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 Amendment
The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 02/05/2026 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (see Remarks) with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 18-20 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga (US 2016/0194257A1), in view of Schoenfeldt (US 2016/0168045 A1) and Nicholas (US 8,748,681 B2), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 5-6, “that the applied references do not teach or suggest the amorphous silica alumina oil dropped sphere contains a metal consisting essentially of nickel ranges from about 40 to about 97.5 wt% of SiO2 as recited in claim 1 and the amorphous silica alumina oil dropped sphere containing a metal consisting essentially of nickel, wherein the amorphous silica alumina oil dropped sphere ranges from about 70 to about 97.5 wt% of SiO2 as recited in claims 13 and 20.”
On pages 6-7, Applicant points out that Nicholas provides only one example (Example 1) with the amorphous silica-alumina oil-dropped spherical base and that the catalyst had a silica-to-alumina ratio of about 3 and contained nickel and 11 wt% tungsten on the amorphous silica-alumina oil-dropped spherical base. Applicant further notes that the catalyst of Example 1 provides higher selectivity to C2-C4 hydrocarbons in ethylene oligomerization relative to the catalysts in Examples 2-4, i.e., a mixture of an amorphous silica-alumina (SAR=2.6) and pseudoboehmite (Ex. 2), the catalyst of Ex. 2 modified with nickel (Ex. 3), and a MTT zeolite (SAR=40) supported on alumina (Ex. 4).
In response, the examiner submits that discloses examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123 II. Nicholas, throughout its disclosure, suggests that a suitable catalyst may include just nickel and not tungsten. For example, the reference discloses: “[the] catalyst is preferably an amorphous silica-alumina base with a metal from either VIII and/or Group VIB” (col. 5, lines 53-55); “the Group VIB metal, preferably tungsten, should be present in a concentration of about 0 to about 12 wt%” (col. 7, lines 45-47); and “[a] suitable alternative catalyst is an oil dropped silica-alumina spherical support…impregnated with about 0.5 to about 15 wt-% nickel and with 0 to about 12 wt-% tungsten (col. 9, lines 11-14). Therefore, the catalysts contemplated by Nicholas include those containing nickel without tungsten. Additionally, the comparison of the catalyst of Ex. 1 with those of Ex. 2-4 is deemed irrelevant as the latter catalysts do not require an amorphous silica-alumina oil-dropped sphere support. It is noted that Lilga discloses the catalysts suitable for the oligomerization include nickel on an amorphous silicoaluminate material support, where suitable support materials include amorphous silica alumina, e.g., Grace 3111 ([0102]-[0103]).
Applicant argues that the catalyst having nickel and tungsten both on an amorphous silica-alumina oil-dropped spherical base is more selective toward smaller olefins (C2-C4) as shown in Table 1 of Nicholas. Applicant contends that “the claimed process demonstrates that amorphous silica alumina oil dropped sphere containing a metal consisting essentially of nickel without tungsten leads to improved distillate yields, as the catalyst 5.1 and 6.1 consisting essentially of nickel as claimed exhibited stable ethylene conversion greater than 90%, C8-C16 distillate yields of 30-50 wt% and 10-15 wt%, respectively” (see Tables 3 and 4 of the instant specification).
In response, the examiner does not find the argument persuasive because the results disclosed in Nicholas are not seen to be patentably distinct from the results provided in the instant specification. Specifically, Nicholas demonstrated that the catalyst of Example 1, which contains nickel and tungsten on amorphous silica-alumina oil-dropped spherical base, resulted in a conversion of 92%, C5-C10 selectivity of 53%, and C10+ selectivity of 17% (see Table 1 of Nicholas). These values can align with the results of the Applicant’s catalysts shown in Tables 3 and 4. Furthermore, the catalyst of Example 6.1 (see Table 4) showed relatively low C8-C16 selectivities (11-15%). Therefore, there seems to be no clear evidence that shows the absence of tungsten in the catalysts 5.1 and 6.1 of the instant specification led to improved distillate (C8-C16) yields. Additionally, it is unclear whether the experiments by Nicholas and those in the instant specification were performed under comparable conditions. In the absence of a showing that testing environments were the same, any perceived differences in yield cannot be reliably attributed to the absence of tungsten.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that silica contents in the claimed range of “about 75 to about 97.5 wt%” resulted in the maximum distillate yield, “based on the SiO2 wt% from Table 1 and the C8-16 yields shown in Tables 2-6 in the application.”
In response, it is noted that evidence presented to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims to which it pertains and that such evidence which is considerably narrower in scope than claimed subject matter is not sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 716.02(d). First, the graph presented in the Remarks appears to be based on the catalysts described in Table 2 of the instant specification. These catalysts, however, have multiple differing variables beyond silica content (Si/Al2), including density, content of Ni, and contents of Na, Li, or K promoter. Given the plurality of uncontrolled variables and shifting characteristics among the catalysts in Table 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine a trend in the C8-C16 yield attributable solely to the differing silica content. Additionally, Nicholas discloses the silica-alumina support has a silica-to-alumina ratio of no more than 30 and preferably no more than 20 (col. 5, lines 57-59). A molar SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of ≤20 is equivalent to a SiO2 concentration of about ≤92.2 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range of “from about 70 to about 97.5 wt% of SiO2,” recited in claims 13 and 20.
Applicant argues “even if one skilled in the art thought to combine Nicholas's teachings with those of Lilga, it would not choose the catalyst with the amorphous silica-alumina oil-dropped spherical base having nickel and tungsten both because this catalyst would produce a higher yield of lower C2-C4 hydrocarbons than the desired higher C 10+ hydrocarbons.”
In response, the examiner does not find the argument persuasive because Applicant has not convincingly demonstrated that an amorphous silica-alumina oil-dropped spherical base having both nickel and tungsten would unexpectedly produce a higher yield of lower C2-C4 hydrocarbons than a catalyst having the same composition except for the omission of tungsten, as discussed above.
The following is a modified prior art rejection based on the amendments.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga et al. (US 2016/0194257 A1), in view of Schoenfeldt et al. (US 2016/0168045 A1) and Nicholas et al. (US 8,748,681 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lilga discloses a process for producing fuel-range distillates from ethylene ([0038]), the process comprising oligomerizing an ethylene (olefin) stream, in the presence of an inert gas, such as N2 (“diluent”), with an oligomerization catalyst to produce an oligomerized olefin stream comprising distillate range hydrocarbon ([0048], [0053], [0067]).
Lilga does not explicitly teach a step of contacting an oxygenate stream with an MTO catalyst to produce an olefin stream, which can be used as the ethylene stream in the oligomerization step.
However, Lilga does suggest that the ethylene stream may be derived from a methanol-to-olefins (MTO) process ([0047]). Furthermore, Schoenfeldt discloses a methanol-to-olefin process comprising contacting an oxygenate stream with an MTO catalyst to produce a product comprising olefins including ethylene ([0027], [0030]-[0032]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lilga by contacting an oxygenate stream with an MTO catalyst to produce an olefin stream, as taught by Schoenfeldt, and then using said olefin stream as a feedstock to the oligomerization step, because (i) Lilga suggests that methanol-to-olefin (MTO) reaction can be a source of ethylene feedstock to the oligomerization step ([0047]), (ii) Schoenfeldt teaches a MTO process that produces an olefin stream comprising ethylene, and (iii) this merely involves application of a known process to operate a process step in another known process according to its suggestion to yield predictable results.
It is noted that Lilga discloses the catalysts suitable for the oligomerization include nickel on an amorphous silicoaluminate material support (a Group VIII metal on amorphous silica alumina) ([0102]-[0103]).
Lilga, in view of Schoenfeldt, does not teach the oligomerization catalyst comprises an amorphous silica alumina oil dropped sphere having about 40 to about 97.5 wt% SiO2.
However, Nicholas, drawn to a process for oligomerizing ethylene with an oligomerization catalyst comprising a Group VIII metal on an amorphous silica-alumina support, teaches that the amorphous silica-alumina support may be prepared in the form of spheres by an oil-drop method (col. 1, lines 46-49; col. 5, lines 47-59; col. 8, lines 11-52). Nicholas discloses the silica-alumina support has a silica-to-alumina ratio of no more than 30 and provides an example where an amorphous silica-alumina oil-dropped spherical base has a silica-to-alumina ratio of about 3 (col. 5, lines 57-59; col. 10., lines 10-17). A molar SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of 3 is equivalent to a SiO2 concentration of about 63.8 wt%, which falls within the claimed range of “about 40 to about 97.5 wt% of SiO2.”
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lilga/Schoenfeldt by substituting the amorphous silicoaluminate material support of Lilga with an amorphous silica-alumina oil dropped sphere support having an effective concentration of SiO2, e.g., 63.8 wt% SiO2, as taught by Nicholas, because (i) Lilga discloses the catalysts suitable for the oligomerization include nickel on an amorphous silicoaluminate material support (a Group VIII metal on amorphous silica alumina) ([0102]-[0103]); (ii) Nicholas teaches a type of amorphous silica alumina useful for ethylene oligomerization (col. 1, lines 46-49; col. 10., lines 10-17), and (iii) this merely involves substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06 II.
With respect to the limitation “metal consisting essentially of nickel,” Nicholas suggests that the metal component of the catalyst may consist essentially of nickel. For example, the reference discloses: “[the] catalyst is preferably an amorphous silica-alumina base with a metal from either VIII and/or Group VIB” (col. 5, lines 53-55); and “[a] suitable alternative catalyst is an oil dropped silica-alumina spherical support…impregnated with about 0.5 to about 15 wt-% nickel and with 0 to about 12 wt-% tungsten (col. 9, lines 11-14). Therefore, the catalysts contemplated by Nicholas are interpreted to include those consisting essentially of nickel.
Regarding claim 2, Schoenfeldt teaches that water is co-produced during the MTO reaction, and that the ethylene stream is separated from a water stream ([0027]).
Regarding claims 3-4, Schoenfeldt teaches that the MTO catalyst may be SAPO-18 ([0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Schoenfeldt further teaches regenerating spent MTO catalyst ([0028]). Schoenfeldt does not explicitly teach regenerating the catalyst so as to limit average coke on the catalyst to below 4.4 wt%. However, Schoenfeldt notes that coking affects the activity of the catalyst and the operation time in a reactor ([0023]), which suggests that the amount of coking is a result-effective-variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of residual coke on the regenerated catalyst and arrive at the claimed range of below 4.4wt%, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, Schoenfeldt discloses an operating pressure of greater than 550 kPa absolute ([0030]), which is equivalent to greater than about 4.5 barg and falls under the claimed range of “at least about 5 barg.”
Regarding claim 8, Lilga discloses that the oligomerization step may comprise a first stage oligomerization step and a second oligomerization step ([0039], [0058], [0062]).
Regarding claim 9, Lilga discloses that catalysts suitable for the first stage oligomerization include nickel on an amorphous silicoaluminate material support (metal on amorphous silica alumina) ([0102]-[0103]; [0116] discloses Ni-modified silica-alumina).
Regarding claim 11, Lilga teaches separating a distillate olefin stream from the oligomerized stream and hydrogenating said distillate olefin stream ([0065]-[0067], particularly [0067], lines 14-17; [0082]).
Regarding claim 12, Lilga suggests that the hydrogenated distillate olefin stream can be fractionated to a jet stream and a diesel stream ([0067], lines 14-17; Fig. 1; Examples 28-29).
Regarding claim 13, Lilga discloses a process for producing fuel-range distillates from ethylene ([0038]), the process comprising:
oligomerizing an ethylene (olefin) stream, in the presence of an inert gas, such as N2 (“diluent”), with a first stage oligomerization catalyst to produce a first stage oligomerized olefin stream ([0048], [0051]; the first stage product includes C4 olefins, and thus, the first stage oligomerization comprises dimerization);
oligomerizing the first stage oligomerized olefin stream with a second stage oligomerization catalyst to produce a second stage oligomerized olefin stream comprising distillate range hydrocarbon ([0053], [0067]).
Lilga does not explicitly teach a step of contacting an oxygenate stream with an MTO catalyst comprising SAPO-18 to produce an olefin stream, which can be used as the ethylene stream in the oligomerization step.
However, Lilga does suggest that the ethylene stream may be derived from a methanol-to-olefins (MTO) process ([0047]). Furthermore, Schoenfeldt discloses a methanol-to-olefin process comprising contacting an oxygenate stream with an MTO catalyst comprising SAPO-18 to produce a product comprising olefins including ethylene ([0027], [0030]-[0032]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lilga by contacting an oxygenate stream with an MTO catalyst comprising SAPO-18 to produce an olefin stream, as taught by Schoenfeldt, and then using said ethylene stream as a feedstock to the oligomerization step, because (i) Lilga suggests that methanol-to-olefin (MTO) reaction can be a source of ethylene feedstock to the oligomerization step ([0047]), (ii) Schoenfeldt teaches a MTO process that produces an olefin stream containing ethylene, and (iii) this merely involves application of a known process to operate a process step in another known process according to its suggestion to yield predictable results.
With respect to the claimed ethylene concentration of “no more than about 30 wt% ethylene,” Schoenfeldt suggests that in some embodiments the selectivity for ethylene is about 20-25% ([0025]; Fig. 2a), which falls within the claimed range of “no more than about 30 wt%.”
It is noted that Lilga discloses the catalysts suitable for the first stage oligomerization include nickel on an amorphous silicoaluminate material support (a Group VIII metal on amorphous silica alumina) ([0102]-[0103]).
Lilga, in view of Schoenfeldt, does not teach the oligomerization catalyst comprises an amorphous silica alumina oil dropped sphere having about 70 to about 97.5 wt% SiO2.
However, Nicholas, drawn to a process for oligomerizing ethylene with an oligomerization catalyst comprising a Group VIII metal on an amorphous silica-alumina support, teaches that the amorphous silica-alumina support may be prepared in the form of spheres by an oil-drop method (col. 1, lines 46-49; col. 5, lines 47-59; col. 8, lines 11-52). Nicholas discloses the silica-alumina support has a silica-to-alumina ratio of no more than 30 and preferably no more than 20 (col. 5, lines 57-59). A molar SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of ≤20 is equivalent to a SiO2 concentration of about ≤92.2 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range of “from about 70 to about 97.5 wt% of SiO2.”
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lilga/Schoenfeldt by substituting the amorphous silicoaluminate material support of Lilga with an amorphous silica-alumina oil dropped sphere support having an effective concentration of SiO2, e.g., about ≤92.2 wt%, as taught by Nicholas, because (i) Lilga discloses the catalysts suitable for the oligomerization include nickel on an amorphous silicoaluminate material support (a Group VIII metal on amorphous silica alumina) ([0102]-[0103]); (ii) Nicholas teaches a type of amorphous silica alumina useful for ethylene oligomerization (col. 1, lines 46-49; col. 10., lines 10-17), and (iii) this merely involves substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06 II.
With respect to the limitation “metal consisting essentially of nickel,” Nicholas suggests that the metal component of the catalyst may consist essentially of nickel. For example, the reference discloses: “[the] catalyst is preferably an amorphous silica-alumina base with a metal from either VIII and/or Group VIB” (col. 5, lines 53-55); and “[a] suitable alternative catalyst is an oil dropped silica-alumina spherical support…impregnated with about 0.5 to about 15 wt-% nickel and with 0 to about 12 wt-% tungsten (col. 9, lines 11-14). Therefore, the catalysts contemplated by Nicholas are interpreted to include those consisting essentially of nickel.
Regarding claim 14, Schoenfeldt teaches that water is co-produced during the MTO reaction, and that the ethylene stream is separated from a water stream ([0027]).
Regarding claim 18, Schoenfeldt further teaches regenerating spent MTO catalyst ([0028]). Schoenfeldt does not explicitly teach regenerating the catalyst so as to limit average coke on the catalyst to below 4.4 wt%. However, Schoenfeldt notes that coking affects the activity of the catalyst and the operation time in a reactor ([0023]), which suggests that the amount of coking is a result-effective-variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of residual coke on the regenerated catalyst and arrive at the claimed range of below 4.4wt%, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 19, Schoenfeldt discloses an operating pressure of greater than 550 kPa absolute ([0030]), which is equivalent to greater than about 4.5 barg and falls under the claimed range of “at least about 5 barg.”
Regarding claim 20, Lilga discloses a process for producing fuel-range distillates from ethylene ([0038]), the process comprising:
oligomerizing an ethylene (olefin) stream, in the presence of an inert gas, such as N2 (“diluent”), with a first stage oligomerization catalyst to produce a first stage oligomerized olefin stream ([0048]);
oligomerizing the first stage oligomerized olefin stream with a second stage oligomerization catalyst to produce a second stage oligomerized olefin stream ([0053]).
Lilga does not explicitly teach a step of contacting an oxygenate stream with an MTO catalyst to produce an olefin stream, which can be used as the ethylene stream in the oligomerization step.
However, Lilga does suggest that the ethylene stream may be derived from a methanol-to-olefins (MTO) process ([0047]). Furthermore, Schoenfeldt discloses a methanol-to-olefin process comprising contacting an oxygenate stream with an MTO catalyst to produce water and olefins including ethylene and separating a water stream from an olefin stream ([0027], [0030]-[0032]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lilga by contacting an oxygenate stream with an MTO catalyst and separating a water stream from an olefin stream, as taught by Schoenfeldt, and then using said olefin stream as a feedstock to the oligomerization step, because (i) Lilga suggests that methanol-to-olefin (MTO) reaction can be a source of ethylene feedstock to the oligomerization step ([0047]), (ii) Schoenfeldt teaches a MTO process that produces an olefin stream including ethylene ([0027]), and (iii) this merely involves application of a known process to operate a process step in another known process according to its suggestion to yield predictable results.
With respect to the claimed ethylene concentration of “no more than about 30 wt% ethylene,” Schoenfeldt suggests that in some embodiments the selectivity for ethylene is about 20-25% ([0025]; Fig. 2a), which falls within the claimed range of “no more than about 30 wt%.”
It is noted that Lilga discloses the catalysts suitable for the first stage oligomerization include nickel on an amorphous silicoaluminate material support (a Group VIII metal on amorphous silica alumina) ([0102]-[0103]).
Lilga, in view of Schoenfeldt, does not teach the oligomerization catalyst comprises an amorphous silica alumina oil dropped sphere having about 70 to about 97.5 wt% SiO2.
However, Nicholas, drawn to a process for oligomerizing ethylene with an oligomerization catalyst comprising a Group VIII metal on an amorphous silica-alumina support, teaches that the amorphous silica-alumina support may be prepared in the form of spheres by an oil-drop method (col. 1, lines 46-49; col. 5, lines 47-59; col. 8, lines 11-52). Nicholas discloses the silica-alumina support has a silica-to-alumina ratio of no more than 30 and preferably no more than 20 (col. 5, lines 57-59). A molar SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of ≤20 is equivalent to a SiO2 concentration of about ≤92.2 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range of “from about 70 to about 97.5 wt% of SiO2.”
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lilga/Schoenfeldt by substituting the amorphous silicoaluminate material support of Lilga with an amorphous silica-alumina oil dropped sphere support having an effective concentration of SiO2, e.g., about ≤95.2 wt%, as taught by Nicholas, because (i) Lilga discloses the catalysts suitable for the oligomerization include nickel on an amorphous silicoaluminate material support (a Group VIII metal on amorphous silica alumina) ([0102]-[0103]); (ii) Nicholas teaches a type of amorphous silica alumina useful for ethylene oligomerization (col. 1, lines 46-49; col. 10., lines 10-17), and (iii) this merely involves substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06 II.
With respect to the limitation “metal consisting essentially of nickel,” Nicholas suggests that the metal component of the catalyst may consist essentially of nickel. For example, the reference discloses: “[the] catalyst is preferably an amorphous silica-alumina base with a metal from either VIII and/or Group VIB” (col. 5, lines 53-55); and “[a] suitable alternative catalyst is an oil dropped silica-alumina spherical support…impregnated with about 0.5 to about 15 wt-% nickel and with 0 to about 12 wt-% tungsten (col. 9, lines 11-14). Therefore, the catalysts contemplated by Nicholas are interpreted to include those consisting essentially of nickel.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga et al. (US 2016/0194257 A1), in view of Schoenfeldt et al. (US 2016/0168045 A1) and Nicholas et al. (US 8,748,681 B2), as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Nicholas et al. (US 9,834,492 B2, hereinafter “Nicholas ‘492”).
Regarding claim 10, Lilga, in view of Schoenfeldt and Nicholas (Lilga/Schoenfeldt/Nicholas), teaches the process of claim 7, as discussed above.
Lilga/Schoenfeldt/Nicholas does not explicitly teach that the first stage or second stage oligomerization catalyst comprises MTT zeolite.
However, Lilga teaches that the first stage oligomerized olefin stream may contain mainly butene, and that the second stage oligomerization catalyst may include zeolites ([0051], [0106]).
Nicholas ‘492 teaches that MTT zeolite is useful for oligomerization of an olefin feed stream containing butene, which results in producing C4 olefin dimers and trimers (col. 10, lines 52-54; col. 11, lines 41-44; col. 12, line 59; col. 13, lines 6-9).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to modify the Lilga/Schoenfeldt/Nicholas process by applying MTT zeolite as the second stage oligomerization catalyst, as taught by Nicholas ‘492, because (i) Lilga teaches oligomerizing a butene-containing stream in the second stage oligomerization in the presence of a zeolitic catalyst, (ii) Nicholas ‘492 teaches using MTT zeolite in a butene oligomerization step, and (iii) this involves application of a known catalyst in a known catalytic reaction to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772