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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The examine acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 07/01/2026 containing remarks and claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (see Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach the limitations “adding a C9+ paraffin diluent stream to said olefin stream” and “an oligomerization temperature of about 60 to about 210°C,” which have been added to independent claims 1, 13, and 20.
With regard to the diluent stream, it is acknowledged the cited references (Lilga, Schoenfeldt, Nicholas, and Nicholas ‘492) do not teach using a C9+ paraffin diluent stream. However, Li, a newly found reference, teaches the use of a diluent comprising at least one C1-C20 alkane in an olefin oligomerization process, which serves to improve reactor continuity ([0029], [0037], [0059]-[0060]). As the olefin oligomerization is an exothermic reaction (Lilga, [0063]), one would have been motivated to employ a known diluent material, such as C9+ paraffins, to effectively manage reaction exotherms, which would prevent the formation of hot spots and thermal runaways, thereby ensuring improved reactor continuity.
Regarding the claimed temperature range of “about 60 to about 210°C,” Lilga teaches an operating temperature for the first stage oligomerization of between 40°C and 220°C ([0058]). The claimed temperature range of “about 60 to about 210°C” overlaps the temperature range taught by Lilga and is considered prima facie obvious.
On page 6, Applicant argues that while Lilga teaches the use of an inert gas diluent such as nitrogen the reference provides no teaching or suggestion of introducing C9+ paraffins stream into the oligomerization feed.
In response, the examiner does not find the argument persuasive because it is prima facie obvious to combine or substitute equivalents known of the same purpose. Inert gases and alkanes are recognized as effective diluents in olefin oligomerization processes, as evidenced by Long et al (US 4,528,414; col. 4, lines 28-34; cl. 10).
On page 6, Applicant further notes that “[t]est of Ni supported on a series of amorphous silicoaluminate invariably in the first ethylene oligomerization test in the presence of N2 diluent gave predominantly C4 and C6 and less than 10% of C8+ as shown in Examples 9 through 12 under the prescribed test conditions in Example 9 of Lilga.” Applicant argues that “substantial C8-C16 distillate yields” are obtainable in the presence of a paraffin diluent, as demonstrated in Applicant’s examples. On page 7, Applicant points out that Examples 4.1 and 4.2 of the specification demonstrate that “adding a paraffin diluent stream to the oligomerization reactor, in combination with employing a catalyst comprising amorphous silica alumina oil dropped spheres having about 70 to about 97.5 wt% SiO2, provides good yield of C8-Cl6 distillates.”
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). It is noted that the examples in the instant specification have multiple differing variables, compared to Lilga, beyond diluent material, including flow rate, time on stream, content of Ni, and contents of Na, Li, or K promoter. Given the plurality of uncontrolled variables, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine a trend in the C8-C16 yield attributable solely to the use of a hydrocarbon diluent.
On page 6, Applicant argues that “Nicholas operates at substantially higher oligomerization temperatures, e.g., about 200 to about 400°C, and therefore reflects a materially different process regime.”
In response, the examiner notes that Nicholas was cited for its teaching of a synthesis method and the composition of a silica-alumina support material. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these teachings as applicable to the Lilga process. Lilga teaches a first stage oligomerization temperature of about 40-220°C with a catalyst containing nickel on an amorphous silicoaluminate ([0058], [0102]-[0103]). As Lilga provides limited guidance regarding the specific methodology and composition of the amorphous silicoaluminate, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to the prior art, such as Nicholas, to provide a suitable support material for the Lilga process. Although Nicholas teaches temperatures that may exceed the claimed range, the disclosed range overlaps with the claimed range. The processes are sufficiently analogous that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably looked to Nicholas for teachings pertinent to providing effective catalysts for the Lilga process.
The following is a modified prior art rejection in view of the amendment made to the claims.
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), Li et al. (US 2021/0355048 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 with an oligomerization catalyst to produce an oligomerized olefin stream comprising distillate range hydrocarbon ([0048], [0053], [0067]). 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 further teaches an operating temperature between 40°C and 220°C ([0058]). The claimed temperature range of “about 60 to about 210°C” overlaps the temperature range taught by Lilga and is considered prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. I.
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.
Lilga, in view of Schoenfeldt, does not teach adding a C9+ paraffin diluent stream to the olefin stream.
However, Li, drawn to a process of oligomerization of an olefin feedstock, teaches using a diluent comprising at least one C1-C20 alkane ([0029], [0037], [0059]). Li notes that the diluent, when present, may improve reactor continuity ([0060]).
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 adding a C9+ paraffin diluent stream to the olefin stream, because (i) one skilled in the art would associate the improved reactor continuity suggested by Li with improved temperature control, particularly given that olefin oligomerization is an exothermic process, and (ii) this merely involves application of a known diluent material, recognized as useful in olefin oligomerization, to a known process to yield predictable results.
Lilga, in view of Schoenfeldt and Li, 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 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 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 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 further teaches an operating temperature for the first stage oligomerization of between 40°C and 220°C ([0058]). The claimed temperature range of “about 60 to about 210°C” overlaps the temperature range taught by Lilga and is considered prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. I.
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%.”
Lilga, in view of Schoenfeldt, does not teach adding a C9+ paraffin diluent stream to the olefin stream.
However, Li, drawn to a process of oligomerization of an olefin feedstock, teaches using a diluent comprising at least one C1-C20 alkane ([0029], [0037], [0059]). Li notes that the diluent, when present, may improve reactor continuity ([0060]).
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 adding a C9+ paraffin diluent stream to the olefin stream, because (i) one skilled in the art would associate the improved reactor continuity suggested by Li with improved temperature control, particularly given that olefin oligomerization is an exothermic process, and (ii) this merely involves application of a known diluent material, recognized as useful in olefin oligomerization, to a known process to yield predictable results.
Lilga, in view of Schoenfeldt and Li, 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/Li 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 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 further teaches an operating temperature between 40°C and 220°C ([0058]). The claimed temperature range of “about 60 to about 210°C” overlaps the temperature range taught by Lilga and is considered prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. I.
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%.”
Lilga, in view of Schoenfeldt, does not teach adding a C9+ paraffin diluent stream to the olefin stream.
However, Li, drawn to a process of oligomerization of an olefin feedstock, teaches using a diluent comprising at least one C1-C20 alkane ([0029], [0037], [0059]). Li notes that the diluent, when present, may improve reactor continuity ([0060]).
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 adding a C9+ paraffin diluent stream to the olefin stream, because (i) one skilled in the art would associate the improved reactor continuity suggested by Li with improved temperature control, particularly given that olefin oligomerization is an exothermic process, and (ii) this merely involves application of a known diluent material, recognized as useful in olefin oligomerization, to a known process to yield predictable results.
Lilga, in view of Schoenfeldt and Li, 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/Li 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), Li et al. (US 2021/0355048 A, 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, Li, and Nicholas (Lilga/Schoenfeldt/Li/Nicholas), teaches the process of claim 7, as discussed above.
Lilga/Schoenfeldt/Li/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/Li/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
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
Prosecution Insights