DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/270,208 application filed 29 June 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327. In the instant case, a zeolite that has framework type with voids greater than 0.50 nm in diameter, which are accessible through apertures characterized by a longest diameter of less than 0.50 nm and a shortest diameter of more than 0.30 nm has been interpreted as zeolites comprising at least “an LTA-type zeolite, as well as a zeolite which has an ITE framework (e.g., SSZ-36) and an SAS framework (e.g., SSZ-73)” [paragraph 0031].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “which in n-C10 hydrocracking exhibits an iC4/nC4 product ratio of less than 0.25.” It is not clear how the aforementioned requirement further limits the structure of the zeolite-based catalyst especially since it appears that the iC4/nC4 product ratio is not necessarily a result of the catalyst structure but may be influenced by other factors such as the temperature of hydrocracking. For example, consider Calemma et al in Applied Catalysis A (2000, vol 190, pp 207-218), which discloses “[a]t every temperature, the iso-alkane/n-alkane ratio of cracking products increased considerably with increasing conversion degree. At the same conversion level, higher reaction temperatures lead to cracking products characterized by a lower iso-alkane/n-alkane ratio” [abstract; see also, figure 3 and 2nd paragraph on left hand side of page 210]. Consequently, the limitation concerning the iC4/nC4 product ratio may have nothing to do with any additional structural requirements for the zeolite-based catalyst. If applicant believes that the limitation concerning the iC4/nC4 product ratio implicitly further limits the structural requirements for the zeolite-based catalyst, it is unclear how the structure is further limited. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined. In keeping with a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the Examiner assumes that the limitation concerning the iC4/nC4 product ratio does not imply any additional structural features to the zeolite-based catalyst. Likewise, with respect to claim 16, it is unclear what “confirming the zeolite in n-C10 hydrocracking exhibits a iC4/nC4 in the product less than 0.25” requires since the iC4/nC4 in the product may be controlled by a multitude of factors some of which are independent of the zeolite such as the aforementioned reaction temperature or the catalyst activity resulting from the type and concentration of catalytic metal deposited on the zeolite. Therefore, “confirming the zeolite” in this context may require nothing or may require a combination or multitude of steps. In keeping with a broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner assumes that “confirming the zeolite” requires nothing.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the zeolite selected" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the hydrogenation function metal component" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps the claim should simply recite "the hydrogenation function metal
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the loaded selected zeolite" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the per-pass conversion of the normal paraffins in the feedstock is between 25 and 99%.” The basis of the percentage is not clear; therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Camblor Fernandez et al (US 6,500,404), hereafter referred to as Camblor.
Camblor discloses “[t]he present invention refers to a crystalline material of zeolitic nature named ITQ-3” [abstract], which is a zeolite having an ITE framework and corresponds to the zeolite of the instant application [see Claim Interpretation section above]. The reference further discloses “[f]rom the view point of its use as a catalyst, this material, when prepared in the acid form and which may…contain supported transition metals such as Pt, Pd or Ni, allows the selective cracking and hydrocracking of linear alkanes with respect to the branched ones or to larger hydrocarbons, thus being adequate as a catalyst or catalytic cracking additive and as a catalyst in the ‘selectoforming’ type process that involves hydrocracking of the stream coming from the reformed unit for the purpose of removing n-paraffins” [column 5, lines 15-24]. The Pt, Pd, or Ni metals corresponds to the hydrogenation function.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weisz (US 4,032,431).
With respect to claims 1-4 and 6-13, Weisz discloses “[t]he selective conversion catalyst herein referred to as type ‘B’ catalyst is a porous solid particle material having a majority of its pores of substantially uniform small dimension, large enough to allow uptake and egress of normal paraffin molecules, such as, for example, n-hexane, but too small to allow a similar uptake of either branched chain or cyclic hydrocarbons, such as, for example, methylpentane, cyclohexane or benzene. Accordingly, the selective catalytic material, type ‘B’ is a highly porous material wherein a substantial majority of its pores are of a uniform dimension in the neighborhood of about 4.5 to about 6.0 Angstrom units effective diameter. Type ‘B’ catalyst is essentially a selective hydrocracking catalyst substantially provided with in-pore acid activity cracking sites and in-pore catalytically effective hydrogenation-dehydrogenation sites. In some cases, one of the two functions or types of catalytic sites may be associated with the molecular shape selective material but externally located. The hydrogenation-dehydrogenation component introduced during manufacture of the catalyst, involves one or more of the elements known as the transition metals. Preferably, one or more of the elements of nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, iron, or of the platinum or palladium family are employed…In one embodiment, the catalytically active solid material comprising type ‘B’ catalyst is a modified zeolitic oxide, having a crystalline, rigid and uniform cavity structure of the aforementioned dimensions. Examples are to be found among a number of aluminosilicate minerals, and among synthetically prepared crystalline aluminosilicates which have structures analogous to, and sometimes differing from minerals known to occur naturally: Chabazite, gmelinite, stilbite, erionite, offretite, epistilbite, desmin, zeolites S, T, A,…” [column 4, lines 4-42]. The reference further discloses “[m]ixtures of a low and a high octane number paraffin hydrocarbon were contacted with various metal zeolite catalysts of this invention…” [column 12, lines 45-50; “Examples 1 to 4”], which mixtures comprise greater than 3, 5, or 10 wt % paraffins [see table bridging lines 51-59 of column 12]. The reference also discloses “[t]his invention relates to methods and processes for converting petroleum naphthas” [column 1, lines 8-10]. Note that zeolite A is a LTA-type zeolite.
With respect to claim 5, note that the table following paragraph 0037 of the published application provides values for dsphere and davg for LTA zeolites of 11.05 and 4.1, respectively, which yields a dsphere/davg value of 2.695 (or 2.70 provided in said table).
With respect to claim 15, see table at the top of page 10 [columns 13 & 14].
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisz (US 4,032,431).
With respect to claim 14, Weisz does not explicitly disclose hydrotreating the petroleum naphthas prior to selective hydrocracking. However, the reference discloses “…upgrading a naphtha which has been subjected to a reforming process…” [abstract], and it is well known in the art to hydrotreat prior to reforming.
With respect to claim 16, Weisz discloses “[c]atalyst B2 was prepared from a naturally occurring zeolite…of about 4 to 6 Angstrom pore size. One part by weight of the crystalline alumino-silicate or zeolite was base-exchanged…with about ten (10) parts by weight of 5% NH4Cl solution…The residue obtained from this NH4Cl treatment or base-exchange step was thereafter water washed to remove chloride from the residue and then filtered. The filter cake thus obtained was refluxed with about 25 parts (wt.) of 0.5 N nickel acetate solution for about 10 minutes and then filtered. The filtered solids or residue was then again water washed. The residue thus obtained was dried, pelleted, crushed to about 30/60 mesh size particles and then air calcined at a temperature of about 1000o F. for about 16 hours. A sufficient quantity of the calcined catalyst was placed in a reactor and H2 reduced or activated” [column 11, lines 6-30]. While Weisz discloses a different order to the method of preparation than recited in instant claim 16, applicant is reminded that the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.” In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisz (US 4,032,431) in view of Leal et al (US 2016/0326079)..
Weisz does not disclose steam cracking. However, Weisz is concerned with “converting petroleum naphthas to…relatively high octane gasoline products” [column 1, lines 8-10]. The reference also discloses “[b]utane rich gas is recovered from tower 42 by conduit 44” [see figure 2].
Leal et al, which is concerned with “increase[ing] the octane rating of gasoline products” [paragraph 0002], particularly via additives such as methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE) [abstract], discloses “n-butane containing alkane stream 140 may be directed to steam cracking unit 120…Mixed C4's…may also be diverted to the steam crackers…The resulting increased feed of n butane to the steam crackers is expected to increase yields of ethylene and propylene in the steam cracking process, a further advantage of the integrated process. For example, cracking n-butane at a conversion of 96% per pass typically yields about 40% ethylene and 14% propylene” [paragraphs 0015 & 0020]. Of course, it is well known in the art that ethylene and propylene may be dimerized to form, in part, n-butylene, which may further be isomerized to isobutylene, which is reacted with methanol to form the aforementioned MTBE. Also, n-butylene may be reacted with isobutane to form high octane gasoline alkylate.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Weisz with at least the steam cracking and MTBE production of Leal et al to improve the efficiency of manufacturing high octane gasoline products, and the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Clearly, Weisz discloses separation to obtain C4’s in conduit 44 [see figure 2].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gary et al in Petroleum Refining Technology and Economics, 5th ed. (2007, CRC Press, 465 pp.), which discloses hydrotreating prior to reforming [see Figure 1.1].
PNG
media_image1.png
645
979
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
29 January 2026