DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3,5-10,12-13,16,19,22-23,25,27,30,36 and 39 were subject to restriction requirement mailed on 09/30/2025.
Applicant filed a response, and elected Group I, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, 16, 19, 22-23 and 25, and withdrew claims 27,30,36 and 39, without traverse on 11/17/2025.
Claims 1-3,5-10,12-13,16,19,22-23,25,27,30,36 and 39 are pending, and claims 27,30,36 and 39 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-3,5-10, and 12-13 are rejected.
Claims 16, 19, and 22-23 are objected to.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,227,181 B2 in view of Kubicek et al., Stabilization of zeolite beta for fcc application by embedding in amorphous matrix, Applied Catalysis, 1998 (Kubicek).
The present claims require A fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) additive composition comprising:a first component comprising beta zeolite and a first matrix;a second component comprising ZSM-5 zeolite and a second matrix; andup to about 40 wt% of a third component comprising Y zeolite and a third matrix, based on total weight of the FCC additive composition,wherein the weight ratio of the first component to the second component ranges from about 2:1 to about 9:1.
The patent claims recite a hydrocarbon conversion catalyst blend comprising: (a) a Y zeolite in an amount of 5 to 50 wt. % of said catalyst blend (reading upon third component); (b) a ZSM-5 zeolite in an amount of 5 to 40 wt. % of said catalyst blend (reading upon second component); and (c) a Beta zeolite in an amount of 35 to 70 wt. % of said catalyst blend (reading upon first component), wherein each of said ZSM-5 zeolite, said Beta zeolite, and said Y zeolite is a separate microsphere, wherein weight ratio of the first, second and third components overlaps or encompasses the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The patent does not explicitly disclose Beta catalyst is further used with a first matrix.
With respect to the difference, Kubicek teaches the use of zeolite beta for fluidized catalytic cracking application (Kubicek, Title, Abstract). Kubicek specifically teaches embedding crystals of zeolite beta in silica-alumina matrices (Kubicek, Abstract).
As Kubicek expressly teaches, zeolite beta embedded in silica-alumina matrices produces effective catalysts which maintain catalytic activity after treatment under 100% steam.
Kubicek is analogous art as Kubicek is drawn to the use of zeolite beta for fluidized catalytic cracking application.
In light of the motivation of embedding zeolite beta in silica-alumina matrices, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to embed the Beta zeolite of the patent in a silica-alumina matric, in order to maintain catalytic activity, e.g., upon treatment under steam, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, 16, 19, 22-23 and 25 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 27,30,36 and 39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1, line 4, recites “up to about 40 wt% of a third component”. The examiner interprets that the phrase includes 0 wt% of a third component, therefore the third component is optional.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 6, it is suggested to amend “m2/g” to “m2/g”.
Claim 19, line 4, it is suggested to amend “the air jet” to “an air jet” to ensure proper antecedent basis and clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9, 13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al., US 2013/0066131 A1 (Harris) in view of Kubicek et al., Stabilization of zeolite beta for fcc application by embedding in amorphous matrix, Applied Catalysis, 1998 (Kubicek).
Regarding claims 1-2, Harris teaches a petrochemical FCC catalyst system (Harris, [0017]); a catalyst blend, which comprises, based on the total weight of the catalyst blend, 5-40 wt. % ZSM-5, and 35-70% Beta catalyst (Beta catalyst reads upon a first component), the weight percent for each zeolite, as expressed immediately above and hereafter, including the appended claims, pertains to the active zeolite component and any matrix, binder or additive components (Harris, [0018]);
the ZSM-5 zeolite additive is prepared as a separate microsphere and contains phosphorus stabilized ZSM-5 zeolite, alumina, and kaolin bound together with phosphoric acid (the ZSM-5 zeolite additive reads upon a second component comprising ZSM-5 zeolite and a second matrix) (Harris, [0029]);
5-40 wt. % ZSM-5 (i.e., the second component), and 35-70% Beta catalyst (i.e., the first component) corresponds to a weight ratio of the first component to the second component from 35:40 to 70:5, which encompasses or overlaps the ranges of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further regarding claim 1, Harris does not explicitly disclose Beta catalyst is further used with a first matrix.
With respect to the difference, Kubicek teaches the use of zeolite beta for fluidized catalytic cracking application (Kubicek, Title, Abstract). Kubicek specifically teaches embedding crystals of zeolite beta in silica-alumina matrices (Kubicek, Abstract).
As Kubicek expressly teaches, zeolite beta embedded in silica-alumina matrices produces effective catalysts which maintain catalytic activity after treatment under 100% steam.
Kubicek is analogous art as Kubicek is drawn to the use of zeolite beta for fluidized catalytic cracking application.
In light of the motivation of embedding zeolite beta in silica-alumina matrices, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to embed the beta zeolite of Harris in a silica-alumina matric, in order to maintain catalytic activity, e.g., upon treatment under steam, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, Harris in view of Kubicek teaches 5-50 wt. % zeolite Y (reading upon the third component), 5-40 wt. % ZSM-5 (reading upon the second component), and 35-70% Beta catalyst (reading upon the first component), which corresponds to a weight ratio of 70:40:5 to 35:5:50, which encompasses or overlaps the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 5-7, as applied to claim 1, Harris in view of Kubicek teaches 5-50 wt. % zeolite Y (reading upon the third component), 5-40 wt. % ZSM-5 (reading upon the second component), and 35-70% Beta catalyst (reading upon the first component), which encompasses or overlaps the ranges of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1, Harries in view of Kubicek further teaches zeolite Y contains up to 12% of a rare earth element ion exchanged onto the Y zeolite (Harris, [0027]), which includes 0% of a rare earth element; and given that Harries in view of Kubicek does not require rare earth in ZSM-5 zeolite or beta zeolite, therefore Harries in view of Kubicek teaches the catalyst free of rare earth metals.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Harries in view of Kubicek teaches embedding crystals of zeolite beta in silica-alumina matrices; the ZSM-5 zeolite additive is prepared as a separate microsphere and contains phosphorus stabilized ZSM-5 zeolite, alumina, and kaolin bound together with phosphoric acid (the ZSM-5 zeolite additive reads upon a second component comprising ZSM-5 zeolite and a second matrix) (Harris, [0029]); wherein the Y zeolite is a macroporous, zeolite comprising Y zeolite crystallized as a layer on the surface of a porous alumina-containing matrix (reading upon a third component comprising Y zeolite and a third matrix) (Harris, claim 2).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 1, Harries in view of Kubicek further teaches the phosphorus level on the Beta zeolite is between 1% to 7% P2O5 (reading upon oxidized phosphorus) (Harries, [0047]).
Given that Harries in view of Kubicek does not require a transitional alumina obtained by the calcination of a dispersible boehmite in the Beta zeolite embedded in silica-alumina matrices, therefore it is clear that Harries in view of Kubicek meets the claimed limitation of wherein the first component is substantially free of a transitional alumina obtained by the calcination of a dispersible boehmite.
Regarding claim 25, as applied to claim 1, the claim further limits the third component which is an optional embodiment of claim 1 (i.e. the third component would be 0 wt%, and therefore not required in claim 1) and therefore not required. As such, claim 25 is rejected based on identical/substantially identical reasons as claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Kubicek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zafari et al., Application of zeolitic additives in the fluid catalytic cracking, Journal of Nanostructures, 2013 (Zafari).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1, Harries in view of Kubicek does not explicitly disclose the catalyst further comprising at least one additional component that is compositionally different from the first component, the second component, and the third component, wherein the at least one additional component comprises a zeolite selected from zeolites with the structure BEA, MSE, -SVR, FAU, MOR, CON, SOF, MFI, IMF, FER, MWW, MTT, TON, EUO, MRE, NAT CHA, or a combination thereof.
With respect to the difference, Zafari teaches application of zeolites in fluid catalytic cracking (Zafari, Abstract). Zafari specifically teaches the use of several zeolitic additives for the production light olefins and reduction of pollutants (Zafari, Abstract); medium pore-size zeolites other than ZSM-5 were investigated as an FCC additive include MCM-22 (Zafari, page 212, left column, bottom paragraph).
As Zafari expressly teaches, MCM-22 gives a similar increase in propene yield at lower loss in gasoline yield compared to ZSM-5 (Zafari, page 212, left column, bottom paragraph).
Zafari is analogous art as Zafari is drawn to application of zeolites in fluid catalytic cracking.
In light of the motivation of using MCM-22 zeolite (i.e., MWW zeolite) as catalytic additives as taught by Zafari, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use MCM-22 (i.e., MWW zeolite), to supplement or partially replace or in conjunction with the catalyst of Harris in view of Kubicek, in order to achieve increase in propene yield, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harries in view of Kubicek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kirker et al., US 4,724,066 (Kirker).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1, Harries in view of Kubicek further teaches for example, for the beta zeolite embedded in the silica-alumina matrices, zeolite is 50 wt.% (Kubicek, page 161, Table 1).
Harries in view of Kubicek does not explicitly disclose wherein the first component comprises aluminum phosphate (AlPO4) or amorphous aluminum phosphate at an amount of about 1 wt% to about 25 wt%, based on total weight of the first component.
With respect to the difference, Kirker teaches a catalyst comprising zeolite Beta (Kirker, Abstract). Kirker specifically teaches the catalyst further comprises aluminum phosphate (Kirker, Abstract); the zeolite may constitute from about 5 to about 95 weight percent of the total weight of the zeolite plus the aluminum phosphate (i.e., alumina phosphate constitutes about 5 to about 95 weight percent of the total weight of the zeolite plus the aluminum phosphate) (Kirker, paragraph spanning columns 8-9).
As Kirker expressly teaches, when used in sufficient amounts, the aluminum phosphate component ma enhance the catalyst lifetime (Kirker, column 8, bottom paragraph).
Kirker is analogous art as Kirker is drawn to a catalyst comprising zeolite Beta.
In light of the motivation of using aluminum phosphate with beta zeolite, as taught by Kirker, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include aluminum phosphate in the beta zeolite embedded silica-alumina matrices, of Harris in view of Kubicek, wherein alumina phosphate constitutes about 5 to about 95 weight percent of the total weight of the zeolite plus the aluminum phosphate, which corresponds to, for example, 2.5 to 47.5 weight percent of the total weight of zeolite embedded silica-alumina matrices plus the aluminum phosphate, which overlaps the range of the presently claimed, in order to improve catalyst lifetime.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 19 and 22-23 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.
Regarding claims 16, 19, and 22-23, none of Harris, Kubicek, Zafari, or Kirker teaches or suggests wherein the zeolite surface area (ZSA) of the first component ranges from about 50 m2/g to about 300 m2/g, and wherein the steamed zeolite surface area (SZSA) of the first component ranges from about 50 m2/g to about 300 m2/g, after steaming in 100% steam at 1450 °F for 24 hours; or wherein at least about 65% of the ZSA of the first component is maintained after steaming in 100% steam at 1450 °F for 24 hours, wherein the Bronsted acidity of the first component ranges from about 10 µmol/g to about 65 µmol/g, and wherein an air jet attrition rate (AJAR) of the first component is less than about 5 wt%/hr; or wherein the second component has a MSA of the ZSM-5 zeolite ranging from about 80 m2/g to about 190 m2/g, and wherein the second component has a specific pore volume of about 0.02 cm3/g to about 0.20 cm3/g.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732