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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-10 and 13 are amended. Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn due to an earlier restriction requirement.
The amendments overcome the previous claim objections and most 112(b) rejections, except for claim 3, as detailed below.
Claims 1-10 and 13 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 20 October 2025, have been fully considered. Some are persuasive, and some are not.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 3 are partly persuasive. However, the amendment and argument does not fully address the indefiniteness issue. As Applicant notes, claim 3 is not dependent on claim 2. Thus, the recitation of a different hydrocracking catalyst in claim 3 versus claim 2 could be proper. However, claim 2 recites both conditions and a catalyst, which are both for the hydrocracking reaction. Whereas claim 3 recites hydrogenation conditions, but then a hydrocracking catalyst. It is an inconsistency that rises to the level of indefiniteness, because it is not clear why the claim would recite hydrogenation conditions but then also refer to the hydrocracking catalyst, especially when a hydrocracking catalyst has already been claimed, and thus it is unclear that the hydrocracking catalyst is what is intended for claim 3. Further, other than repeating the claim language, the instant specification always discusses the presence of an acidic support for the hydrocracking catalyst. This makes sense, as the acidic support can be what distinguishes a cracking catalyst from any other hydrotreating catalyst. Claim 3 does not require an acidic support with the catalyst. Thus, it appears that claim 3 should really be referring to a hydrogenation catalyst, as the hydrogenation conditions are claimed within the same claim, the details of the hydrogenation catalyst have not been previously claimed, and the instant specification recites that the hydrogenation catalyst contains the same metals and refractory support listed in claim 3 (instant specification page 16, lines 23-25). As such, the 112(b) rejection of claim 3 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 and 13 under USC 103 over De Clerk have been fully considered and are persuasive. De Clerk only teaches producing the fractions by Fischer-Tropsch reaction, which as explained by Applicant does not produce a mixture having a C9 content comprising at least 50% trimethylbenzenes. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered prior art in view of the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 6, the claim recites in line 4 “aromatics present the synthetic hydrocarbon mixture…” This should be “present in the synthetic hydrocarbon mixture”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 10, and 13 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.
With regard to claims 1 and 13, the claims each recite “wherein at least 50% of C9 aromatics present in each of the first and second synthetic hydrocarbon mixtures are tri-methylbenzenes…” It is unclear from this phrasing whether or not the C9 aromatics are required to be present in the first and second mixtures, or whether the claim is just stating that if C9 aromatics are present, 50% or more must be trimethylbenzenes. Further, each claim also recites “a first synthetic hydrocarbon mixture having a T90 of less than 140°C” The boiling point of trimethylbenzene is approximately 169°C. Thus, it seems unlikely the trimethylbenzenes can be present in the first synthetic hydrocarbon mixture. As such, the language is indefinite in each claim.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the claims merely require that if C9 aromatics are present in the first and/or second fractions, 50% or more must be trimethylbenzenes. The Examiner further notes that if claims 1 and 13 would be interpreted as requiring the at least 50% trimethylbenzenes in the first fraction, this would be considered to be new matter, as the instant specification only supports the original synthetic mixture having 50% or more trimethylbenzenes of the C9 hydrocarbons, and does not state that the C9 must be present in each fraction separated. The Examiner suggests that the easiest way to fix this issue would be to amend claims 1 and 13 to match claim 6, where it is the “synthetic hydrocarbon mixture produced by catalyst conversion of oxygenates” which comprises at least 50% trimethylbenzenes in the C9 aromatics, as this is clearly supported in the instant specification (PGPub paragraph [0011]).
With regard to claim 3, the claim recites “wherein a material catalytically active in hydrocracking…” However, it is unclear that this catalyst is a hydrocracking catalyst. Generally in the instant specification, absent the repetition of the exact claim language, the hydrocracking catalyst comprises an acidic support. This makes sense, as the acidic support can be what distinguishes a cracking catalyst from any other hydrotreating catalyst. However, claim 3 does not require an acidic support as part of the catalyst. Further, claim 3 recites hydrogenation conditions, but then a hydrocracking catalyst. It is not clear why the claim would recite hydrogenation conditions, but then refer to the hydrocracking catalyst, especially when a hydrocracking catalyst has already been claimed in instant claim 2, and thus the recitation of “hydrocracking catalyst” in claim 3 is unclear and indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 3 as referring to a hydrogenation catalyst, because the hydrogenation conditions are claimed within the same claim, the details of the hydrogenation catalyst have not been previously claimed, and the instant specification recites that the hydrogenation catalyst contains the same metals and refractory support listed in claim 3 (instant specification page 16, lines 23-25). Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 2, 4, 5, and 10, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites “one or both of said first synthetic hydrocarbon mixture and said second synthetic hydrocarbon mixture are subject to contact with a material catalytically active in a hydroprocessing process…” However, claim 1 already requires hydrogenation of the first mixture and hydrocracking of the second mixture. Hydrogenation and hydrocracking are known hydroprocessing reactions. Thus, claim 4 does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chester et al. (US 4,387,261) in view of Harandi et al. (US 2021/0078921) in view of Shakun et al. (US 2009/0071874).
With regard to claims 1-4 and 13, Chester teaches a process comprising the following steps:
a) providing a methanol to gasoline effluent and separating a light olefinic fraction (first synthetic mixture) and a heavy fraction (second synthetic mixture) (column 3, lines 50-53). Chester further teaches separation at a cut point from about 200-400°F (93-204°C) (column 3, lines 55-56). While Chester teaches the cut point, it is understood that the cut point is somewhat above the T90 point. Thus, Chester teaches a range of T90 points for the light olefinic fraction (first synthetic mixture) which overlaps the claimed range of less than 140°C of instant claims 1 and 13, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
b) passing the heavy fraction to a dealkylation reactor to convert at least the durene to lower aromatics (column 3, lines 5-10) in the presence of hydrogen (column 2, line 59). Hydrodealkylation is a hydroprocessing reaction as in instant claim 4.
Chester does not explicitly recite that the dealkylation reaction is a hydrocracking reaction. However, Chester further teaches the catalyst for the dealkylation is ZSM-12 (acidic support) with platinum (active metal) and a binder such as alumina (refractory support) (column 3, lines 21-30) and that the conditions include 800°F-1050°F (426-565°C), space velocity of 0.5 to 10 h-1, and a pressure of greater than 250 psig (greater than 17 bar) (column 2, lines 56-58). These are equivalent to the catalyst components of instant claim 2 and overlap the conditions of 30-150 bar and 0.5-4 h-1 of instant claim 2, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious. Chester teaches a temperature of at least 426°C whereas the claimed hydrocracking temperature has an upper endpoint of 425°C. Thus, the ranges do not overlap, but are merely close. However, a prima facie case of obviousness can be made where the claimed ranges are merely close, absent any evidence of criticality or unexpected results regarding the ranges. Thus, the temperature range of Chester renders obvious temperature of instant claim 2. As such, while Chester does not specifically teach that the dealkylation is hydrocracking, because Chester teaches the same catalyst components and similar conditions including hydrogen presence which render obvious the claimed conditions, and further teaches a similar result of forming smaller hydrocarbons, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the dealkylation of Chester functions as the claimed hydrocracking, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Chester fails to teach i) the T90 point of the heavy gasoline fraction, ii) the amount of olefins in the light gasoline fraction, iii) the amount of tri-methylbenzenes in the C9 aromatics in the light and heavy gasolines, iv) the hydrogenation of the light hydrocarbon fraction before or after combining with the heavy gasoline, v) combining the light and heavy gasolines to form a combined product, and vi) the amount of olefins in the combined product.
With regard to points i)-iii), While Chester does not specifically teach the boiling point or amounts of components in the fractions, Chester teaches a process for conversion of methanol to gasoline hydrocarbons over a ZSM-5 catalyst at elevated temperatures and pressures to produce gasoline hydrocarbons including durene (column 3, lines 58-63) and trimethylbenzenes (column 4, lines 6-7). The instant specification also recites a process for conversion of methanol to gasoline hydrocarbons over a ZSM-5 catalyst to produce hydrocarbons including durene and trimethylbenzenes (page 12) at elevated temperatures and pressures (page 10).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the conversion of Chester of the same methanol to gasoline hydrocarbons over the same catalyst at similar conditions producing a product comprising the same durene and trimethylbenzenes components, where the product is fractionated at a similar boiling point into light (first synthetic mixture) and heavy (second synthetic mixture) gasoline, to also produce the same results of a T90 boiling point of the heavy (second synthetic mixture) fraction of greater than 150°C, an olefin content in the light (first synthetic mixture) fraction of greater than 6 wt% (instant claim 1) or 11 wt% (instant claim 13), and an amount of trimethylbenzenes in the C9 fractions of the light and heavy gasolines of at least 50%, as in instant claims 1 and 13, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to point iv), Shakun teaches a process for isomerization and hydrogenation of a light gasoline fraction (paragraphs [0001] and [0014]). Shakun further teaches that the process comprises a temperature of 100-220°C, a pressure of 1 to 3.5 MPa (10-35 bar) (paragraph [0012]), and a space velocity of 0.5-4 hr-1 (paragraph [0019]). These overlap the ranges of 220-350°C and 30-150 bar of instant claim 3, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious. The space velocity is identical to the range of 0.5-4 h-1 of instant claim 3. Shakun further teaches the catalyst comprises 0.3 wt% platinum (paragraph [0022], Table) on a support comprising alumina (refractory support) (paragraph [0009]). This is within the range of 0.1 to 20 wt% platinum of instant claim 3. Shakun further teaches that the isomerization and hydrogenation produces a gasoline fraction having high stability and high octane (paragraphs [0001] and [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the hydrogenation of Shakun for the light fraction (first synthetic mixture) of Chester, because Chester and Shakun each teach separation of a light fraction of gasoline, Chester is silent regarding further hydrogenation, and Shakun teaches that hydrogenation and isomerization at the claimed conditions provide a light gasoline having high octane and high stability (paragraphs [0001] and [0008]).
With regard to point v), Harandi teaches a process for conversion of a heavy fraction (second synthetic mixture) from a methanol to gasoline process to reduce the durene content (paragraph [0006]). Harandi further teaches that the methanol to gasoline product is separated into a light gasoline mixture (first synthetic mixture) and a heavy gasoline mixture (second synthetic mixture), the heavy gasoline mixture is passed to a heavy gasoline treatment reactor (paragraph [0007]), and then the treated heavy hydrocarbon mixture is combined with the light gasoline fraction (paragraph [0038]). Harandi teaches that the combined product has a lower boiling endpoint specification and a decreased durene content (paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the light hydrogenated (hydrogenated first synthetic mixture) and heavy hydrotreated (hydrocracked second synthetic mixture) hydrocarbons of Chester in view of Shakun, because Chester and Harandi each teach separation of a methanol to gasoline product and hydrotreating the heavy fraction to reduce the durene content, and Harandi teaches that blending the light and heavy treated fractions provides a gasoline product having a lower boiling endpoint specification and a decreased durene content (paragraph [0014]).
With regard to point vi), Chester in view of Shakun and Harandi teaches the same process of separation of a methanol to gasoline product into a light olefinic gasoline and a heavy gasoline, the same hydrogenation at similar conditions and with the same catalyst of the light fraction, the same hydrocracking at similar conditions and with the same catalyst of the heavy fraction, and the same blending the fractions together to form a combined product. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same result of a combined gasoline comprising less than 6 wt% (instant claim 1) or less than 11 wt% (instant claim 13) olefins, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 5, Chester in view of Shakun and Harandi teaches the method above.
Chester fails to teach separation of a third hydrocarbon mixture heavier than the second mixture, which is directed to hydrocracking and also added to the gasoline product.
Harandi teaches a process for conversion of a heavy fraction from a methanol to gasoline process to reduce the durene content (paragraph [0006]). Harandi further teaches
a) separating the methanol to gasoline product into a light gasoline mixture (first synthetic mixture) and a heavy gasoline mixture (second synthetic mixture),
b) hydrotreating the heavy gasoline mixture in a heavy gasoline treatment reactor,
c) separating the treated product into a heavy hydrocarbon fraction (third synthetic mixture) and a lighter treated hydrocarbon fraction (hydrocracked second synthetic mixture) (paragraph [0007]), and
d) combining the light gasoline fraction (first synthetic mixture) with the treated hydrocarbon fraction (hydrocracked second synthetic mixture) (paragraph [0038]).
Harandi further teaches that the hydrotreatment includes hydrocracking (paragraph [0032]). Thus, Harandi teaches hydrocracking the second and third synthetic hydrocarbon mixtures together, and then fractionating into the second and third synthetic hydrocarbon mixtures. This is the reverse of the claim, which requires fractionating into the second and third hydrocarbon mixtures and then hydrocracking both the second and third hydrocarbon mixtures. However, instant claim 5 recites an option for adding the hydrocracked third mixture to the gasoline product upstream of the fractionation. Therefore, Harandi teaches obtaining the same fractions, just in a different order. As such, the claim is merely a selection of the order of the steps, which is prima facie obvious absent any evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)C).
With regard to claim 10, Chester in view of Shakun and Harandi teaches the method above.
Chester does not specifically teach the steps of the methanol to gasoline reaction.
Harandi teaches a process for conversion of a heavy fraction from a methanol to gasoline process to reduce the durene content (paragraph [0006]). Harandi teaches that the method comprising:
a) providing a stream comprising methanol to a methanol-to-gasoline reactor to produce a product mixture (paragraph [0007]),
b) stabilizing the product mixture in a stabilizer to remove light hydrocarbons and produce a gasoline fraction (paragraph [0012]), and
c) separating the gasoline fraction into a light (first synthetic mixture) and heavy (second synthetic mixture) fraction, where the heavy fraction is provided to a hydrotreating step (paragraph [0012]).
Harandi further teaches the light hydrocarbons include C4- hydrocarbons (paragraph [0021]), which all boil below 40°C and thus the stabilizer separates a fraction boiling below 40°C from the gasoline as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the details of the methanol-to-gasoline process of Harandi in the process of Chester, because Chester and Harandi each teach a methanol to gasoline process, separating the product into light and heavy gasoline, and hydrotreating the heavy gasoline to reduce durene content, Chester is silent regarding the details of the methanol to gasoline step, and Harandi teaches a suitable methanol to gasoline process comprising the claimed methanol to gasoline conversion, stabilizing, and fractionation (paragraphs [0007] and [0012]).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi et al. (CN 101591567, machine translation provided by Examiner).
With regard to claim 6, Xi teaches a process for hydrotreating methanol to gasoline products (Abstract) comprising the following steps:
a) providing a gasoline feedstock to a first hydrogenation unit and reacting at hydrogenation conditions over a hydrogenation catalyst to produce a hydrogenated gasoline product (paragraph [0016]),
b) fractionating the gasoline product into a light fraction (low boiling hydrocarbon fraction) and heavy fraction (intermediate boiling hydrocarbon fraction) (paragraph [0017]),
c) introducing the heavy fraction into a hydrotreating unit for hydrocracking and hydroisomerization (paragraphs [0018] and [0022]), and
d) mixing the hydrotreated heavy fraction with the light fraction to obtain a gasoline product (paragraph [0019]).
Xi does not specifically teach i) that the gasoline feedstock comprises trimethylbenzenes in an amount of at least 50% of the C9 aromatics, ii) separate isomerization and hydrocracking steps, or iii) fractionation of the feedstock into two streams, hydrocracking and hydroisomerization of the intermediate stream, combining the hydrotreated intermediate stream with the light stream, and then hydrogenation of the combined stream.
With regard to i), while Xi does not specifically teach the content of trimethylbenzenes in the gasoline feedstock, Xi teaches a process for conversion of methanol to gasoline hydrocarbons over a ZSM-5 catalyst to produce gasoline hydrocarbons (paragraph [0006]). The instant specification also recites a process for conversion of methanol to gasoline hydrocarbons over a ZSM-5 catalyst to produce gasoline hydrocarbons (page 12).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the conversion of Xi of the same methanol to gasoline hydrocarbons over the same catalyst would produce the same result of a gasoline feedstock comprising trimethylbenzenes in an amount of at least 50% of the C9 aromatics, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to ii), while Xi teaches the hydrocracking and hydroisomerization take place together, instead of separately as in claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to separate the hydrocracking and hydroisomerization of Xi into two steps as claimed. The splitting of one step into two is obvious because the splitting would allow the ability to optimize the conditions of each step to produce the desired product in the most suitable manner, would continue to produce the same hydroisomerized and hydrocracked product as described in Xi, and changes in the sequence of steps are prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
With regard to iii), while Xi does not teach the claimed order of steps, Xi does teach hydrogenation of a mixture of light and heavy gasolines, separating the light and heavy gasolines, hydrocracking and hydroisomerization of the heavy gasoline fraction, and forming a gasoline product comprising hydrogenated light and heavy gasolines. Xi just teaches the hydrogenation is first, while the claim recites the hydrogenation last. Thus, the process of Xi produces the same result of a gasoline comprising a hydrogenated light fraction and a hydrogenated, hydroisomerized, and hydrocracked heavy fraction, where the light and heavy fraction are combined into a single gasoline product. As such, the process as claimed is merely a selection of the order of the steps. A selection of the order of the steps is known to be prima facie obvious, absent any evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04(IV)C).
With regard to claim 9, Xi teaches the hydrocracking and hydroisomerization conditions include a catalyst comprising a metal of Group VIB and/or Group VIII, amorphous alumina support, and a molecular sieve (acidic support) (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]). Group VIII metals include platinum, palladium, and nickel, which are active metals as claimed. Xi further teaches the hydrocracking and hydroisomerization conditions include a temperature of 240-460°C (paragraph [0018]), a pressure of 0.5-4MPa (5 to 40 bar), and a space velocity of 0.5 to 10 h-1 (paragraph [0023]). These overlap the ranges of 250-350°C, 30-150 bar, and 0.5 to 8 h-1 of instant claim 9, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi et al. (CN 101591567, machine translation provided by Examiner) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Harandi et al. (US 2021/0078921).
With regard to claim 7, Xi teaches the method above, where the intermediate boiling fraction is hydrocracked.
Xi fails to teach separating the gasoline feedstock into a higher boiling fraction comprising at least 70% of the C10+ molecules, hydrocracking the higher boiling fraction, separating the hydrocracked fraction into intermediate and high boiling hydrocracked streams, and adding the intermediate hydrocracked stream to said intermediate boiling fraction or isomerized intermediate boiling hydrocarbon fraction.
Harandi teaches a process for conversion of a heavy fraction from a methanol to gasoline process to reduce the durene content (paragraph [0006]). Harandi further teaches:
a) separating the methanol to gasoline product into a light gas fraction (low boiling fraction) (paragraph [0012]), light gasoline mixture (intermediate fraction) and a heavy gasoline mixture (higher boiling fraction) comprising 99 wt% of the durene (C10) and higher hydrocarbons present in the gasoline fraction (paragraph [0012]),
b) hydrotreating the heavy gasoline (higher boiling fraction) in a heavy gasoline treatment reactor to produce a treated product (hydrocracked hydrocarbon stream), where the hydrotreating includes hydrocracking (paragraph [0032]),
c) separating the treated product into a heavy hydrocarbon fraction (high boiling hydrocracked stream) and a lighter treated hydrocarbon fraction (intermediate hydrocracked stream) (paragraph [0007]), and
d) combining the light gasoline fraction (intermediate mixture) with the treated hydrocarbon fraction (intermediate hydrocracked stream) (paragraph [0038]).
The amount of 99wt% durene and higher hydrocarbons is within the range of at least 70% of instant claim 7.
Harandi further teaches that hydrocracking and then fractionating the mixture to remove the high boiling products before combining with the light gasoline (intermediate stream) provides a gasoline product which has a reduced durene content and also provides heavy hydrocarbons which are used more effectively as diesel hydrocarbons (paragraphs [0013] and [0014])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the steps of Harandi to the process of Xi, because Xi and Harandi each teach methanol to gasoline processes and upgrading the hydrocarbons produced by the process, Xi fails to teach separating and hydrocracking a higher boiling mixture comprising C10+ hydrocarbons, and Harandi teaches that separating a heavy hydrocarbon stream comprising C10+ hydrocarbons, hydrocracking, separating a heavy fraction, and combining the hydrocracked intermediate fraction with the original intermediate fraction provides a gasoline which has reduced durene content and also provides more effective use for the heavy hydrocarbons as diesel (paragraphs [0013]-[0014]).
With regard to claim 8, Xi teaches the hydrocracking and hydroisomerization conditions include a catalyst comprising a metal of Group VIB and/or Group VIII, alumina support (refractory support), and a molecular sieve support (acidic support) (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]). Group VIII metals include platinum, palladium, cobalt, and nickel and Group VIB metals include molybdenum and tungsten, which are active metals as claimed. Xi further teaches the hydrocracking and hydroisomerization conditions include a temperature of 240-460°C (paragraph [0018]), a pressure of 0.5-4MPa (5 to 40 bar), and a space velocity of 0.5 to 10 h-1 (paragraph [0023]). These overlap the ranges of 250-425°C, 30-150 bar, and 0.5 to 4 h-1 of instant claim 8, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772