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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, 13, 15-17 and 19-23 are pending. Claims 3, 6-7,11-12,14 and 18 are canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 16-17 and 19-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claims 1 and 16, hydroisomerization is misspelled in step a). Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenbaum et al (US 2006/0201851) in view of Miller et al (US 2006/0016724).
With respect to claim 1, Rosenbaum discloses a process for preparing base oil from a waxy hydrocarbon feedstock comprising:
a) contacting the hydrocarbon feedstock in a hydroisomerization zone under hydroisomerization dewaxing conditions (see paragraph 0027 and 0029);
b) collecting a dewaxed product stream from the hydroisomerization zone and passing the product streams to a distillation column (see paragraph 0040);
c) separating the dewaxed product stream into fuel and base oil products in the distillation column (see paragraph 0040);
e) passing a base oil product to a hydrofinishing reactor to meet more stringent specifications, or to a further use or direct sale (see paragraph 0041); and
f) collecting a base oil stream from the hydrofinishing reactor (see paragraph 0041);
wherein the base oil products include XLN base oil having a kinematic viscosity at 100°C between about 1.8 cSt and about 3.5 cSt (see paragraph 0040 and 0044),
LN base oil having a kinematic viscosity at 100°C between about 3.0 cSt and about 6.0 cSt (see paragraph 0040 and 0044), and
MN base oil having a kinematic viscosity at 100°C between about 5.0 cSt and about 15.0 cSt (see paragraph 0040 and 0044).
Rosenbaum does not explicitly disclose testing the base oil products to determine if they meet minimum desired specifications.
However, Rosenbaum discloses blending base oils to produce blends meeting target values and further discloses standard test for testing for selecting said target values (see paragraph 0045-0046).
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 Rosenbaum with the claimed step of testing the base oil products to determine if they meet minimum desired specifications, as said step is implicitly suggested in Rosenbaum, wherein Rosenbaum discloses mixing blends to meet target values and disclosed which tests to utilize for obtaining said target values.
Rosenbaum fails to disclose wherein the base oil products are tested prior to hydrofinishing as claimed.
However, the selection of testing the base oil products prior to hydrofinishing in the absence of unexpected results, would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, as said selection would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
Rosenbaum does not explicitly disclose testing for UV absorbance (ASTM D2269).
Rosenbaum further discloses wherein the isomerized waxy feeds are hydrofinished to improve UV stability and Color (see paragraph 0041).
Furthermore, in a related hydroisomerization process Miller discloses wherein UV stability testing is performed by ASTM D2269 (see page 10, table 4).
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 Rosenbaum in view of Miller with the claimed step of testing for UV stability as Rosenbaum discloses wherein the isomerized waxy feeds are hydrofinished to improve UV stability and Color.
With respect to claim 2, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1. Rosenbaum further discloses wherein the dewaxed product is separated into product streams comprising diesel fuel and base oil product streams (see figure 2 and 3, paragraph 0044).
With respect to claim 4, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Rosenbaum further discloses wherein the desired minimum specifications include pour point, viscosity and viscosity index (see paragraph 0046).
With respect to claim 5, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Rosenbaum further discloses wherein the hydrofinishing reactor comprises a hydrofinishing catalyst and the hydrofinishing catalyst comprises a silica alumina-based catalyst further containing platinum and/or palladium (see paragraph 0043).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenbaum and Miller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pathare et al (US 2017/0283729).
Regarding claim 8, the prior combination discloses the limitation of claim 1. The prior combination does not however disclose wherein the base oi stream that fails to meet the desired specifications is recycled to the hydroisomerization zone in step a).
However, in a related base stock production process, Pathare discloses lube products that do not meet cold properties are recycled for further processing to meet product specification (see abstract and paragraph 0798).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the prior combination with the implementation of a recycle step, as disclosed by Pathare to ensure the lube products that fails to meet the desired specifications are recycled to meet target product specifications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 16-17, 19-20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenbaum et al (US 2006/0201851) in view of in view of Pathare et al (US 2017/0283729).
With respect to claims 16 and 23, Rosenbaum discloses a process for preparing base oil from a waxy hydrocarbon feedstock comprising:
a) contacting the hydrocarbon feedstock in a hydroisomerization zone under hydroisomerization dewaxing conditions (see paragraph 0027 and 0029);
b) collecting a dewaxed product stream from the hydroisomerization zone and passing the product streams to a distillation column (see paragraph 0040);
c) separating the dewaxed product stream into fuel and base oil products in the distillation column (see paragraph 0040);
e) passing a base oil product to a hydrofinishing reactor to meet more stringent specifications, or to a further use or direct sale (see paragraph 0041); and
wherein the base oil products include XLN base oil having a kinematic viscosity at 100°C between about 1.8 cSt and about 3.5 cSt (see paragraph 0040 and 0044),
LN base oil having a kinematic viscosity at 100°C between about 3.0 cSt and about 6.0 cSt (see paragraph 0040 and 0044), and
MN base oil having a kinematic viscosity at 100°C between about 5.0 cSt and about 15.0 cSt (see paragraph 0040 and 0044).
Rosenbaum does not disclose wherein the base oil products are tested to determine if they meet minimum desired specifications, wherein the testing comprises one or more tests of cloud point, Noack, pour point, viscosity, aromatic content, or viscosity index and
f) passing any base oil product which does not meet a minimum desired specification for a base oil product to a hydroisomerization dewaxer, to further processing, a further use, or direct sale.
However, Rosenbaum discloses blending base oils to produce blends meeting target values and further discloses standard test for testing for selecting said target values, wherein the testing comprises one or more tests of cloud point, Noack, pour point, viscosity, aromatic content, or viscosity index (see paragraph 0045-0046).
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 Rosenbaum with the claimed step of testing the base oil products to determine if they meet minimum desired specifications, as said step is implicitly suggested in Rosenbaum, wherein Rosenbaum discloses mixing blends to meet target values and disclosed which tests to utilize for obtaining said target values.
Rosenbaum does not however disclose wherein the base oi stream that fails to meet the desired specifications is recycled to the hydroisomerization zone in step a).
However, in a related base stock production process, Pathare discloses lube products that do not meet cold properties are recycled for further processing to meet product specification (see abstract and paragraph 0798).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the prior combination with the implementation of a recycle step, as disclosed by Pathare to ensure the lube products that fails to meet the desired specifications are recycled to meet target product specifications.
With respect to claim 17, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 16. Rosenbaum further discloses wherein the dewaxed product is separated into product streams comprising diesel fuel and base oil product streams (see figure 2 and 3, paragraph 0044).
With respect to claim 19, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 16.
Rosenbaum further discloses wherein the desired minimum specifications include pour point, viscosity and viscosity index (see paragraph 0046).
With respect to claim 20, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 16.
Rosenbaum further discloses wherein the hydrofinishing reactor comprises a hydrofinishing catalyst and the hydrofinishing catalyst comprises a silica alumina-based catalyst further containing platinum and/or palladium (see paragraph 0043).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosembaum and Pathare as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Miller et al (US 2006/0016724).
With respect to claim 22, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 16.
The prior combination does not explicitly disclose testing for UV absorbance (ASTM D2269).
However, Rosenbaum further discloses wherein the isomerized waxy feeds are hydrofinished to improve UV stability and Color (see paragraph 0041).
Furthermore, in a related hydroisomerization process Miller discloses wherein UV stability testing is performed by ASTM D2269 (see page 10, table 4).
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 Rosenbaum in view of Miller with the claimed step of testing for UV stability as Rosenbaum discloses wherein the isomerized waxy feeds are hydrofinished to improve UV stability and Color.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 13 and 15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claims 9-10, 13 and 15, the closest prior art Rosenbaum et al (US 2006/0201851) discloses a discloses a process for preparing base oil from a waxy hydrocarbon feedstock comprising:
a) contacting the hydrocarbon feedstock in a hydroisomerization zone under hydroisomerization dewaxing conditions (see paragraph 0027 and 0029);
b) collecting a dewaxed product stream from the hydroisomerization zone and passing the product streams to a distillation column (see paragraph 0040);
c) separating the dewaxed product stream into fuel and base oil products in the distillation column (see paragraph 0040);
e) passing a base oil product to a hydrofinishing reactor to meet more stringent specifications, or to a further use or direct sale (see paragraph 0041); and
f) collecting a base oil stream from the hydrofinishing reactor (see paragraph 0041);
wherein the base oil products include XLN base oil having a kinematic viscosity at 100°C between about 1.8 cSt and about 3.5 cSt (see paragraph 0040 and 0044),
LN base oil having a kinematic viscosity at 100°C between about 3.0 cSt and about 6.0 cSt (see paragraph 0040 and 0044), and
MN base oil having a kinematic viscosity at 100°C between about 5.0 cSt and about 15.0 cSt (see paragraph 0040 and 0044).
Thus, Rosenbaum teaches a substantial portion of the Applicant claimed invention.
However, Rosenbaum fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the claimed process with hydrofinishing the base oil products to meet white oil specifications, as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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