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 .
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
This action is responsive to correspondence filed on 07/14/2026.
Claims 1, 4-8, 17-25 are pending. Claims 2-3 and 9-16 are canceled.
The previous objection of claim 24 is withdrawn, necessitated by the Applicant amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 16-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacombe et al (US 2006/0063955).
With respect to claim 1, Lacombe discloses a method for making light hydrocarbon oligomers, comprising:
reacting one or more C3 to C4 olefins (see page 15, claim 20) with a gamma-alumina catalyst (see page 14, claim 1) at a temperature of about 40°C to 250°C (see page 15, claim 21)to provide a higher molecular weight product comprising kerosene (see paragraph 0171), wherein the gamma-alumina catalyst contains no additional catalytic metals, activators, or promoters (see page 14, claim 1).
Lacombe fails to disclose the complete range in temperature, feedstock and products as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, through routine experimentation.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With respect to claim 4, Lacombe discloses A method for making light hydrocarbon oligomers, comprising:
reacting one or more C3 to C4 olefins (see page 15, claim 20) with a gamma-alumina catalyst (see page 14, claim 1) at a temperature of about 40°C to 250°C (see page 15, claim 21)to provide a higher molecular weight product comprising kerosene (see paragraph 0171), wherein the gamma-alumina catalyst contains no additional catalytic metals, activators, or promoters (see page 14, claim 1) and has a pore size of about 5 A to about 140 A (see abstract) and a surface area of about 100 m2/g to about 550 m2/g (see abstract).
Lacombe fails to disclose the complete range in temperature, pore size, surface area, feedstock and products as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, through routine experimentation.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With respect to claim 5, Lacombe discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Lacombe further discloses wherein pressure is from about 0.1 MPa to about 10 MPa (see page 15, claim 21).
With respect to claim 6, Lacombe discloses the limitation of claim 5.
Lacombe further discloses wherein the feed consist essentially of ethylene and propylene (see paragraph 0164).
With respect to claim 7-8, Lacombe discloses the limitation of claim 1. Lacombe further discloses wherein the higher molecular weight product comprises gasoline and kerosene boiling above 150°C (see paragraph 0166).
With respect to claim 24, Lacombe discloses the limitation of claim 4. Lacombe further discloses wherein the higher molecular weight product comprises gasoline and kerosene boiling above 150°C (see paragraph 0166).
With respect to claim 17, Lacombe discloses A method for making light hydrocarbon oligomers, comprising:
reacting one or more C3 to C4 olefins (see page 15, claim 20) with a gamma-alumina catalyst (see page 14, claim 1) at a temperature of about 40°C to 250°C (see page 15, claim 21)to provide a higher molecular weight product comprising kerosene (see paragraph 0171), wherein the gamma-alumina catalyst contains no additional catalytic metals, activators, or promoters (see page 14, claim 1).
Lacombe fails to disclose the complete range in temperature, feedstock and products, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, through routine experimentation.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With respect to claim 18, Lacombe discloses the limitation of claim 17.
Lacombe further discloses wherein the feed consist essentially of ethylene and propylene (see paragraph 0164).
With respect to claim 19, Lacombe discloses the limitation of claim 17.
Lacombe further discloses wherein the feed consist essentially of ethylene and propylene (see paragraph 0164) and wherein the higher molecular weight product comprises gasoline and kerosene boiling above 150°C (see paragraph 0166).
With respect to claim 20, Lacombe discloses the limitation of claim 17.
Lacombe further discloses wherein the feed consist essentially of ethylene and propylene (see paragraph 0164) and wherein the higher molecular weight product comprises gasoline and kerosene boiling above 150°C (see paragraph 0166).
Lacombe fails to disclose the complete range of product characteristics, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, through routine experimentation.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With respect to claim 21-22, Lacombe discloses the limitation of claim 17.
Lacombe further discloses wherein the catalyst has a pore size of about 5 A to about 140 A (see abstract) and a surface area of about 100 m2/g to about 550 m2/g (see abstract).
With respect to claim 23, Lacombe discloses the limitation of claim 17.
Lacombe further discloses wherein pressure is from about 0.1 MPa to about 10 MPa (see page 15, claim 21).
With respect to claim 25, Lacombe discloses the limitation of claim 17.
Lacombe further discloses wherein the higher molecular weight product comprises gasoline and kerosene boiling above 150°C (see paragraph 0166).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 5-8 and 17-25.
The Office Action cites in re Wertheim, In re Woodruff and In re Geisler for the proposition that overlapping ranges may establish a prima facie case of obviousness. However, those cases do not relieve the Office of its obligation to establish that the prior art actually discloses the claimed parameter or an overlapping range thereof. Nor do those cases permit the Office to ignore other claim limitations that are absent from the cited reference. The existence of potentially overlapping ranges does not, by itself, establish that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.
With respect to remarks above, Examiner notes, the closest prior art Lacombe overlaps the claimed ranges. Further both the claimed inventions and the prior art, both relate to processes of the oligomerization olefins.
Thus, Applicant remarks are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant remarks to be, Lacombe fails to teach or suggest the catalyst required by the claims. The Office Action repeatedly relies on Lacombe's claim 1 as allegedly disclosing a "gamma- alumina catalyst." However, the cited portion of Lacombe describes a silica-alumina catalyst, specifically "a non-zeolitic support based on silica-alumina containing a quantity of more than 5 wt% and up to not more than 95 wt% silica (SiO2)." As such, Lacombe catalyst is a mixed silica- alumina material rather than the gamma-alumina catalyst required by the pending claims.
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have viewed a silica-alumina catalyst as interchangeable with a gamma-alumina catalyst, nor would Lacombe have provided any reason to replace its silica-alumina catalyst with the claimed gamma-alumina catalyst.
Accordingly, even if the claimed ranges were assumed to overlap portions of Lacombe's disclosure, the rejection still fails because Lacombe does not teach or suggest the claimed gamma- alumina catalyst, and the Office Action does not articulate any reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Lacombe to arrive at the presently claimed invention.
In response to the remarks above, the Examiner notes the closest prior art Lacombe (US 2006/0063955) discloses wherein X ray diffraction diagram of the disclosed catalyst contains at least one transition alumina peak to include gamma alumina (see abstract and page 14, claim 1).
Thus, the Applicant remark is not persuasive, as it is the Examiner position that the claimed gamma catalyst is taught by Lacombe. The rejections are maintained.
Examiner notes, claim 4, does not require the claimed gamma alumina that is disclosed in the arguments
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 JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571 272-6381. 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
