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 .
Response to Arguments
With respect to the objection of Claims 35 and 37 under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates of claim 2, Claims 35 and 37 have been canceled. The objection is WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 5, 6, 30, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, Claims 5-6 and 30 have been canceled. Claim 36 has been amended to remove limitations directed to reducing the cloud and pour point by 20 and 30 degrees. Claim 36 now requires only one range of reduction for each of cloud point and pour point. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-2, 12, 14, 20-22, 26-28, 31-32, 35, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herskowitz et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the zeolite SSZ-32 comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) to aluminum oxide (AI2O3) mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37” previously presented in Claim 13. Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully asserts that since none of the other rejections was applied against claim 13, and/or do not concern biocomponent feeds, the claims are allowable over the applied documents based on the reasoning set forth in the Office Action.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 5]. This is persuasive. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kibby et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the diesel feedstock comprises or is a biocomponent feed comprising vegetable oils and/or animal fats”. Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully asserts that since none of the other rejections was applied against claim 13, and/or do not concern biocomponent feeds, the claims are allowable over the applied documents based on the reasoning set forth in the Office Action.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 5]. This is persuasive. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-2, 30, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berlowitz et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the zeolite SSZ-32 comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) to aluminum oxide (AI2O3) mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37” previously presented in Claim 13. Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully asserts that since none of the other rejections was applied against claim 13, and/or do not concern biocomponent feeds, the claims are allowable over the applied documents based on the reasoning set forth in the Office Action.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 5]. This is persuasive. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 33-34 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller, as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the zeolite SSZ-32 comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) to aluminum oxide (AI2O3) mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37” previously presented in Claim 13. Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully asserts that since none of the other rejections was applied against claim 13, and/or do not concern biocomponent feeds, the claims are allowable over the applied documents based on the reasoning set forth in the Office Action.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 5]. This is persuasive. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 16-19, 21, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krishna et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the zeolite SSZ-32 comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) to aluminum oxide (AI2O3) mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37” previously presented in Claim 13. Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully asserts that since none of the other rejections was applied against claim 13, and/or do not concern biocomponent feeds, the claims are allowable over the applied documents based on the reasoning set forth in the Office Action.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 5]. This is unpersuasive. Although Claim 1 was initially rejected under the disclosure by Krishna et al. as teaching the hydroisomerization of a Fisher- Tropsch wax, Krishna et al. is not limited to only the hydroisomerization of a Fisher- Tropsch wax, “Other hydrocarbon feedstocks suitable for use in processes of the present invention may be selected, for example, from gas oils and vacuum gas oils; residuum fractions from an atmospheric pressure distillation process; solvent-deasphalted petroleum residua; shale oils, cycle oils; animal and vegetable derived fats, oils and waxes” [0070]. Furthermore although Krishna et al. is silent towards a SAR of SSZ-32 it is noted that Claim 1 does not actually require SSZ-32, rather SSZ-32 or SSZ-32x. Claim 1 does not limit the SAR of SSZ-32x and Krishna et al. discloses the SAR of SSZ-32x required by Claim 17. The rejections are MAINTAINED.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 3-11, 21, and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herskowitz et al. in view of Ojo et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the zeolite SSZ-32 comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) to aluminum oxide (Al2O3) mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37” previously presented in Claim 13. Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully asserts that since none of the other rejections was applied against claim 13, and/or do not concern biocomponent feeds, the claims are allowable over the applied documents based on the reasoning set forth in the Office Action.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 5]. This is persuasive. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishna et al. in view of Ojo et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the zeolite SSZ-32 comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) to aluminum oxide (Al2O3) mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37” previously presented in Claim 13. Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully asserts that since none of the other rejections was applied against claim 13, and/or do not concern biocomponent feeds, the claims are allowable over the applied documents based on the reasoning set forth in the Office Action.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 5]. This is persuasive. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Herskowitz et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the zeolite SSZ-32 comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) to aluminum oxide (Al2O3) mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37” previously presented in Claim 13. Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully asserts that since none of the other rejections was applied against claim 13, and/or do not concern biocomponent feeds, the claims are allowable over the applied documents based on the reasoning set forth in the Office Action.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 5]. This is persuasive. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
Claim Objections
Claims 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Two different Claims are named Claim 31. Claim 31 first appears between Claims 30 and 32 and appears a second time between Claim 37 and 39, containing different limitations. This is understood to be a typographic error and the second instance of Claim 31 is hereby referred to as Claim 31(38) within this Office Action for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 16-19, 21, 27, 29, 36, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as 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 comprising vegetable oils and/or animal fats”. Krishna et al. discloses “Other hydrocarbon feedstocks suitable for use in processes of the present invention may be selected, for example, from gas oils and vacuum gas oils; residuum fractions from an atmospheric pressure distillation process; solvent-deasphalted petroleum residua; shale oils, cycle oils; animal and vegetable derived fats, oils and waxes” [0070].
Claim 1 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises 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 1 also requires “wherein the zeolite SSZ-32 comprises a silicon oxide (SiO-2) to aluminum oxide (Al2O3) mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37.”, however as SSZ-32 is optional in Claim 1 it is understood that the SAR limitation above only applies when SSZ-32 is selected as the zeolite of choice.
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”. Krishna et al. discloses “Hydroisomerization converts aliphatic, unbranched paraffinic hydrocarbons (n-paraffins) to isoparaffins and cyclic species, thereby decreasing the pour point and cloud point of the base oil product as compared with the feedstock.” [0009].
Claim 2 further requires “wherein the diesel feedstock comprises or is a biocomponent feed comprising vegetable oils and/or animal fats, and the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-32 or zeolite SSZ-32x; wherein the zeolite SSZ-32 comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) to aluminum oxide (Al2O3) mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37”. These limitations are the same as in Claim 1 and therefore support for these limitations within the art can be found within Claim 1 (above).
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 (Al2O3) mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37”. Krishna et al. discloses a SAR of 35 in Example 1 “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].
Claims 36, and 39-40 all similarly limit claim 2 by requiring the pour and cloud points are 10/20/30 °C lower (respectively) than the diesel feedstock and are therefore being examined together. Krishna et al. discloses “In an embodiment, the hydrocarbon feedstocks can be described as waxy feeds having pour points generally above about 0°C., and having a tendency to solidify, precipitate, or otherwise form Solid particulates upon cooling to about 0° C.” [0069]. This is understood to disclose that the feedstock has a pour point and cloud point of at least 0 °C.
Regarding the pour point Krishna et al. discloses “The target pour point is generally less than about -10°C., and typically in the range from about -10°C. to -50° C.” [0028], which is understood to disclose a reduction of the pour point by 10-50 °C which is within the range required by Claims 36 and 39-40.
Regarding the cloud point Krishna et al. discloses “The base oil product may have a pour-cloud spread of not more than about 7°C., typically not more than about 5° C., and usually not more than about 3°C.” [0066]. This is understood to disclose a cloud point of between -7 to -53 °C (the range of pour point is -10°C. to -50 °C and the cloud point differs by 3 °C) which is within the range required by Claims 36 and 39-40.
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.
Claims 1-2, 12, 14-15, 20-22, 26-28, 31-32 and 31(38) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006 0207166 A1 Herskowitz et al. in view of US 2013 0001128 A1 Kibby 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 comprising vegetable oils and/or animal fats”. 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-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 1 further requires “wherein the zeolite SSZ-32 comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) to aluminum oxide (Al2O3)mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37.”. Herskowitz et al. is silent towards the SAR of the SSZ-32 used.
Kibby et al. is similarly directed to methods of hydroisomerising a diesel feedstock with a hydroisomerisation catalyst, “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]. Kibby et al. discloses SSZ-32 (“Suitable materials for use as the hydroisomerization catalyst include, as not limiting examples, SSZ-32,” [0043].) with a SAR of 5-50 (“Si/Al ratio of the zeolite component can be between about 10 and 100” [0026]). It is understood that a Si/Al ratio of 10-100 corresponds to a SiO-2/Al2O3 ratio of 5-50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art top have used the SSZ-32 of Kibby et al. with a known SAR as the SSZ-32 used in the method of Herskowitz et al. with an unknown SAR for at least the reason that they both disclose the same material (SSZ-32) being used for the same reaction (hydroisomerization). The motivation to have used the explicit disclosure of the SAR of SSZ-32 from Kibby et al. to inform one of ordinary skill in the art to the type of SSZ-32 to be used is to avoid undue experimentation.
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 2 further requires “wherein the diesel feedstock comprises or is a biocomponent feed comprising vegetable oils and/or animal fats, and the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises zeolite SSZ-32 or zeolite SSZ-32x; wherein the zeolite SSZ-32 comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) to aluminum oxide (Al2O3) mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37”. These limitations are the same as in Claim 1 and therefore support for these limitations within the art can be found within Claim 1 (above).
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]. Platinum and palladium are identified as Group 10 metals.
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 15 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 1), 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.
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”. 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 31(38) requires “the diesel feedstock comprises or is a biocomponent feed selected from canola oil, corn oil, soy oils, castor oil, camelina oil, palm oil and combinations thereof.”. Herskowitz et al. discloses “Any vegetable and/or animal oil can be used in the presently disclosed process. For example, Suitable vegetable oils include Soybean oil, palm oil, corn oil, Sunflower oil, oils from desertic plants such as, for example, jatropha oil and balanites oil, rapeseed oil, colza oil, canola oil, tall oil, safflower oil, hempseed oil, olive oil, linseed oil, mustard oil, peanut oil, castor oil, coconut oil, and mixtures thereof.” [0027] (emphasis added).
Claims 1 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010 0083563 A1 Miller in view of 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”. 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 comprising vegetable oils and/or animal fats”. Miller discloses vegetable oil (see above).
Claim 1 further requires “the hydroisomerisation catalyst comprises 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 1 further requires “wherein the zeolite SSZ-32 comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) to aluminum oxide (AI203)mole ratio (SAR) in the range of 25-37”. Miller is silent towards the SAR of the SSZ-32 used.
Kibby et al. is similarly directed to methods of hydroisomerising a diesel feedstock with a hydroisomerisation catalyst, “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]. Kibby et al. discloses SSZ-32 (“Suitable materials for use as the hydroisomerization catalyst include, as not limiting examples, SSZ-32,” [0043].) with a SAR of 5-50 (“Si/Al ratio of the zeolite component can be between about 10 and 100” [0026]). It is understood that a Si/Al ratio of 10-100 corresponds to a SiO-2/Al2O3 ratio of 5-50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art top have used the SSZ-32 of Kibby et al. with a known SAR as the SSZ-32 used in the method of Miller with an unknown SAR for at least the reason that they both disclose the same material (SSZ-32) being used for the same reaction (hydroisomerization). The motivation to have used the explicit disclosure of the SAR of SSZ-32 from Kibby et al. to inform one of ordinary skill in the art to the type of SSZ-32 to be used is to avoid undue experimentation.
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 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
Prosecution Insights