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 .
The Office Action is in response to the application filed 03/27/2024.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A sintering aid composition for manufacturing carbonaceous articles,
consisting of a concentrated residue from slurry-phase hydrocracking of heavy oil feedstock, having a content of aromatic hydrocarbons in the range from 23 to 27 wt.%, wherein the sintering aid composition is characterised by a total weight loss from 50 wt.% to 51 wt.% in the temperature range from 30 to 850oC, wherein the weight loss in the temperature range from 290 to 570oC is from 94.0 to 96.0 wt.% of the total weight loss.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines for the Derivative Weight, Weight, and Heat Flow Endo Down of FIG. 5 are indistinguishable from each other. Furthermore, the square and circle markers for FIG. 13 are also indistinguishable. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 11, and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “a slurry of a porous coal additive, which latter is a solid phase of the slurry” (emphasis added) which is grammatically incorrect. Applicant is advised to rephrase to “a slurry of a porous coal additive, wherein the porous coal additive is a solid phase of the slurry” (emphasis added) as supported in the instant Specification [¶ 0043, 0052].
Claim 9, Line 5 recites “the liquid phase of unconverted hydrocarbons”, Claim 9, Line 8 recites “the liquid phase”, Claim 9, Line 9 recites “the liquid phase of the unconverted residue”, Claim 11, Line 2 recites “the liquid phase”. Applicant is advised to rephrase to “the liquid phase of unconverted hydrocarbons” to be consistent with Claim 9, Line 5 and the instant Specification [¶ 0022].
Claim 14 recites “the coal additive.” Applicant is advised to rephrase to “the porous coal additive” to be consistent with “the porous coal additive” of Claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “aromatic hydrocarbons in the range from 23 to 27 wt. %”. However, it is unclear to what the “wt. %” is relative. For example, if it is with respect to the weight of the total composition or to the concentrated residue. For the purposes of examination, “wt. %” will be interpreted to be relative to the total weight of the composition as supported in the instant Specification [¶ 0015-0020]. Similarly, Claim 2 recites weight percentages of carbenes and carboids, Claim 3 recites weight percentages of asphaltenes, Claim 4 recites weight percentages of polymeric petroleum resins, Claim 6 recites weight percentages of ash levels, Claim 7 recites weight percentages of the sulfur content, and it is unclear in each of these instances what the weight percentages are relative to (e.g., if they are relative to the weight of the total weight of the composition or to the weight of the concentrated residue). For the purposes of examination, the aforementioned weight percentages will be interpreted to be with respect to the total weight of the composition as supported in the instant Specification [¶ 0015-0020].
Regarding Claims 2-3, 6-7 and 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 2 recites the limitation " the content of carbenes and carboids" but it is unclear to what the content of carbenes and carboids is of (e.g., the content of carbenes and carboids of the composition, carbonaceous articles, or heavy oil feedstock, etc.);
Claim 3 recites “the content of asphaltenes” but it is unclear to what the content of asphaltenes is of;
Claim 6 recites “the ash level” but it is unclear to what the ash level is of;
Claim 7 recites “the sulfur content” but it is unclear to what the sulfur content is of; and
Claim 15 recites “in which mesopores include pores” but it is unclear to what mesopores refer.
For the purposes of examination:
“the content of carbenes and carboids” of Claim 2 will be interpreted to refer to the carbene and carboid content in the sintering aid composition as supported in the instant Specification [¶ 0052];
“the content of asphaltene” of Claim 3 will be interpreted to refer to the asphaltene content in the sintering aid composition as supported in the instant Specification [¶ 0016];
“the ash level” of Claim 6 will be interpreted to refer to the ash level in the sintering aid composition as supported in the instant Specification [¶ 0019];
“the sulfur content” of Claim 7 will be interpreted to refer to the ash level in the sintering aid composition as supported in the instant Specification [¶ 0020]; and
the “mesopores” of Claim 15 will be interpreted to refer to the “the mesopores of the coal additive” as supported in the instant Specification [¶ 0052].
Regarding Claims 2, 4, 7, 12-13, and 15, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “not greater than 20 wt.%” and the claim also recites “preferably not greater than 10 wt.%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “at least 10 wt.%” and the claim also recites “preferably at least 20 wt.%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “not greater than 2.5 wt.%” and the claim also recites “preferably is in the range from 1.4 to 1.7 wt.%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
Claim 12 recites the broad recitation “the solvent is an aromatic solvent”, and the claim also recites “preferably an aromatic gas oil of catalytic cracking” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
Claim 13 recites the broad recitation “the concentration is performed by evaporating the unconverted residue free of solid phase and solvent”, and the claim also recites “preferably by vacuum evaporating from a thin film” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; and
Claim 15 recites the broad recitation “from 10 to 200 nm”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 20 to 50 nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of examination, the narrower of the ranges will be interpreted to be optional.
Claim 9 recites “concentrating the unconverted residue”. However, it is unclear if this refers to the solid phase, liquid phase, or both. For the purposes of examination, the unconverted residue will be interpreted to refer to the liquid phase as supported by the instant Specification [¶ 0023, 0054].
Claims 2-15 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, taken alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest, among other things, the claimed sintering aid composition for manufacturing carbonaceous articles, consisting of a concentrated residue from slurry-phase hydrocracking of heavy oil feedstock, having the amount of aromatic hydrocarbons and the amount of weight loss in the manner as set forth by the claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. In particular, the closest prior art is Zimmerman et al. (US20100122931A1; hereafter as “Zimmerman”) which is cited for their disclosures of relevant slurry hydrocracking distillate [Claim 1], and a coker product with at least about 20% by weight of aromatics [¶ 0017]. However, Zimmerman does not teach or suggest a total weight loss from 50 wt.% to 51 wt.% in the temperature range from 30 to 850 °C, and wherein the weight loss in the temperature range from 290 to 570 °C is from 94.0 to 96.0 wt.% of the total weight loss. Zimmerman also does not teach use of the distillate as a sintering aid composition for manufacturing carbonaceous articles. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or use the distillate of Zimmerman to obtain the claimed sintering aid composition of Claim 1.
Another prior art of record is Do et al. (WO2017058783 (A1); hereafter as “Do”) which is cited for their disclosures of relevant hydrocracking hydrocarbons in heavy hydrocarbon slurry comprising carbon particles with pores [¶ 0080]. However, Do does not teach or suggest the amount of aromatic hydrocarbons, total weight loss in the temperature range from 30 to 850 °C, and relative weight loss in the temperature range from 290 to 570 °C . Do also does not teach use of the distillate as a sintering aid composition for manufacturing carbonaceous articles. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or use the hydrocarbons of Do to obtain the claimed sintering aid composition of Claim 1.
Another prior art of record is et al. Stukov et al. (RU 2418837; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Stukov”) which is cited for their disclosures of additives to batches for producing coke that improves sintering properties [¶ 0015]. However, Stukov does not teach or suggest the amount of aromatic hydrocarbons, total weight loss in the temperature range from 30 to 850 °C, and relative weight loss in the temperature range from 290 to 570 °C . It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or use the additives of Stukov to obtain the claimed sintering aid composition of Claim 1.
Yet another prior art of record is Van et al. (US3810830A; hereafter as “Van”) which is cited for their disclosure of hydrocracking of residual oils comprising 33.6-39.9% aromatics [Abstract; Table 3]. However, Van does not teach or suggest the total weight loss in the temperature range from 30 to 850 °C, and relative weight loss in the temperature range from 290 to 570 °C . Van also does not teach use of the residual oils as a sintering aid composition for manufacturing carbonaceous articles. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or use the residual oils of Van to obtain the claimed sintering aid composition of Claim 1.
Thus, Claim 1 is distinct from the art. Since Claim 1 is distinct from the art, Claims 2-8 are also distinct from the art as they depend on and further limit Claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights