DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 3-6, 8-10, 12, and 14-15 have been amended. Claims 1-16 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application is a US national stage of international application PCT/CN2021/124302, which has an international filing date of October 18, 2021, and claims priority to Chinese Patent application 202011115942.6, filed on October 19, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements, filed on 04/13/2023, 10/31/2024, and 05/15/2025, have been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (i.e. claims 1-9) in the reply by Applicant’s representative Allen Xue filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicant fails to provide the support for the traverse, the restriction requirement is maintained, and made Final.
However, the withdrawn claims commensurate in scope with claim 1 would be subject to rejoinder if claim 1 is found allowable.
Status of the Claims
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by Examiner as being drawn to non-elected inventions under 37 CFR 1.142(b) due to Applicant’s response to the restriction requirement. Claims 1-9 are under examination on the merits.
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claims 1-9 contain the term “preferably”, which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the narrower scope of the limitation (e.g., hydrogen-type β zeolite as an example in claim 1) following the term is part of the broader scope of the limitation of “β zeolite”. 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). 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.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108262065 (“the 065 publication”) to Yuan et al., in view of Corma et al., Journal of Catalysis, (2001), v.200, p.259-269, and Maheshwari et al., JACS, (2008), v.130, p1507-1516.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a hydrocracking catalyst, comprising the following components: a) a β-zeolite, preferably a hydrogen-type p zeolite, b) a layered MWW-type zeolite, c) a metal functional component, and d) a binder, and optionally e) a metal function regulating component, wherein the layered MWW-type zeolite has a lamellar thickness of 2-12 nm.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `065 publication (claim 1) discloses a hydrogenation catalyst, characterized in that it comprises an active metal and a support; the active metal is a metal of Group VIB and Group VIII, wherein the Group VIB metal is molybdenum (Mo) and/or tungsten (W), and the Group VIII metal is cobalt (Co) and/or nickel (Ni); the support is composed of a solid acid component and an amorphous heat-resistant oxide; the solid acid component is a mixture of MCM-22 molecular sieve (MWW-type zeolite) and Beta molecular sieve (β-zeolite), wherein the mass ratio of the MCM-22 molecular sieve to the Beta molecular sieve is 1:10 to 10:1; the hydrogenation catalyst has a specific surface area of 200-320 m²/g, a total pore volume of 0.30-0.50 ml/g, an infrared acidity of 0.50-1.0 mmol/g, a Brønsted acid to Lewis acid ratio of 0.2-1.0, and a radial crushing resistance greater than 150 N/cm. The `065 publication [0001] discloses the catalyst is a hydrocracking catalyst. Therefore, the `065 publication discloses the catalyst comprising MCM-22 and zeolite-β (the MCM-22 molecular sieve and the beta molecular sieve mass ratio of 1:10 to 10:1), silica-alumina binder material, and comprising Ni or Co with molybdenum (Mo) or tungsten (W). The `065 publication [0073] further discloses the hydrogenation catalyst can be used in hydrocracking to flexibly produce heavy naphtha, aviation kerosene and diesel. It must further be considered that the catalyst will be reduced in the reactor at 380 °C. The `065 publication [0024] discloses the treated MCM-22 molecular sieve (MWW-type zeolite) and Beta molecular sieve (β-zeolite), are mixed with amorphous heat-resistant oxide, binder and extrusion aid and then dried and calcined to make a catalyst support. In addition, Example 8 of the `065 publication [0048-0050] discloses the catalyst comprising a mixture of 1g of MCM-22 molecular sieve, 10g of Beta molecular sieve, 45g of amorphous silica-alumina, 24g of microporous alumina and 20g of microporous alumina, and 3g of 65% nitric acid solution.
Corma et al. discloses catalysts based on Ni-Mo and Pt supported on delaminated ITQ-2 zeolite for the mild hydrocracking (MHC) of vacuum gasoil and aromatic hydrogenation (see introduction at p.259). Corma et al. discloses using a layered MWW-type zeolite having a lamellar thickness of 2.5 nm (ITQ-2) as a hydrocracking catalyst carrier to improve the catalytic performance of the hydrocracking catalyst (see FIG. 1).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between Applicant’s claim 1 and the `065 publication is that the prior art does not teach the layered MWW-type zeolite has a lamellar thickness of 2-12 nm.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, the difference is further taught and/or suggested by Corma et al. Specifically, Corma et al. teaches using a layered MWW-type zeolite having a lamellar thickness of 2.5 nm (ITQ-2) as a hydrocracking catalyst carrier to improve the catalytic performance of the hydrocracking catalyst. In addition, Maheshwari et al. teaches MCM-22 (MWW-type zeolite) has a layered structure with a typical thickness of a single MCM-22 layer is about 2.5 nm (see “1. Introduction” at p.1507, Scheme 1 at p.1510, and Figures 9-11 at p.1514). Therefore, the `065 publication in view of Corma et al. and Maheshwari et al. would have rendered claim 1 obvious.
In terms of claims 2-4, the `065 publication (claim 1) discloses a hydrogenation cracking catalyst, characterized in that it comprises an active metal and a support; the active metal is a metal of Group VIB and Group VIII, wherein the Group VIB metal is molybdenum (Mo) and/or tungsten (W), and the Group VIII metal is cobalt (Co) and/or nickel (Ni); the support is composed of a solid acid component and an amorphous heat-resistant oxide; the solid acid component is a mixture of MCM-22 molecular sieve and Beta molecular sieve, wherein the mass ratio of the MCM-22 molecular sieve to the Beta molecular sieve is 1:10 to 10:1; the hydrogenation catalyst has a specific surface area of 200-320 m²/g, a total pore volume of 0.30-0.50 ml/g, an infrared acidity of 0.50-1.0 mmol/g, a Brønsted acid to Lewis acid ratio of 0.2-1.0, and a radial crushing resistance greater than 150 N/cm. The `065 publication [0001] discloses the catalyst is a hydrocracking catalyst. Therefore, the `065 publication discloses the catalyst comprising MCM-22 and zeolite-β (the MCM-22 molecular sieve and the beta molecular sieve mass ratio of 1:10 to 10:1), silica-alumina binder material, and comprising Ni or Co with molybdenum (Mo) or tungsten (W). Therefore, the `065 publication discloses the hydrogenation cracking catalyst which reads on the weight percentage ranges of the β-zeolite and MWW-type zeolite.
In addition, Examples 1-14 of the `065 publication teach the range of each active agents in the combined composition. Furthermore, optimization of the range of each active agents in the combined composition is a routine practice, not inventive practice. It has been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). The rationale for determining the optimal parameters for prior art result effective variables "flows from the 'normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.'" Id. (quoting In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). "Only if the results of optimizing a variable are unexpectedly good can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quotations omitted). Therefore, claims 2-4 would have been prima facie obvious over the `065 publication in view of Corma et al. and Maheshwari et al.
In terms of claims 5-9, the `065 publication [0025] teaches that Beta molecular sieve (β-zeolite) has Si/Al ratio is 30-100, a specific area of 300-600 m2/g, and a pore volume of 0.4-0.8 ml/g. In addition, Example 8 of the `065 publication [0048-0050] discloses the catalyst comprising a mixture of 1g of MCM-22 molecular sieve (MWW-type zeolite), 10g of Beta molecular sieve (β-zeolite), 45g of amorphous silica-alumina, 24g of microporous alumina and 20g of microporous alumina (binder), and 3g of 65% nitric acid solution. the `065 publication (claim 1) discloses a hydrogenation cracking catalyst, characterized in that it comprises an active metal and a support; the active metal is a metal of Group VIB and Group VIII, wherein the Group VIB metal is molybdenum (Mo) and/or tungsten (W), and the Group VIII metal is cobalt (Co) and/or nickel (Ni); the support is composed of a solid acid component and an amorphous heat-resistant oxide; the solid acid component is a mixture of MCM-22 molecular sieve and Beta molecular sieve, wherein the mass ratio of the MCM-22 molecular sieve to the Beta molecular sieve is 1:10 to 10:1; the hydrogenation catalyst has a specific surface area of 200-320 m²/g, a total pore volume of 0.30-0.50 ml/g, an infrared acidity of 0.50-1.0 mmol/g, a Brønsted acid to Lewis acid ratio of 0.2-1.0, and a radial crushing resistance greater than 150 N/cm. The `065 publication [0001] discloses the catalyst is a hydrocracking catalyst. Therefore, the `065 publication discloses the catalyst comprising MCM-22 and zeolite-β (the MCM-22 molecular sieve and the beta molecular sieve mass ratio of 1:10 to 10:1), silica-alumina binder material, and comprising Ni or Co with molybdenum (Mo) or tungsten (W).
In addition, Examples 1-14 of the `065 publication teach the range of each active agents in the combined composition. Furthermore, optimization of the range of each active agents in the combined composition is a routine practice, not inventive practice. It has been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). The rationale for determining the optimal parameters for prior art result effective variables "flows from the 'normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.'" Id. (quoting In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). "Only if the results of optimizing a variable are unexpectedly good can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quotations omitted). Therefore, claims 5-9 would have been prima facie obvious over the `065 publication in view of Corma et al. and Maheshwari et al.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because the claim contains the phrase “The catalyst according to claims 1”, wherein the term “claims 1” should be replaced with “claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusions
Claims 1-9 are rejected.
Claim 4 is objected to.
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731