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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 35 and 37 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claims 2, 35, and 37 all similarly require a hydroisomerization catalyst comprising zeolite SSZ-91, zeolite SSZ-32 or zeolite SSZ-32x, a diesel feedstock that comprises or is a biocomponent feed or a Fischer-Tropsch feed, and the resulting diesel has a reduced cloud point and a reduced pour point compared to the cloud point and pour point of the diesel feedstock. No additional limitations distinguish Claims 2, 35, and 37 apart from one another.
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 5, 6, 30, and 36 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 Claim 5, the claim recites “a silicon oxide to aluminum oxide ratio of 70 to 160, or 80 to 160, or 80 to 140, or 100 to 160.”. This is indefinite because the Claim presents multiple ranges and therefore it is unclear which range actually limits the claim.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “at least about 80% polytype 6 of the total ZSM-48-type material present in the zeolite SSZ-91, or at least about 90% polytype 6 of the total ZSM-48-type material present in the zeolite SSZ-91.”. This is indefinite because the Claim presents two ranges for the amount of polytype 6 required, therefore it is unclear if the required amount is 80% or 90%.
Regarding Claim 30, the claim recites “a 90% distillation temperature of less than about 750 °F (about 399 °C), for example less than about 700 °F (about 371°C).”. This is indefinite because the Claim presents two temperatures as the end point of range, therefore it is unclear whether the scope requires less than 750 °F or less than 700 °F.
Regarding Claim 36, the claim recites “the diesel fuel exhibits a cloud point at least 10 °C lower than the cloud point of the diesel feedstock and a pour point at least 10 °C lower than the pour point of the diesel feedstock, or a cloud point at least 20 °C lower than the cloud point of the diesel feedstock and a pour point at least 20 °C lower than the pour point of the diesel feedstock, or a cloud point at least 30 °C lower than the cloud point of the diesel feedstock and a pour point at least 30 °C lower than the pour point of the diesel feedstock.”. This is indefinite because it is unclear how far the cloud point and pour point must be lower, by 10, 20, or 30 °C.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 12, 14, 20-22, 26-28, 31-32, 35, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2006 0207166 A1 Herskowitz et al. Claim 1 requires “A process for hydroisomerising a diesel feedstock”. Herskowitz et al. discloses “It has been surprisingly discovered that high quality liquid fuels, in particular diesel and naphtha fuels, can be obtained from vegetable and/or animal oils in high yield by a one-step process. The products are produced by a single step hydrodeoxygenation/hydroisomerization of vegetable and/or animal oil.”. [0020].
Claim 1 further requires “the process comprising contacting a diesel feedstock with a hydroisomerisation catalyst”. Herskowitz et al. discloses “Preferably the process disclosed herein is carried out in a fixed-bed reactor, preferably a trickle-bed reactor operated with gas and liquid running downflow. The reactor preferably contains a number of tubes packed with catalyst and located in a shell.” [0022].
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the diesel feedstock comprises or is a biocomponent feed or a Fischer-Tropsch feed”. Herskowitz et al. discloses a biocomponent feed “It has been surprisingly discovered that high quality liquid fuels, in particular diesel and naphtha fuels, can be obtained from vegetable and/or animal oils in high yield by a one-step process.” [0020].
Claim 1 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91, zeolite SSZ-32 or zeolite SSZ-32x.”. Herskowitz et al. discloses SSZ-32 “Preferred catalysts for the presently disclosed process are dual-functional catalysts comprising a metal component and an acidic component. … The acidic component preferably comprises an acidic function in a porous solid support. Preferred acidic components include, for example …, SSZ-32,” [0023].
Claim 2 requires “A process for upgrading a diesel feedstock, the process comprising: contacting a diesel feedstock with a hydroisomerisation catalyst under hydroisomerisation conditions to provide a diesel fuel having a reduced cloud point and a reduced pour point compared to the cloud point and pour point of the diesel feedstock”. Herskowitz et al. discloses “The paraffinic diesel fuel compositions disclosed herein provide superior fuel properties, especially for low temperature performance (e.g., density, viscosity, cetane number, lower heating value, cloud point, and CFPP), to biodiesel, a mixture of methyl or ethyl esters.” [0033]. Although not specifically disclosed as a lower cloud point, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “superior fuel properties, especially for low temperature performance” indicated a lower cloud point and lower pour point.
Claim 12 requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-32 and a Group 8-10 metal.”. Herskowitz et al. discloses “Preferred catalysts for the presently disclosed process are dual-functional catalysts comprising a metal component and an acidic component. Preferred metal components are platinum or palladium, with platinum being preferred. The acidic component preferably comprises an acidic function in a porous solid support. Preferred acidic components include, for example, …, SSZ-32” [0023].
Claim 14 requires “the zeolite SSZ-32 has a crystal size in the range of about 0.1 µm to about 0.4 µm.”. Herskowitz et al. discloses “The type and content of metal, acid strength, type, and concentration of acid sites, solid porosity and pore size affect the type and quality of the diesel fuel produced. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,082,986, 5,135,638, 5,246,566, 5,282,958, and 5,723,716, the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference, disclose representative process conditions using said catalysts for isomerization of different hydrocarbon feedstock.” [0024]. Of the incorporated references at least US. 5,282,958 discloses SSZ-32 “Specific molecular sieves which are useful in the process of the present invention include the zeolites …, SSZ-32” [Col. 3, Lines 61-64] and a crystal size “The length of the crystallite in the direction of the pores is the critical dimension. X-ray diffraction (XRD) can be used to measure the crystallite length by line broadening measurements. The preferred size crystallites in this invention are ≤0.5, more preferably ≤0.2, still more preferably ≤0.1 micron along the direction of the pores (the "c-axis")” [Col. 4, Lines 20-27]. This overlaps significantly with the range claimed.
Claim 20 requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-32, or zeolite SSZ-32x, and from about 0.05 to about 2.0 wt. % of a metal modifier.”. Herskowitz et al. discloses “The type and content of metal, acid strength, type, and concentration of acid sites, solid porosity and pore size affect the type and quality of the diesel fuel produced. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,082,986, 5,135,638, 5,246,566, 5,282,958, and 5,723,716, the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference, disclose representative process conditions using said catalysts for isomerization of different hydrocarbon feedstock.” [0024]. Of the incorporated references at least US. 5,282,958 discloses SSZ-32 “Specific molecular sieves which are useful in the process of the present invention include the zeolites …, SSZ-32” [Col. 3, Lines 61-64] and a metal content of 0.5 wt.% “The metals (0.5 wt %) were added by ion exchange using an aqueous solution of Pd(NH3)4(NO3)2 or Pt(NH3)4(NO3)2” [Col. 9, Lines 17-19].
Claim 21 requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst is a layered catalyst.”. Herskowitz et al. discloses a SSZ-32 and metal (Pt/Pd) catalyst (see Claim 20). Because the metal is supported on the zeolite this is understood as a layered catalyst.
Claim 22 requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises a first layer comprising a first hydroisomerisation catalyst and a second layer comprising a second hydroisomerisation catalyst, the first hydroisomerisation catalyst situated in a first hydroisomerisation zone and the second hydroisomerisation catalyst situated in a second hydroisomerisation zone.”. Herskowitz et al. discloses a SSZ-32 and metal (Pt/Pd) catalyst (see Claim 20). It is understood that the zeolite can be considered a first isomerization catalyst and the metal can be considered a second catalyst. Regarding the “zone” it is understood that each catalyst can be considered inside of its own zone, defined as the region of space occupied by the catalyst.
Claim 26 requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst is a layered catalyst and wherein the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises at least one layer comprising zeolite SSZ-32 or SSZ-32x.”. Herskowitz et al. discloses a SSZ-32 and metal (Pt/Pd) catalyst (see Claim 20). Because the metal is supported on the SSZ-32 this is understood as a layered catalyst with one layer comprising SSZ-32.
Claim 27 requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst is a layered catalyst, the layered catalyst comprising a first layer comprising a first hydroisomerisation catalyst and a second layer comprising a second hydroisomerisation catalyst, wherein the first or second hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-32 or SSZ-32x and the first and second hydroisomerisation catalysts are mutually exclusive.”. Herskowitz et al. discloses a layered catalyst with one layer comprising SSZ-32 and the second layer comprising a metal (Pt/Pd).
Claim 28 requires “the first and second hydroisomerisation catalyst comprise zeolite SSZ-32 and a Group 8-10 metal.”. Herskowitz et al. discloses a layered catalyst with one layer comprising SSZ-32 and the second layer comprising a metal (Pt/Pd) (see Claim 20).
Claim 31 requires “the diesel feedstock comprises or is a biocomponent feed selected from vegetable oils and animal fats which comprise triglycerides and free fatty acids, for example wherein the biocomponent feed is selected from canola oil, corn oil, soy oils, castor oil, camelina oil, palm oil and combinations thereof.”. Herskowitz et al. discloses “It has been surprisingly discovered that high quality liquid fuels, in particular diesel and naphtha fuels, can be obtained from vegetable and/or animal oils in high yield by a one-step process.” [0020]. It is understood that vegetable oils and animal fats inherently comprise triglycerides and free fatty acids.
Claim 32 requires “the diesel feedstock is contacted with the hydroisomerisation catalyst and hydrogen under hydroisomerisation conditions in an isomerization reactor, the hydroisomerisation conditions being: temperature in the range of about 390 °F to about 800 °F (199 °C to 427 °C)”. Herskowitz et al. discloses “The process is carried out at relatively mild conditions, for example, … at a temperature in the range of 300-450° C.,” [0025].
Claim 32 further requires “pressure in the range of about 15 to about 3000 psig (0.10 to 20.68 MPa gauge)”. Herskowitz et al. discloses “The process is carried out at relatively mild conditions, for example, … at a pressure of 10-60 atm,” [0025]. 10-60 atm corresponds to about 150-900 psig which overlaps significantly with the range claimed.
Claim 32 further requires “feed rate of diesel feedstock to the reactor containing the hydroisomerisation catalyst at a rate in the range from about 0.1 to about 20 h-1 LHSV”. Herskowitz et al. discloses “The process is carried out at relatively mild conditions, for example, at an LHSV in the range of 0.5-5 h-1” [0025], which overlaps significantly with the range claimed.
Claim 32 further requires “hydrogen and diesel feedstock fed to the reactor in a ratio from about 2000 to about 10,000 standard cubic feet H2 per barrel diesel feedstock (from about 360 to about 1800 m3 H2/m3 feed)”. Herskowitz et al. discloses “The process is carried out at relatively mild conditions, for example, … a H2/oil ratio of about 500-2000 NL/L” [0025], which is understood as being equivalent to 500-2000 m3 H2/m3 feed, which overlaps significantly with the range claimed.
Claim 35 requires “contacting the diesel feedstock and the hydroisomerisation catalyst provides a diesel fuel exhibiting a lower cloud point and a lower pour point compared to the cloud point and pour point of the diesel feedstock.”. This is essentially the same scope as Claim 2 and therefore support for all of the limitations of Claim 35 can be found within Claim 2 (above).
Claim 37 requires “A process for providing a diesel fuel exhibiting a lower cloud point and a lower pour point compared to the cloud point and pour point of a diesel feedstock from which the diesel fuel is produced, the process comprising contacting a diesel feedstock and a hydroisomerisation catalyst comprising zeolite SSZ-91, zeolite SSZ-32 or zeolite SSZ-32x under hydroisomerisation conditions to provide a diesel fuel exhibiting a lower cloud point and a lower pour point compared to the cloud point and pour point of a diesel feedstock from which the diesel fuel is produced, wherein the diesel feedstock comprises or is a biocomponent feed or a Fischer-Tropsch feed.”. This is essentially the same scope as Claim 2 and therefore support for all of the limitations of Claim 35 can be found within Claim 2 (above).
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013 0001128 A1 Kibby et al. Claim 1 requires “A process for hydroisomerising a diesel feedstock, the process comprising contacting a diesel feedstock with a hydroisomerisation catalyst”. Kibby et al. discloses “a hydroisomerization catalyst containing a metal promoter and an acidic component in an intermediate catalyst bed downstream of the upstream catalyst bed, wherein said C21+ normal paraffins of the first intermediate hydrocarbon mixture are hydroisomerized over the hydroisomerization catalyst” [0010].
Claim 1 further requires “the diesel feedstock comprises or is a biocomponent feed or a Fischer-Tropsch feed”. Kibby et al. discloses “According to one embodiment of the present process, the upstream bed 4 contains a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis gas conversion catalyst.” [0020].
Claim 1 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91, zeolite SSZ-32 or zeolite SSZ-32x.”. Kibby et al. discloses “Suitable materials for use as the hydroisomerization catalyst include, as not limiting examples, SSZ-32,” [0043].
Claim 13 requires “the zeolite SSZ-32 comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) to aluminum oxide (Al2O3) mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37.”. Kibby et al. discloses “Si/Al ratio of the zeolite component can be between about 10 and 100” [0026]. It is understood that a SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of 25-37 is equivalent to a Si/Al ratio of 50-74. The range disclosed by Kibby et al. has significant overlap with the claimed range.
Claim(s) 1-2, 30, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2002 0062053 A1 Berlowitz et al. Claim 1 requires “A process for hydroisomerising a diesel feedstock, the process comprising contacting a diesel feedstock with a hydroisomerisation catalyst”. Berlowitz et al. discloses “The hydroisomerization is achieved by reacting the wax containing feed with hydrogen in the presence of a suitable hydroisomerization catalyst.” [0030].
Claim 1 further requires “the diesel feedstock comprises or is a biocomponent feed or a Fischer-Tropsch feed”. Berlowitz et al. discloses “In one embodiment, this invention relates to a wide cut fuel, useful as a diesel fuel, derived from the FischerTropsch process, which reduces emissions and demonstrates favorable cold flow properties.” [0016].
Claim 1 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91, zeolite SSZ-32 or zeolite SSZ-32x.”. Berlowitz et al. discloses “Some preferred dewaxing catalysts include …, SSZ-32,” [0036].
Claim 2 requires “A process for upgrading a diesel feedstock, the process comprising: contacting a diesel feedstock with a hydroisomerisation catalyst under hydroisomerisation conditions to provide a diesel fuel …, wherein the diesel feedstock comprises or is a biocomponent feed or a Fischer-Tropsch feed, and the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91, zeolite SSZ-32 or zeolite SSZ-32x.”. These limitations are required by Claim 1 and therefore support for them within the disclosure of Berlowitz et al. can be found within the rejection of Claim 1 (above).
Claim 2 further requires “a diesel fuel having a reduced cloud point and a reduced pour point compared to the cloud point and pour point of the diesel feedstock”. Berlowitz et al. discloses “Preferably, the process is conducted in the absence of intermediate hydrotreating, and produces products with excellent cold flow characteristics, i.e., cloud and freeze point, superior smoke point and better than expected emissions characteristics.” [0018]. While Berlowitz et al. does not explicitly disclose that the cloud point is lower, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “excellent cold flow properties” referred to a lower cloud point and lower freeze point. They would also know that the lower the freezing point the lower the pour point for a given fuel.
Claim 30 requires “the diesel feedstock comprises or is a Fischer-Tropsch feed and the Fischer-Tropsch feed has a 90% distillation temperature of less than about 750 °F (about 399 °C), for example less than about 700 °F (about 371 °C).”. Berlowitz et al. discloses “In particular, the fuel comprises a hydrocarbon distillate derived from the Fischer-Tropsch process having a T90 (ASTM D-86) greater than 640° F. (338° C.) but less than 1000° F.” [0016] this overlaps significantly with the range claimed.
Claim 36 requires “the diesel fuel exhibits a cloud point at least 10 °C lower than the cloud point of the diesel feedstock and a pour point at least 10 °C lower than the pour point of the diesel feedstock, or a cloud point at least 20 °C lower than the cloud point of the diesel feedstock and a pour point at least 20 °C lower than the pour point of the diesel feedstock, or a cloud point at least 30 °C lower than the cloud point of the diesel feedstock and a pour point at least 30 °C lower than the pour point of the diesel feedstock.”. Berlowitz et al. discloses “The dewaxing reaction within the second reaction zone is conducted until achieving a cold filter plugging point for the second zone effluent at or below about 5 °C., preferably less than -5 °C., more preferably less than -15 °C., even more preferably less than -30 °C.” [0025]. Although this compares the fuel to itself, and not the feedstock, it is understood that a reduction of 35 °C in the cloud point of the fuel compared to the beginning of the method means that the cloud point of the fuel was reduced by at least 35 °C from the feedstock. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a similar drop in pour point of the fuel as this is related to the cloud point.
Claim(s) 1 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010 0083563 A1 Miller. Claim 1 requires “A process for hydroisomerising a diesel feedstock, the process comprising contacting a diesel feedstock with a hydroisomerisation catalyst”. Miller discloses “In some embodiments, the present invention is directed to one or more methods for producing a hybrid diesel (bio)fuel product, such methods comprising the steps of: (a) combining vegetable oil with diesel fuel to form a first mixture, wherein the vegetable oil comprises not more than 10 weight percent of said first mixture; (b) hydrotreating the first mixture to yield a second mixture, wherein triglyceride components of the first mixture are deoxygenated, and wherein at least 95 atomic percent of the sulfur present in the first mixture is converted to H2S in the second mixture; (c) isomerizing the second mixture in the presence of an isomerization catalyst to yield a third mixture comprising hybrid diesel fuel having a cloud point that is lower than that of the second mixture” [0009].
Claim 1 further requires “the diesel feedstock comprises or is a biocomponent feed or a Fischer-Tropsch feed”. Miller discloses vegetable oil (see above).
Claim 1 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91, zeolite SSZ-32 or zeolite SSZ-32x.”. Miller discloses “A preferred isomerization unit is one that utilizes an ISODEWAXING catalyst, preferably containing SM-7 or SSZ-32.” [0052].
Claim 33 requires “contacting the diesel feedstock with a hydrotreating catalyst under hydrotreating conditions prior to contacting the diesel feedstock with the hydroisomerisation catalyst”. Miller discloses “(b) hydrotreating the first mixture to yield a second mixture, wherein triglyceride components of the first mixture are deoxygenated, and wherein at least 95 atomic percent of the sulfur present in the first mixture is converted to H2S in the second mixture;” [0009].
Claim 34 requires “the hydrotreating conditions being: temperature in the range of about 390 °F to about 800 °F (199 °C to 427 °C)”. Miller discloses “the hydrotreating is carried out at a temperature between 550° F. and 800° F.” [0044].
Claim 34 further requires “pressure in the range of about 15 to about 3000 psig (0.10 to 20.68 MPa gauge)”. Miller discloses “Processing conditions were as follows: HDS at 0.7 LHSV, ISODEWAXING at 1.8 LHSV 700 psig total pressure, 525 psig H2 pressure, and 1300 SCFB H2.” [0059]. It is understood that HDS (hydrodesulfurization) refers to hydrotreating and Isodewaxing refers to hydroisomerization. Furthermore since hydrogen is neither added nor removed between stages it is understood that that the total pressure and hydrogen pressure are for both stages.
Claim 34 further requires “feed rate of diesel feedstock to the reactor containing the hydrotreating catalyst at a rate in the range from about 0.1 to about 20 h-1 LHSV”. Miller discloses an embodiment with 0.7 LHSV (see above).
Claim 34 further requires “hydrogen and diesel feedstock fed to the reactor in a ratio from about 2000 to about 10,000 standard cubic feet H2 per barrel diesel feedstock (from about 360 to about 1800 m3 H2/m3 feed)”. Miller discloses “Hydrogen flow rate is typically 50 to 5000 standard cubic feet/barrel (SCF/barrel)” for the isomerization reaction, however since hydrogen is neither added nor removed between stages it is understood that that the ratio between hydrogen and fuel are the same for both stages.
Claim(s) 1, 16-19, 21, 27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0315598 A1 Krishna et al. Claim 1 requires “A process for hydroisomerising a diesel feedstock, the process comprising contacting a diesel feedstock with a hydroisomerisation catalyst”. Krishna et al. discloses “This invention relates to processes for efficiently converting wax-containing hydrocarbon feedstocks into high-grade products, including lubricant base oils having a low pour point, a low cloud point, a low pour-cloud spread, and a high viscosity index (VI). Such processes employ a layered catalyst system comprising a plurality of hydroisomerization dewaxing catalysts.” [0009].
Claim 1 further requires “the diesel feedstock comprises or is a biocomponent feed or a Fischer-Tropsch feed”. Krishna et al. discloses “The instant invention may be used to dewax a wide variety of light, medium, and/or heavy hydrocarbon feedstocks, including …, Fischer-Tropsch derived waxes,” [0069].
Claim 1 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91, zeolite SSZ-32 or zeolite SSZ-32x.”. Krishna et al. discloses “the molecular sieve of at least one of the first hydroisomerization catalyst and the second hydroisomerization catalyst may comprise zeolite SSZ-32x” [0010].
Claim 16 requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-32x and a Group 8-10 metal.”. Krishna et al. discloses “Each of the first and second hydroisomerization catalysts may comprise a molecular sieve and a Group VIII metal … The molecular sieve of at least one of the first hydroisomerization catalyst and the second hydroisomerization catalyst may comprises zeolite SSZ-32x” [0012].
Claim 17 requires “the zeolite SSZ-32x comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) to aluminum oxide (Al203) mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37”. Krishna et al. discloses a SAR of 35 “The molar ratios of the reaction mixture components were as follows: SiO2/Al2O3 35.0” [0099].
Claim 18 requires “the zeolite SSZ-32x has a crystal size in the range of about 100 to about 400 Angstrom.”. Krishna et al. discloses “Hydroisomerization catalyst A was prepared as follows. Small (e.g., ca. 15 to 20 nm) crystallite SSZ-32x.” [0105], which is understood to be in the range of 150-200 Angstrom.
Claim 19 requires “the zeolite SSZ-32x as-synthesised, has a crystalline structure whose X-ray powder diffraction shows the following characteristic lines:” (Table reproduced below). Krishna et al. discloses “zeolite SSZ-32x having, after calcination, an X-ray diffraction pattern substantially as in Table 1” [0010]. For convivence the instant application and prior art disclosures of the XRD pattern are merged, below:
Instant Application (relative intensity)
Kristna et al. [0101] (relative intensity)
8
26
M
8.8
10
W
11.3
17
M
14.5
2
-
15.75
5
W
16.5
5
-
18.1
12
-
19.53
71
VS
20.05
10 (shoulder)
-
20.77
71
VS
21.3
12
-
22.71
100
VS
23.88
98
VS
24.57
52
S
25.08
43
S
25.88
47
S
26.88
9
-
28.11
10
-
Note that Krishna et al. does not disclose the exact same 2θ angles (e.g. 8.8° in instant application corresponds to 8.9° in Krishna et al.), this is understood to be due to differences in the XRD instrument performing the measurement and small adjustments (<0.5°) have been made to match peaks. While some of the smaller peaks are not observed in the XRD of Krishna et al. this could be due to measurement sensitivity or the inventor’s choice of which angles to include (and which angles have too low intensity to be relevant to characterization). Strong evidence that the SSZ-32x of the instant invention and the SSZ-32x of Krishna et al. are the same material can be found in the matching of the strong (S) and very strong (VS) intensity peaks.
Claim 21 requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst is a layered catalyst.”. Krishna et al. discloses “Catalyst system 10 may be a layered system comprising a plurality of hydroisomerization catalyst layers.” [0063].
Claim 27 requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst is a layered catalyst, the layered catalyst comprising a first layer comprising a first hydroisomerisation catalyst and a second layer comprising a second hydroisomerisation catalyst, wherein the first or second hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-32 or SSZ-32x and the first and second hydroisomerisation catalysts are mutually exclusive”. Krishna et al. discloses “The present invention provides a hydrocarbon dewaxing process which involves contacting a hydrocarbon feedstock with a layered catalyst system comprising a first hydroisomerization catalyst and a second hydroisomerization catalyst” [0018] and “In an embodiment, at least one of the first hydroisomerization catalyst and the second hydroisomerization catalyst may comprise Zeolite SSZ-32X.” [0055].
Claim 29 requires “the first and second hydroisomerisation catalyst comprise zeolite SSZ-32x and a Group 8-10 metal.”. Krishna et al. discloses “As a non-limiting example, the first hydroisomerization catalyst may comprise Zeolite SSZ 32x; a Group VIII noble metal, such as platinum; and a metal modifier such as magnesium. In contrast, the second hydroisomerization catalyst may consist essentially of a 1-D, 10-ring molecular sieve (e.g., SSZ-32 or SSZ-32x), a Group VIII metal, and a refractory oxide support.” [0059].
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) 3-11, 21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006 0207166 A1 Herskowitz et al. in view of US 2017 0058209 A1 Ojo et al. Regarding Claim 3, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are disclosed by Herskowitz et al. (see above). Claim 3 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91 and a Group 8-10 metal.”. Hershowitz et al. is silent towards zeolite SSZ-91, however they do disclose “The acidic component preferably comprises an acidic function in a porous solid support.” [0023], because zeolites in general are known by those of ordinary skill in the art as porous solid supports with acidic sites this reasonably suggests zeolites as a whole are effective. Herskowitz et al. discloses “Preferred catalysts for the presently disclosed process are dual-functional catalysts comprising a metal component and an acidic component. Preferred metal components are platinum or palladium” [0023]. Platinum and palladium are both Group 10 metals.
Ojo et al. discloses SSZ-91 “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.” [0069] and suggests it use in the hydroisomerization reaction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of hydrocracking from Herskowitz et al. with the hydrocracking catalyst comprising SSZ-91 from Ojo et al. because both are similarly related to hydrocracking reactions with zeolite catalysts/supports.
The motivation to have used the zeolite SSZ-91 from Ojo et al. in the method of Herskowitz et al. is given by Table 9 [0096] from Ojo et al., which shows a higher selectivity towards isomerization when SSZ-91 is used as the zeolite material.
Regarding Claim 4, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are disclosed by Herskowitz et al. (see above). Claim 4 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91, wherein the zeolite SSZ-91 has, in its calcined form, an X-ray diffraction pattern substantially as shown in the following Table:” (Table reproduced below). Ojo et al. discloses “The X-ray diffraction pattern lines of Table 3 are representative of calcined SSZ-91 made in accordance with the methods described herein.” [0075]. For convivence the instant application and prior art disclosures of the XRD pattern are merged, below:
Angle (2θ)
Instant Application (relative intensity)
Ojo et al. [0075] (relative intensity)
7.67
M
M
8.81
W
W
12.61
W
W
15.3
W
W
21.25
VS
VS
23.02
VS
VS
24.91
W
W
26.63
W
W
29.2
W
W
31.51
W
W
All peaks and angles match exactly therefore it is understood that the prior art has substantially the same XRD pattern as what is claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are disclosed by Herskowitz et al. (see above). Claim 5 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91 having a silicon oxide to aluminum oxide ratio of 70 to 160, or 80 to 160, or 80 to 140, or 100 to 160.”. Ojo et al. discloses “Molecular sieves made by the process disclosed herein have SiO2/Al-2O3 mole ratio (SAR) of 40 to 200. The SAR is determined by inductively coupled plasma (ICP) elemental analysis. In one subembodiment, SSZ-91 has a SAR of between 70 and 160. In another subembodiment, SSZ-91 has a SAR of between 80 and 140.”
Regarding Claim 6, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are disclosed by Herskowitz et al. (see above). Claim 6 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91 having at least about 80% polytype 6 of the total ZSM-48-type material present in the zeolite SSZ-91, or at least about 90% polytype 6 of the total ZSM-48-type material present in the zeolite SSZ-91.”. Ojo et al. discloses “In one embodiment, the SSZ-91 material is composed of at least 80% polytype 6 of the total ZSM-48-type material present in the product. In another embodiment, the SSZ-91 material is composed of at least 90% polytype 6 of the total ZSM-48-type material present in the product.” [0071].
Regarding Claim 7, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are disclosed by Herskowitz et al. (see above). Claim 7 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91 and the zeolite SSZ-91 comprises 0.1 to 4.0 wt.% EUO-type molecular sieve phase.”. Ojo et al. discloses “In another aspect, SSZ-91 is substantially phase pure. SSZ-91 contains an additional EUO-type molecular sieve phase in an amount of between 0 and 3.5 percent by weight (inclusive) of the total product.” [0018], which overlaps significantly with the range claimed.
Regarding Claim 8, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are disclosed by Herskowitz et al. (see above). Claim 8 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91 comprising 0.1 to 4.0 wt.% EU-1.”. Ojo et al. discloses “In one subembodiment, SSZ-91 contains between 0.1 and 2 wt.% EU-1.” [0056], which overlaps significantly with the range claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are disclosed by Herskowitz et al. (see above). Claim 9 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91 having a morphology characterized as polycrystalline aggregates comprising crystallites collectively having an average aspect ratio of 1 to 4.”. Ojo et al. discloses “Molecular sieve SSZ-91 has a morphology characterized as polycrystalline aggregates having a diameter of between about 100 nm and 1.5 um, each of the aggregates comprising a collection of crystallites collectively having an average aspect ratio of between 1 and 8. … In another subembodiment, the average aspect ratio is between 1 and 4.” [0072].
Regarding Claim 10, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are disclosed by Herskowitz et al. (see above). Claim 10 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91 having:a silicon oxide to aluminum oxide ratio of 70 to 160; a morphology characterized as polycrystalline aggregates comprising crystallites collectively having an average aspect ratio in the range of 1 to 4; at least about 80% polytype 6 of the total ZSM-48-type material present in the zeolite SSZ-91; and 0.1 to 4.0 wt.% EUO-type molecular sieve phase.” These limitations are presented as Claims 5, 9, 6, and 7 (respectively), therefore support for the rejection of Claim 10 can be found in Claims 5-7 and 9.
Regarding Claim 11, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are disclosed by Herskowitz et al. (see above). Claim 11 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises from about 5 to about 95 wt. % zeolite SSZ-91, and from about 0.05 to about 2.0 wt. % of a metal modifier.”. Ojo et al. discloses “Palladium ion-exchange was carried out on the ammonium-exchanged samples from Examples 1 and 4-11 using tetraamminepalladium(II) nitrate (0.5 wt % Pd).” [0090].
Regarding Claim 21, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are disclosed by Herskowitz et al. (see above). Claim 21 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst is a layered catalyst.”. Ojo et al. discloses a layered catalyst with SSZ-91 as the bottom layer and Pd as the top layer “Palladium ion-exchange was carried out on the ammonium-exchanged samples from Examples 1 and 4-11 using tetraamminepalladium(II) nitrate (0.5 wt % Pd).” [0090].
Regarding Claim 23, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are disclosed by Herskowitz et al. (see above). Claim 23 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises at least one layer comprising zeolite SSZ-91.”. Ojo et al. discloses a bottom layer of SSZ-91 (see Claim 21).
Regarding Claim 24, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are disclosed by Herskowitz et al. (see above). Claim 24 further requires “the layered catalyst comprising a first layer comprising a first hydroisomerisation catalyst and a second layer comprising a second hydroisomerisation catalyst, wherein the first or second hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-91 and the first and second hydroisomerisation catalysts are mutually exclusive.”. Ojo et al. discloses a layered catalyst with SSZ-91 as the bottom layer and Pd as the top layer (see Claim 21).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011 0315598 A1 Krishna et al. in view of US 2017 0058209 A1 Ojo et al. Regarding Claim 25, all of the limitations of Claims 1 and 21 are disclosed by Krishna et al. Claim 25 further requires “the first and second hydroisomerisation catalyst comprise zeolite SSZ-91 and a Group 8-10 metal.”. Krishna et al. discloses “Each of the first and second hydroisomerization catalysts may comprise a molecular sieve and a Group VIII metal.” [0052], however they are silent towards using SSZ-91 as the molecular sieve.
Ojo et al. discloses SSZ-91 “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.” [0069] and suggests it use in the hydroisomerization reaction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of hydrocracking from Krishna et al. with the hydrocracking catalyst comprising SSZ-91 from Ojo et al. because both are similarly related to hydrocracking reactions with zeolite catalysts/supports.
The motivation to have used the zeolite SSZ-91 from Ojo et al. in the method of Krishna et al. is given by Table 9 [0096] from Ojo et al., which shows a higher selectivity towards isomerization when SSZ-91 is used as the zeolite material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2006 0207166 A1 Herskowitz et al. Regarding Claim 15, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are disclosed by Herskowitz et al. Claim 15 further requires “the zeolite SSZ-32 as-synthesised, has a crystalline structure whose X-ray powder diffraction shows the following characteristic lines:” (Table not reproduced). Herskowitz et al. discloses SSZ-32 (see Claim 12), however is silent towards the XRPD spectra. It is understood that a XRPD spectra is an intrinsic property of a material. In other words the SSZ-32 material of Herskowitz et al. would have inherently had the same XRPD spectra as the SSZ-32 material of the instant invention. It has been held that “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” (see MPEP 2112.02.II). The USPTO does not have the tools required to synthesize SSZ-32 and record a XRPD spectra, therefore in accordance with MPEP 2112.V the burden of proving that the prior art SSZ-32 zeolite material cannot have a XRPD spectra the same as is claimed has shifted to the Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736