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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to correspondence filed on 06/08/2026.
Claims 16-19, 23-31 and 33-40 are pending. Claims 1-15, 20-22 and 32 are canceled.
The previous rejection of claims 28 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) are withdrawn, necessitated by the Applicant amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 16-19, 23 and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn, necessitated by the Applicant amendment.
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, 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), 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);
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 23, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 16.
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 ordinary 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 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);
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 33, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 31.
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 ordinary 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 ordinary 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 31.
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
With respect to Applicant remarks, the Examiner understands Applicant arguments to be:
“The Office Action asserts that Liu discloses a catalyst system layered with a hydrocracking pretreat catalyst. Liu actually describes process sequencing in which pre-hydrotreating and hydrocracking steps may occur in one or more reactors or beds. Liu's disclosure concerns process flow architectures, not a structurally defined layered catalyst system incorporating the specific catalyst composition recited in the claims. The Office Action therefore improperly equates general multi-stage processing with the claimed layered catalyst configuration, which constitutes a material mischaracterization.”
With respect to the argument above it is the Examiner position that the disclosed Lui catalyst system meets the definition of a layered catalyst, which is defined as a structured catalyst system composed of multiple distinct layers, each with a specific function, arranged in a precise sequence to optimize performance in a given application. Thus, the Applicant remark is not persuasive.
“Even when Liu and Chen are considered together, the documents fail to disclose or suggest the claimed invention as a whole because they do not teach the specific catalyst composition, do not teach the claimed preparation method, and do not describe how such a catalyst would be implemented in a layered hydrocracking system. The rejection isolates process features in Liu and catalyst features in Chen and then combines them without addressing the integrated nature of the claimed invention. The claims require a coordinated system in which catalyst composition, preparation, and use operate together. By failing to analyze these elements collectively, the Office Action does not properly evaluate the invention as a whole.”
The Office Action states that Chen's catalyst could be incorporated into Liu's process to improve activity and selectivity, but this reasoning fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would make such a substitution or how the substitution would be implemented. The Office Action does not address compatibility between the catalyst and process, does not cite any teaching suggesting such integration, and does not establish a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the asserted motivation to combine is legally insufficient and improper.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case both references are related to the hydrocracking process and catalyst, the combination of both elements would have been obvious and conventional to one with ordinary skilled in the art.
Furthermore, it is Examiner position that the disclosed Lui catalyst system meets the definition of a layered catalyst, which is defined as a structured catalyst system composed of multiple distinct layers, each with a specific function, arranged in a precise sequence to optimize performance in a given application. Thus, the Applicant remark is not persuasive.
“Applicant further notes the Office Action acknowledges that the WO₃/MoO₃ ratio recited in claim 23 is not disclosed in the cited art and asserts that the ratio would have been obvious through routine optimization. However, the Office Action does not identify any result-effective variable, does not point to any teaching indicating that such a ratio would be optimized, and does not demonstrate predictability of results. Chen provides only broad metal disclosures and does not teach the claimed ratio. Accordingly, the reliance on routine optimization is unsupported. Claim 23 remains patentable for at least this additional reason.”
With respect to claimed language “optionally, wherein the weight ratio of WO3 to MoO3 is from 2.0 to 6.4”, the Examiner notes the claim language is optional and does not differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art.
In as much, the Applicant has failed to show within the specification how the specific range would have produced an improvement over the prior art. Is the Specific ratio important? Does it produce unexpected result. The specification fails to address said importance.
Thus, in the absence of unexpected results the claimed molar ratio would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, through routine optimization.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Liu does not disclose the claimed catalyst composition or layered configuration, Chen does not disclose the claimed preparation method or integrated base structure, the combination lacks a sufficient motivation and reasonable expectation of success, and the rejection relies on improper hindsight and unsupported optimization arguments. The amendment to claim 16 further reinforces these distinctions. Accordingly, the §103 rejection of claims 16-19 and 23-30 is improper and should be withdrawn. Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case both references are related to the hydrocracking process and catalyst, the combination of the elements would have been obvious and conventional to one with ordinary skilled in the art.
Remarks regarding claims 31 and 33-40 are addressed by the response above. The Remarks regarding claims 31 and 33-40 are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights