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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4, 7-11, 13-15 and 17-19 are pending. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 12, 16 and 20-21 are canceled.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 4, 7-11, 13-15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn, after reconsideration of Applicant remarks.
However, after reconsideration of the record, new rejections will be entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4-5, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4, 7-11, 13-15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
In particular the Applicant Argument is:
As previously noted, Ojo relates to a hydroisomerization process and catalyst, but does "not disclose wherein the hydroisomerization process is useful to make dewaxed products including base oils". (pg 4, Official Action, as combined with McVicker). Boumendjel has been cited as disclosing the production of base oils from deasphalted oil through "hydrotreating, hydrocracking, catalytically dewaxing (hydroisomerization), hydrofinishing, and fractionating". The Examiner concludes that because "hydroisomerization is part of the process scheme in developing base oil" it would allegedly be prima facie obvious to use the catalyst of Ojo in a process to make base oils.
Applicant respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons. Neither Ojo nor Boumendjel provide the requisite disclosure, suggestion, or motivation to use a hydroisomerization catalyst comprising an SSZ-91 molecular sieve and two different first and second modifying metals to produce a base oil according to the claims. While Ojo does generally describe the use of SSZ-91 catalysts for hydroisomerization, there is no evident disclosure or suggestion to use an SSZ-91 catalyst to produce a base oil, let alone a disclosure or suggestion to use bimetallic or multi- metallic SSZ-91 catalysts to produce a base oil. Boumendjel fails to provide the missing information or motivation that would prompt the skilled artisan to use a bimetallic or multi-metallic SSZ-91 catalyst in a hydroisomerization process to produce a base oil. Quite simply, there is no connection between Ojo and Boumendjel that would suggest a reason to select such a catalyst to produce a base oil according to Applicant's claims. The mere disclosure of "hydroisomerization" is not a sufficient basis to conclude that the preparation of a base oil product follows as some sort of obvious extension, especially where neither document provides appropriate guidance.
After reconsideration of the record in view of the Applicant remarks the Examiner finds Applicant remarks persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ojo et al (US 2017/0058209) in view of McVicker et al (US 4,094,821) and Lei et al (US 2017/0066979).
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) 1, 4, 7-11, 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ojo et al (US 2017/0058209) in view of McVicker et al (US 4,094,821) and Lei et al (US 2017/0066979).
With respect to claims 1 and 4, Ojo discloses a hydroisomerization process, the process comprising:
contacting a hydrocarbon feed with a hydroisomerization catalyst under hydroisomerization conditions to produce a product (see paragraph 0069 and 0091 - 0092);
wherein, the hydroisomerization catalyst comprises an SSZ-91 molecular sieve, including at least one active metal selected from nickel, platinum and palladium and combination thereof (see paragraph 0068).
Thus, in the broadest interpretation Ojo discloses wherein catalyst includes a first modifying metal selected from nickel, platinum and palladium and combination thereof, and the second modifying metal selected nickel, platinum and palladium and combination thereof.
In as much, Ojo does not specifically disclose wherein the catalyst comprises wherein the first modifying metal is selected from Re, Ru, Ir, and Sn and the second modifying metal is selected from Re, Ru, Ir, and Sn.
However, Ojo discloses that suitable metals for the disclosed catalyst could be found in McVicker, incorporated by reference (see paragraph 0068).
McVicker discloses suitable catalyst metals include, Group VIII noble metals including, Pt, Ir, Pd, Ru, including a combination of Pt and Ir (see col 3 lines 35-45);
McVicker further discloses wherein the catalyst also includes a promoter metal, such as Rhenium (see col 3 lines 50-68).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Ojo catalyst with a first modifying metal is selected from Pt, Pd, Ni, Re, Ru, Ir and the second modifying metal is selected from Pd, Ni, Re, Ru, Ir, in view of McVicker, as Ojo discloses that McVicker disclosed metals are applicable to the SZZ-91 catalyst.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the hydroisomerization process is useful to make dewaxed products including base oils.
However, it is noted, that Ojo discloses that the SSZ-91 is useful for a variety of hydrocarbon conversion reactions such as hydrocracking, dewaxing, olefin isomerization, alkylation and isomerization of aromatic compounds and the like (see paragraph 0069).
In a related process for producing base oils, Lei discloses utilizing a dewaxing (hydroisomerization) catalyst comprising a SSZ-91 molecular sieve, support and platinum and palladium to produce base oils (see abstract, paragraph 0123-0132).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to utilize the hydroisomerization catalyst of Ojo in a process to make base oils in view of Lei, as said claimed catalyst are used in the production scheme to developing base oils.
With respect to claim 7-8, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
McVicker discloses wherein noble metal is used the metal concentration is preferably below 2 wt.% and wherein non-noble metals are used the metal concentration is from about 1 to 25 wt.% (see col 4 lines 1-15).
With respect to claim 9, the prior combination teaches the limitations of claim 1.
McVicker discloses wherein noble metal is used the metal concentration is preferably below 2 wt.% and wherein non-noble metals are used the metal concentration is from about 1 to 25 wt.% (see col 4 lines 1-15).
With respect to claim 10, the prior combination teaches the limitations of claim 1.
McVicker discloses wherein noble metal is used the metal concentration is preferably below 2 wt.% and wherein non-noble metals are used the metal concentration is from about 1 to 25 wt.% (see col 4 lines 1-15).
With respect to claim 11, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1. Ojo further discloses wherein the silicon oxide to aluminum oxide mole ratio of the sieve is in the range of 40 to 220 (see paragraph 0016).
With respect to claim 13, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Lei further discloses wherein the dewaxing catalyst comprises a support including alumina, and/or amorphous alumina (see paragraph 0125-0126).
With respect to claim 14, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 13.
McVicker discloses wherein noble metal is used the metal concentration is preferably below 2 wt.% and wherein non-noble metals are used the metal concentration is from about 1 to 25 wt.% (see col 4 lines 1-15).
Lei further discloses wherein the catalyst comprises 5 to 80 wt.% of the matrix material (see paragraph 0129), and 0.0 to 80 wt.% of the SSZ-91 molecular sieve (see paragraph 0131).
With respect to claim 15, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1. Lei further discloses wherein lube feedstock comprises a deasphalted oil (see figure 2 and paragraph 0015).
With respect to claim 17, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the base oil product has a reduced aromatics content as compared with a base oil product produced in the same process using an SSZ-91 catalyst that only contains Pt as the modifying metal.
However, barring any expected result, it would be expected that the catalyst disclosed by the prior art having the same hydroisomerization composition would inherently have similar characteristics as claimed.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to expect an increased activity of a catalyst with two modifying metals, as compared with a catalyst that only contains Pt as the modifying metal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ojo, McVicker and Lei as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Miller (WO 97/12012).
With respect to claim 18, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 17. The prior combination further discloses using modifying metals platinum and palladium in the base oil producing process (see Lei paragraph 0132, see Ojo paragraph 0068).
The prior combination does not disclose utilizing a heavy neutral base oil feedstock as Claimed.
Miller discloses an integrated process is provided for preparing a dewaxed heavy lube base oil product and a dewaxed light lube base oil product from a waxy feedstock (see abstract), wherein heavy lube base oil includes a heavy neutral fraction (see abstract and page 5 lines 20-30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a heavy neutral base oil feedstock with prior combination in view of Miller, as said feedstock is conventional.
With respect to claim 19, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 18.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the aromatics conversion is increased by at least about 1.5 wt.% or 2.0 wt.%, as compared with the use, in the same process, of an SSZ-91 catalyst that only contains Pt as the modifying metal.
However, barring any expected result, it would be expected that the catalyst disclosed by the prior art having the same hydroisomerization composition would inherently have similar characteristics as claimed.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to expect an increased activity of a catalyst with two modifying metals, as compared with a catalyst that only contains Pt as the modifying metal.
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