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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 16-19 and 22-40 are pending. Claims 1-15 and 20-21 are canceled. New Claims 22-40 are entered.
The previous rejection of claims 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn, necessitated by the Applicant amendment.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.
Claims 28 and 38 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.
Claim 28 and 38 recites the limitation "ASA and USY" in the first lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner notes, Applicant has failed to relate the ASA concentration to the silica-alumina claimed in the parent claim.
Further, the USY concentration is not clearly associated with the claimed zeolite in the parent claim.
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) 16-19, 22-23, 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui et al (US 2019/0201882) in view of Chen et al (US 6,399,530).
With respect to claims 16 Lui discloses a hydrocracking process, comprising:
(i) subjecting a hydrocarbon feed to a pretreatment reaction over a catalyst combination comprising a catalyst (1st hydrocracking catalyst) layered with a hydrocracking pretreat catalyst (hydrogenation catalyst) (see paragraph 0072) (pretreat catalyst and hydrocracking catalyst 1, is configured in one reactor ); and (ii) passing effluent from the pretreatment reaction to a hydrocracking zone (see paragraph 0072, effluent from pretreat reaction is sent to the second hydrocracking reactor).
LUI further discloses wherein the catalyst in the step may be a conventional hydrocracking catalyst , wherein catalyst contains a carrier and an active component and zeolite, wherein the active component is selected from at least one of VIB and/or VIII metal elements and zeolite is a Y type (see paragraph 0059).
LUI does not disclose explicit disclose the utilization of the claimed tri-metal catalyst zeolite, wherein base comprising 0.1 to 40 wt. % alumina, 20 to 80 wt.% silica-alumina and 0.5 to 60 wt.% zeolite, wherein the catalyst is prepared by combining alumina, the silica-alumina and zeolite to form catalyst base mixture, adding nitric acid solution to the catalyst base mixture to form an extrudable mixture and extruding and drying the extruded mixture.
However, in a related Chen discloses an improved hydrocracking catalyst, comprising an amorphous silica carrier in a weight range from about 10-90 wt.%, alumina in amount from about 0-60 wt.%, zeolite in an amount from about 0-60 wt.% (see col 7 lines 1-10), wherein catalyst comprises Ni, Mo and W (see col 9 lines 40-50), wherein the catalyst is prepared by combining alumina, the silica-alumina and zeolite to form catalyst base mixture, adding nitric acid solution to the catalyst base mixture to form an extrudable mixture and extruding and drying the extruded mixture (see col 10 lines 40-65 and col 19 lines 15-45).
Chen further discloses wherein the inventive hydrocracking catalyst is an improvement over conventional hydrocracking catalyst in that the catalyst provides good activity and high mid-distillate selectivity, such as treating heavy hydrocarbons to produce middle distillate (see col 3 lines 20-45), which are relatable to hydrocracking process of wax oil disclosed by Lui.
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 hydrocracking catalyst of Lui with the hydrocracking catalyst of Chen, as Chen discloses wherein the inventive hydrocracking catalyst is an improvement over conventional hydrocracking catalyst in that the catalyst provides good activity and high mid-distillate selectivity , such as treating heavy hydrocarbons to produce middle distillate (see col 3 lines 20-45), which are relatable to hydrocracking process of wax oil disclosed by Lui.
With respect to claim 17, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 16.
Lui further discloses wherein the catalyst combination is layered with the hydrocracking pretreat catalyst on the top layer (see paragraph 0072).
With respect to claim 18, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 17.
Lui further discloses wherein the feed is designed for producing hydrocracked diesel fuel product (see paragraph 0009).
With respect to claim 19, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 17.
Lui further discloses wherein the feed is designed for producing a waxy base oil product (see paragraph 0009).
With respect to claim 22, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 16.
Chen further discloses wherein the Group VI metals (Mo, W) are present in an amount of 10 to 40 wt.% and Group VIII metal (Ni) are present in an amount of 1 to 20 wt.% (see col 10 lines 10-20).
With respect to claim 23, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 22.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the weight ratio of W03 to MoO3 is from 2.0 to 6.4.
However, Chen further discloses wherein the Group VI metals (Mo, W) are present in an amount of 10 to 40 wt.% and Group VIII metal (Ni) are present in an amount of 1 to 20 wt.% (see col 10 lines 10-20).
Thus, in the absence of unexpected results the claimed molar ratio would have been obvious to one with oridinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, through routine optimization.
With respect to claim 26-27, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 16.
Chen further discloses wherein zeolite is zeolite-Y, USY, beta zeolite, zeolite ZSM and SAPO (see col 7 lines 35-50).
With respect to claim 28, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 16.
Chen further discloses wherein the catalyst comprises an amorphous silica carrier in a weight range from about 10-90 wt.%, alumina in amount from about 0-60 wt.%, zeolite in an amount from about 0-60 wt.%, including USY (see col 7 lines 1-45).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui and Chen as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2015/0306583).
With respect to claim 24, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 16.
Chen further discloses wherein the Group VI metals (Mo, W) are present in an amount of 10 to 40 wt.% and Group VIII metal (Ni) are present in an amount of 1 to 20 wt.% (see col 10 lines 10-20).
The prior combination does not disclose utilizing metal precursors as claimed.
However, in a field, Zhang discloses a hydrocracking catalyst for middle distillate hydrocracking, wherein during the hydrocracking catalyst preparation, a metal impregnation solution utilized to impart metals on the catalyst, wherein the solution is made from dissolving metals precursors in deionized water (see paragraph 0077).
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 claimed metal precursors in view of Zhang, as said use of metal precursors in catalyst production is conventional.
With respect to claim 25, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 24.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the molar ratio of W to Mo is from 1.2 to 4.0.
However, Chen further discloses wherein the Group VI metals (Mo, W) are present in an amount of 10 to 40 wt.% and Group VIII metal (Ni) are present in an amount of 1 to 20 wt.% (see col 10 lines 10-20).
Thus, in the absence of unexpected results the claimed molar ratio would have been obvious to one with oridinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, through routine optimization.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui and Chen as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Maesen et al (US 2017/0043328).
With respect to claims 29, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 17.
The prior combination 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 the prior combination 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 30, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 29.
Maesen further discloses utilizing citric acid (see paragraph 0101).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 31-33, 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui et al (US 2019/0201882) in view of Chen et al (US 6,399,530).
With respect to claims 31, Lui discloses a hydrocracking process, comprising:
(i) subjecting a hydrocarbon feed to a pretreatment reaction over a catalyst combination comprising a catalyst (1st hydrocracking catalyst) layered with a hydrocracking pretreat catalyst (hydrogenation catalyst) (see paragraph 0072) (pretreat catalyst and hydrocracking catalyst 1, is configured in one reactor ) under hydrotreating conditions (see paragraph 0062);
LUI further discloses wherein the catalyst in the step may be a conventional hydrocracking catalyst , wherein catalyst contains a carrier and an active component and zeolite, wherein the active component is selected from at least one of VIB and/or VIII metal elements and zeolite is a Y type (see paragraph 0059).
LUI does not disclose explicit disclose the utilization of the claimed tri-metal catalyst zeolite, wherein base comprising 0.1 to 40 wt. % alumina, 20 to 80 wt.% silica-alumina and 0.5 to 60 wt.% zeolite, wherein the catalyst is prepared by combining alumina, the silica-alumina and zeolite to form catalyst base mixture, adding nitric acid solution to the catalyst base mixture to form an extrudable mixture and extruding and drying the extruded mixture.
However, in a related Chen discloses an improved hydrocracking catalyst, comprising an amorphous silica carrier in a weight range from about 10-90 wt.%, alumina in amount from about 0-60 wt.%, zeolite in an amount from about 0-60 wt.% (see col 7 lines 1-10), wherein catalyst comprises Ni, Mo and W (see col 9 lines 40-50), wherein the catalyst is prepared by combining alumina, the silica-alumina and zeolite to form catalyst base mixture, adding nitric acid solution to the catalyst base mixture to form an extrudable mixture and extruding and drying the extruded mixture (see col 10 lines 40-65 and col 19 lines 15-45).
Chen further discloses wherein the inventive hydrocracking catalyst is an improvement over conventional hydrocracking catalyst in that the catalyst provides good activity and high mid-distillate selectivity , such as treating heavy hydrocarbons to produce middle distillate (see col 3 lines 20-45), which are relatable to hydrocracking process of wax oil disclosed by Lui.
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 hydrocracking catalyst of Lui with the hydrocracking catalyst of Chen, as Chen discloses wherein the inventive hydrocracking catalyst is an improvement over conventional hydrocracking catalyst in that the catalyst provides good activity and high mid-distillate selectivity , such as treating heavy hydrocarbons to produce middle distillate (see col 3 lines 20-45), which are relatable to hydrocracking process of wax oil disclosed by Lui.
With respect to claim 32, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 31.
Chen further discloses wherein the Group VI metals (Mo, W) are present in an amount of 10 to 40 wt.% and Group VIII metal (Ni) are present in an amount of 1 to 20 wt.% (see col 10 lines 10-20).
With respect to claim 33, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 32.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the weight ratio of W03 to MoO3 is from 2.0 to 6.4.
However, Chen further discloses wherein the Group VI metals (Mo, W) are present in an amount of 10 to 40 wt.% and Group VIII metal (Ni) are present in an amount of 1 to 20 wt.% (see col 10 lines 10-20).
Thus, in the absence of unexpected results the claimed molar ratio would have been obvious to one with oridinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, through routine optimization.
With respect to claim 36-37, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 31.
Chen further discloses wherein zeolite is zeolite-Y, USY, beta zeolite, zeolite ZSM and SAPO (see col 7 lines 35-50).
With respect to claim 38, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 31.
Chen further discloses wherein the catalyst comprises an amorphous silica carrier in a weight range from about 10-90 wt.%, alumina in amount from about 0-60 wt.%, zeolite in an amount from about 0-60 wt.%, including USY (see col 7 lines 1-45),
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui and Chen as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2015/0306583).
With respect to claim 34, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 31.
Chen further discloses wherein the Group VI metals (Mo, W) are present in an amount of 10 to 40 wt.% and Group VIII metal (Ni) are present in an amount of 1 to 20 wt.% (see col 10 lines 10-20).
The prior combination does not disclose utilizing metal precursors as claimed.
However, in a field, Zhang discloses a hydrocracking catalyst for middle distillate hydrocracking, wherein during the hydrocracking catalyst preparation, a metal impregnation solution utilized to impart metals on the catalyst, wherein the solution is made from dissolving metals precursors in deionized water (see paragraph 0077).
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 claimed metal precursors in view of Zhang, as said use of metal precursors in catalyst production is conventional.
With respect to claim 35, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 34.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the molar ratio of W to Mo is from 1.2 to 4.0.
However, Chen further discloses wherein the Group VI metals (Mo, W) are present in an amount of 10 to 40 wt.% and Group VIII metal (Ni) are present in an amount of 1 to 20 wt.% (see col 10 lines 10-20).
Thus, in the absence of unexpected results the claimed molar ratio would have been obvious to one with oridinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, through routine optimization.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui and Chen as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Maesen et al (US 2017/0043328).
With respect to claims 39, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 32.
The prior combination 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 the prior combination 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 40, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 39.
Maesen further discloses utilizing citric acid (see paragraph 0101).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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