of such iron is correlated to the magnetic susceptibility.
Regarding (4), Huh teaches a similar process for trapping heavy metals using MgO slurry with FCC catalysts (column 4, lines 15-65). Huh teaches the slurry can be an aqueous slurry or hydrocarbon oil slurry (column 6, lines 5-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a hydrocarbon as a substitute as an aqueous slurry, since Huh teaches that both are suitable for providing metal trapping components such as MgO additives in FCC operations.
Regarding claims 2-3, Vierheilig teaches that the catalyst additive can be added simultaneous (concurrently) or separately from the bulk catalyst [0025]. Examiner additionally notes that the order of combining streams is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, Vierheilig teaches MgO present in the slurry in amounts of 2-20 % [0051], which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 9, Vierheilig teaches gas oil, cycle oil, and resid hydrocarbon feedstocks [0073], which are the same feedstocks identified in Applicant’s instant specification as containing iron [0031]. Thus, it is expected that the Vierheilig feeds would also contain iron in the same or similar amounts, since they are the same feeds as identified in Applicant’s instant specification.
Regarding claims 12, Vierheilig teaches magnesium oxide, magnesium hydroxide, and magnesium carbonate [0051].
Regarding claim 13, Vierheilig teaches solid solution [0050], which reads on the claimed water liquid phase.
Regarding claim 15, Vierheilig teaches the MgO is present in 2-20% [0051, and that the metals trapping material comprises 5-60% of the additive [0067], which corresponds to overlapping amounts of MgO per catalyst overall.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Vierheilig teaches the same feeds, bulk catalyst, and MgO additive, as applied to the claims above. Therefore, it is expected that the same iron content and iron MgO ratio would be present in the equilibrium would be present, since the same steps are performed to the same feeds at the same conditions as claimed.
Regarding claim 23, Vierheilig teaches antimony may also be used in the slurry [0051].
Regarding claims 25-26, the prior art teaches the claim limitations as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 19, as discussed above. Vierheilig teaches that MgO may be provided alone or in mixture with other metal oxides including calcium oxide [0051]. Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected amounts of calcium and magnesium, such as that claimed, based off of availability and effectiveness. It is not seen where such a modification would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 32, Vierheilig teaches the bulk catalyst can be any conventional zeolite [0080].
Further, Willis teaches that zsm zeolites may be used in FCC [0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used zsm as the bulk catalyst of Vierheilig, since it is a known FCC zeolite.
Regarding claim 33, Vierheilig teaches the bulk catalyst can be any conventional zeolite including y zeolite [0080].
Regarding claim 37, Vierheilig teaches that the additive can be any metal alone or in combination [0051], which includes compositions with no cerium.
Regarding claim 39, Vierheilig teaches combining a bulk FCC catalyst and a catalytic cracking additive and a hydrocarbon feedstock [0017]. Vierheilig teaches gas oil, cycle oil, and resid hydrocarbon feedstocks [0073], which are the same feedstocks identified in Applicant’s instant specification as containing iron [0031]. Thus, it is expected that the Vierheilig feeds would also contain iron, since they are the same feeds as identified in Applicant’s instant specification. Vierheilig additive comprises a metal trapping material [0024] and can comprise a solid solution (slurry) [0050] of magnesium oxide [0051]. Vierheilig teaches that the metals trapping materials can comprise “one or more metals” [0051], and thus teaches MgO alone, without any calcium component.
Vierheilig teaches the MgO is present in 2-20% [0051, and that the metals trapping material comprises 5-60% of the additive [0067], which corresponds to overlapping amounts of MgO per catalyst overall.
Vierheilig does not explicitly disclose (1) the diffusion constant claimed (2) magnetic susceptibility.
Regarding (1), Wallenstein teaches a similar process for fluidized catalytic cracking [0015-0016] of resid feeds [0030] containing iron components [0031] with zeolite cracking catalysts [0024]. Wallenstein teaches that monitoring the diffusion of the equilibrium catalyst can help evaluate the operation [0031]. Wallenstein teaches diffusion coefficients of greater than 5 mm2/min [0072].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have monitored the diffusion coefficients, as disclosed by Wallenstein, in order to achieve desired cracking behavior.
Regarding (2), Evans teaches that magnetic susceptibility of fcc catalysts increases with various components including iron elements [0056].
Therefore, it is expected that the prior art catalyst having the same iron components would have the same or similar magnetic susceptibility, since the presence of such iron is correlated to the magnetic susceptibility.
Response to Arguments
Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments to be:
Vierheilig has a different purpose from Evans.
Vierheilig spray dries the catalyst components, and does not disclose a slurry as claimed.
Houtert discloses spray drying the catalyst, and does not disclose a slurry as claimed.
Houtert teaches a particles size that is much higher than the claimed range of 5nm to 1 micron.
Regarding Applicant’s first argument, Examiner notes that Evans is simply provided to show that magnetic susceptibility is a measure of the iron compounds. Since the process teaches the same iron trap MgO, it is expected that the same or similar iron content would be achieved, and thus the same or similar magnetic susceptibility.
Regarding Applicant’s second argument, Vierheilig teaches that the metal trapping additives can be added as separate particles from the catalyst, and added concurrently to the cracking reactor, which is an alternative to metals trapping material within the same particle [0024-0026]. The cracking additive is in a solid solution [0050], which Examiner considers to read on the claimed slurry.
Regarding Applicant’s third argument, similarly to Vierheilig, Houtert teaches alternate embodiments. Houtert teaches that the slurry of MgO can be added to the catalytic cracker directly, as an alternative to spray drying (column 6, lines 45-65).
Regarding Applicant’s fourth argument, Houtert teaches the most preferable particle size of 15-500 nm (column 5, lines 56-65), which lies within the claimed range of 5nm – 1 micron (1000 nm).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Willis (US 2011/0079543) – previously relied upon, teaches a similar process for adding MgO to FCC catalysts in order to trap metals. Willis teaches adding MgO in an aqueous slurry (similar to the solid/aqueous solution described by Vierheilig). Willis teaches that MgO is commercially available in slurries and having an average particle size of 1-10 microns [0030], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Diddams (US 2015/0096922) – cited in written opinion for related pct, teaches magnesium containing components to reactivate iron contaminated catalysts having a size of 1-2 microns [0027].
Wormsbecher (US 4,929,338) teaches MgO is preferred over CaO for metals passivation in FCC (column 2, lines 55-65). Wormsbecher teaches particle size of the additive is similar to the FCC catalyst, about 40-80 microns (column 3, lines 1-15).
Willis (US 2011/0079543) – teaches MgO metals trapping additive in FCC process having a particle size of 1-10 microns [0030].
Flanders (US 3,409,541) – teaches MgO cracking additive having a particle size below 2 microns (column 4, lines 1-25).
Wormsbecher (US 4,920,087) – teaches MgO cracking additive having a particle size of 40-80 microns.
Beck (US 4,432,890) - teaches MgO cracking additives.
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