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 Claims 1-17, 24-25, 31-33, 40-41, 47, 49, 56-57, 63, 65-66 and 7 4 are pending . Claims 18-23, 26-30, 34-39, 42-46, 48, 50-55, 58-62, 64, 67-73 are canceled. Claims 17, 24, 25, 31, 32-33, 40-41, 47, 49, 56, 57, 63 and 65-66 are withdrawn. Election/Restrictions Claims 17, 24, 25, 31, 32-33, 40-41, 47, 49, 56, 57, 63 and 65-66 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected groups II-V , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/02/2026. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-16 and 74 in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 03/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: In the Action, WO 1994/026848 ( Yukong Ltd, " Yukong ") is relied upon to support an argument that the special technical feature of the claims is not new since WO'848 discloses the recycling of unconverted oil (UCO) to a hydrocracker. Applicant respectfully disagrees that WO'848 discloses sufficient information to conclude the disclosed "special technical feature" is "old in the art". WO'848 merely discloses recyc ling of UC O from a hydrocracker back to the same hydrocracker. Applicant's invention, however, utilizes a separ ate uncon verted oil upgrade reactor and does not specify recycle of the UCO back to the same hydrocracker. In particular, claim 1 specifies " hydroprocessing unconverted oil from a hydrocracker in a separate unconverted oil upgrade reactor" and does not specify "recycling" to the same reactor. Applicant therefore asserts the special technical feature of the claimed invention has not been demonstrated to be known in the art. Withdrawal of the Restriction Requirement is believed to be appropriate and is requested. After reconsideration of the record, the Examiner finds the applicant remarks persuasive, recycling of the UCO is not the same as hydroprocessing unconverted oil from a hydrocracker in a separate unconverted oil upgrade reactor. Further, for the sake of compact prosecution, claim 74 will be included with Group I. However, in a further search, the Examiner found better art, that does teach hydroprocessing unconverted oil from a hydrocracker in a separate unconverted oil upgrade reactor, in view of Prentice et al (US 2011/0315596). The specific teachings of Prentice will be explained in the rejection, stated below. Thus, t he requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 7-8 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. Regarding claims 7-8, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 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). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation a reaction temperature from about 400 ° F to about 950 ° F (from about 204 ° C to about 510 ° C), and the claim also recites from about 650 ° F to about 850 ° F (from about 343 ° C to about 454 ° C) , which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad a reaction gauge pressure from about 500 psi to about 5000 psi, and the claim also recites 1500 psi to about 2500 psi , which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation an LHSV from about 0.1 hr- 1 to about 15 hr- 1 , and the claim also recites from 0.2 hr- 1 to about 10 hr- 1 , or from about 0.2 hr- 1 to about 2.5 hr- 1 , or from about 0.1 hr- 1 to about 10 hr- 1 , which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation a hydrogen consumption from about 100 scf to about 2500 scf , and the claim also recites from a bout 200 scf to about 2500 scf per barrel (from about 35.6 to about 445 m 3 H 2 /m 3 feed), or from about 100 scf to about 1500 scf per barrel (from about 17.8 to about 267 m 3 H 2 /m 3 feed) . 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 § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 -2, 4-7, 9 and 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Prentice et al (US 2011/0315596) . With respect to claim 1, Prentice discloses a Method of producing a base oil product, the method comprising: hydroprocessing unconverted oil (336) from a hydrocracker in a separate unconverted oil upgrade reactor (330) to produce upgraded unconverted oil (see paragraph 0048, stack column comprising hydrocracker and dewaxing catalyst); and dewaxing the upgraded unconverted oil (336) to produce the base oil product (see paragraph 0048). With respect to claim 2, Prentice discloses the limitation of claim 1. Prentice discloses wherein the process further comprising, prior to hydroprocessing the unconverted oil from the hydrocracker: hydrocracking a hydrocarbonaceous feedstock in the hydrocracker (310) to produce a hydrocracked effluent comprising the unconverted oil (319) (see paragraph 0048); and separating (F1) the unconverted oil (320) from the hydrocracked effluent (see paragraph 0048). With respect to claim 4, Prentice discloses the limitation of claim 1. Prentice further discloses wherein hydroprocessing the unconverted oil from the hydrocracker to produce upgraded unconverted oil comprises increasing the viscosity index (VI) of the unconverted oil (see paragraph 0048, see reactor 330). With respect to claim 5, Prentice discloses the limitation of claim 1. Prentice further discloses wherein hydroprocessing the unconverted oil from the hydrocracker to produce upgraded unconverted oil comprises contacting the unconverted oil with a hydroprocessing catalyst in the presence of hydrogen under hydroprocessing conditions (see paragraph 0048). With respect to claim 6, Prentice discloses the limitation of claim 5. Prentice further discloses wherein the hydroprocessing catalyst and/or the hydroprocessing conditions are selected such that VI-increasing molecular transformations predominate in the hydroprocessing (see paragraph 0048). With respect to claim 7, Prentice discloses the limitation of claim 5. Prentice further discloses wherein the hydroprocessing catalyst is a stacked catalyst, comprising both a hydrocracking catalyst and dewaxing catalyst (see paragraph 0048) and further states wherein the hydrocracking catalyst comprises , sulfided base metals from group VIII on acidic supports such as amorphous silica alumina and cracking zeolites such as USY (see paragraph 0073). With respect to claim 9, Prentice discloses the limitation of claim 1. Prentice further discloses wherein hydroprocessing the unconverted oil from the hydrocracker to produce upgraded unconverted oil comprises Hydroisomerizing (dewaxing catalyst) and/or hydrocracking the unconverted oil from the hydrocracker (see paragraph 0048). With respect to claim 74, Prentice discloses the limitation of claim 1. Prentice further discloses wherein a base oil product produced by the method of claim 1 (see paragraph 0048). 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) 3 , 8 , 12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prentice as applied to claim s 1 and 5 above. With respect to claim 3, Prentice discloses the limitation of claim 1. Prentice further discloses wherein the feedstock comprises boiling points from about 660°F to about 1100 °F and comprises a vacuum gas oils and coker gas oils (see paragraph 0036). Prentice does not disclose wherein the boiling points include temperatures from about 572°F to 659°F or from 1101°F to about 1112°F, as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the feedstock boiling temperatures, through routine experimentation, as the claimed temperature range is sufficiently close to the disclosed range, that one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a level of success from the modification. With respect to claim 8, Prentice discloses the limitation of claim 5 . Prentice discloses wherein hydrocracking condition include temperatures from about 200°C to about 450°C, pressure from about 250 to 5000 psig , LHSV of about 0.2 to 10 hr -1 and a hydrogen consumption from 200 SCF to about 10,000 SCF/B (see paragraph 0074); and Further discloses wherein dewaxing condition include temperatures from about 200°C to about 450°C, pressure from about 250 to 5000 psig , LHSV of about 0.2 to 10 hr -1 and a hydrogen consumption 200 SCF to about 10,000 SCF/B (see paragraph 0098). Prentice does not disclose wherein hydroprocessing conditions include temperatures from about 451°C to about 510°C or a hydrogen consumption SCF from 100 to about 199 SCF, as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process conditions, through routine experimentation, as the claimed process conditions are sufficiently close to the disclosed range, that one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a level of success from the modification. With respect to claim 12, Prentice discloses the limitation of claim 1. Prentice further discloses wherein first stage hydrotreatment (upstream treatment reactor to the upgrading reactor) produces effluent with a sulfur content of about 100 ppm or less (see paragraph 0042). Prentice does not disclose wherein the feedstock comprises no greater than 20 ppm of nitrogen and no greater than about 1 ppm of nickel. However, 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 process, such that the claimed product from the hydrotreatment reactor are produced through routine experimentation, as both the claimed invention and prior art, disclose processing the same feedstock, under similar process schemes, thus there would be an expectation of success in producing same products and/or intermediates with the claimed characteristics. With respect to claims 14-16, Prentice discloses the limitation of claim 1. Prentice does not disclose the claimed product characteristics as claimed. However, 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 process, such that the claimed products are produced through routine experimentation, as both the claimed invention and prior art, disclose processing the same feedstock, under similar process schemes, thus there would be an expectation of success in producing same products with the claimed characteristics. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-11 and 13 are 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7709 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Prem C Singh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 /PREM C SINGH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771