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 .
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.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
The combined references of Lacheen et al (WO 2020/222171 A1) in view of Ojo et al (US 2017/0058209 A1) disclose all limitations of the special technical feature recited in claim 1. Since the special technical feature is disclosed by the prior art, that special technical feature does not provide a contribution over the prior art. Further, because PCT Rule 13. 2 states that a lack of unity exists when the special technical feature does not provide a contribution over the prior art, and because the examiner has disclosed references which teach this special technical feature, a proper assertion has been made that there exists lack of unity. See the detailed discussion below.
Claims 14-15 and 21-25 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-13 read on the elected group.
Claim Objection
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble is recited the term “catalyst system”. Normally the term “system” is used for apparatus. The Examiner suggests deleting the word “system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding abstract and claim 9, the parentheses around the words should be removed.
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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.
The term of “base oils” recited in claims 1 and 13 considered indefinite because the addition of the word “base” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
All other claims depend directly or indirectly from the rejected claims and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for the reasons set forth above.
The term of “base material” recited in claim 4 is considered indefinite because the addition of the word “base” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
The terms “ZSM-48 type zeolite material”, “polytype 6” and “EUO-type phase” recited in claims 5 and 7 are considered indefinite because the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the molecular sieve" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the silicon oxide" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 6-7, 9-10 and 13, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claims 6-7 and 9 recites the broad recitations “40 to 220,” “between 1 and 5,” and 0.01-5.0 wt %,” respectively, and the claims also recite “50 to 220 or 40 to 200 or 50 to 140,” “between 1 and 3,” and “0.01 to 2.0 wt %,” which are the narrower statements of the ranges/limitations. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
See also claim 10 (“0.01-1.0 wt. %” and “0.3-0.8 wt. %”) and claim 13 (“no greater than -10o C” and “no greater than -13o C”).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second stage product" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should recite “the second product” in agreement with the recitation of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lacheen et al (WO 2020/222171 A1) in view of Ojo et al (US 2017/0058209 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Lacheen et al discloses hydroisomerization catalyst useful to make dewaxed products including oils comprising:
a. reacting a high carbon number normal alpha olefin in the presence of an ionic catalysts at a temperature of 130 °C or higher to produce oligomers (the instant claimed hydrocarbon feedstock);
b. hydroisomerization of the oligomer product produced in (a) under H2 atmosphere with a catalyst containing metal and medium pore zeolite selected from ZSM-48, …, SSZ-91, SSZ-95;
c. distilling and fractionating the hydroisomerized product of (b) to produce a light fraction up to 371 °C, low-viscosity base oil in the 371-488 °C distillate, and high-viscosity oil above 488 °C.” (page 2, lines 24-32).
Lacheen et al. further teach “[h]ydroisomerization catalysts useful in the present invention usually comprises a shape-selective molecular sieve, a metal or metal mixture that is catalytically active for hydrogenation, and a refractory oxide support…Suitable zeolites include … ZSM-48, …, SSZ-91, SSZ-95…” (page 7, lines 36-38 & 47-51).
Lacheen et al. also disclose “[f]eed stock is comprised of high carbon number normal alpha olefins with the carbon number ranging from 14 to 24 (C14 - C24), preferentially C14 – C18 from petroleum process…In a particular embodiment of the process for C14 - C24 oligomerization, the chemical reaction is controlled to maximize the dimer yield and to minimize higher molecular weight oligomers (trimer, tetramers and higher oligomers)” (page 5, line 50 to page 6, line 9). In other words, in a preferred embodiment, the oligomer to be hydroisomerized is a C28-C48 hydrocarbon.
Moreover, said oligomer comprises olefins since Lacheen et al discloses “[t]he oligomerized product was hydroisomerized under the H2 atmosphere with a catalyst containing precious metal and medium pore zeolite to saturate the double bonds in the olefin oligomers and isomerize the carbon backbone structure at the same time” (page 9, lines 8-10).
Lacheen et al do not appear to explicitly disclose a first catalyst composition and a second catalyst composition wherein one composition comprises SSZ-91 and the other comprises SSZ-95 as per applicant claim 1.
Ojo et al, which is concerned with SSZ-91 molecular sieves, discloses the use of the same in producing C20+ lube oil from C20+ olefins via isomerization. The use of SSZ-91 is highly selective in isomerization with limited cracking (Example 8, [0078] and Table 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the process of Lacheen et al, wherein hydroisomerization is performed with a SSZ-95 zeolite, with the SSZ-91 zeolite because it has been held to be “prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art" [In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072]. Note that a composition is the act or process of composing wherein composing means to form by putting together.
In keeping with a broadest reasonable interpretation, the aforesaid third composition need not be an intimate mixture of SSZ-91 and SSZ-95. Said third composition may be an arrangement of said zeolites in a specific proportion and in a certain relation such that a feedstock interacts with one of the zeolites and then the other. Consequently, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned refractory oxide corresponds to the recited matrix material. Additionally, Lacheen et al discloses “[t]ypical catalytically active hydrogenation metals include platinum, and palladium. Platinum and palladium are especially preferred, with platinum mostly preferred” (page 7, lines 39-41). The active hydrogenation metals correspond to the at least one modifier of the instant application.
Regarding claim 5, the combined references of Lacheen et al. and Oji et al. teach the instant claimed ZSM-48 and molecular sieve (see [0017]-[0019] and claim 1 of Ojo et al.):
PNG
media_image1.png
556
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the combined references of Lacheen et al. and Oji et al. teach the instant claimed SSZ-91 with a molar ratio of silicon oxide to aluminum oxide ([0016]-[0019], and claims 3 & 4 of Ojo et al.)
Regarding claim 7, the combined references of Lacheen et al. and Oji et al. teach the instant claimed SSZ-91 molecular sieve (see claims 7-12 of Ojo et al.).
Regarding claim 8, Lacheen et al discloses “[z]eolite containing one-dimensional or two-dimensional, 10-membered ring pore structure, such as those having MFI, MEL, MFS, MRE, MTT, SFF, STI, TON, OSI, or NES framework type may be used” (page 7, lines 48-52). Additionally, it is well-known in the art that SSZ-95 zeolites possess the recited properties.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Lacheen et al discloses “[i]f platinum and/or palladium is used, the metal content is typically in the range of 0.1 to 5 weight percent of the total catalyst, usually from 0.1 to 2 weight percent, and not to exceed 10 weight percent” (page 7, lines 41-43).
The references differ from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" ranges and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, Lacheen et al discloses “[a]morphous materials with acidic sites in combination with metal may be used for hydroisomerization. Suitable amorphous materials include amorphous silica-alumina, silica-alumina-titania, zirconia-alumina and zirconia-ceria-alumina” (page 7, lines 52-54). Said amorphous materials are the refractory oxide supports discussed previously and correspond to the recited matrix material.
Regarding claim 12, the claimed ranges “0 to 99 wt. % and 0.1 to 99 wt. %, respectively” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, Lacheen et al discloses “[h]ydroisomerization catalysts are discussed, for example, in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,390,763 and 9,616,419, as well as U.S. Patent Application Publications 2011/0192766 and 2017/0183583” (page 7, lines 43-45) and Ide et al ‘583, for example, discloses “[t]he amount of zeolite…in a [dewaxing, i.e., (hydro)isomerization—Examiner’s insert] catalyst formulated using a binder can be from 30 wt. % zeolite to 90 wt. % zeolite or even up to about 100 wt. % zeolite relative to the combined weight of binder and zeolite” ([0030]).
That the binders comprise “silica, alumina, silica-alumina, titania, silica-titania, alumina-titania, zirconia, silica-zirconia, titania-zirconia, ceria, tungsten oxide, and combinations thereof, for example alumina, silica, titania, silica-alumina, and combinations thereof” ([0023]) some of which are the same as the amorphous materials of Lacheen et al. Therefore, in view of the teachings contained in Lacheen et al, a catalyst composition comprising, for example, 30 wt. % or more of zeolite (SSZ-91 or SSZ-95), the above referenced quantities of active hydrogenation metals, and the balance refractory oxide/amorphous material would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Lacheen et al discloses a preferred viscosity index of the hydroisomerized product oil of viscosity index of 130 or more (see figure 6A, especially the data points circumscribed by the dashed line indicating “Invention;” see also page 2, lines 53-54; page 23, lines 38-41; Tables 9 and 11).
Additionally, Lacheen et al discloses “low-viscosity base oil shows 3.5 -4.6 cSt viscosity at 100 °C with the properties of >130 VI, <15% Noack volatility, <20 °C pour and cloud points” (page 5, lines 27-29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1732
/YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738