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 amendment dated 05/22/2026 has been considered and entered. The response was considered but was not found to be persuasive over rejections in view of Wang et al. (US 2007/0102321). Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
The amendment overcomes the rejections based on indefiniteness, which are hereby withdrawn.
A terminal disclaimer dated 05/22/2026 has been approved. Therefore, the previous rejections over double patenting are withdrawn.
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 – 3, 5 – 14, 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2007/0102321)
In regards to claim 1, Wang teaches hydrocracking catalyst containing beta and Y zeolites for producing naphtha wherein the Y zeolite has a unit cell size from 24.38 to 24.50 angstrom (A) and the catalyst has a ratio of Y zeolite to beta zeolite of from 5 to 12, and which contains a metal such as cobalt, nickel, tungsten or molybdenum and their combinations which provide Group VIb non-noble metals and/or Group VII metals [title, 0007]. While the lattice parameter of the unit cell of strictly greater than 24.50 is not overlapped, the value of 24.50 is very close as to be obvious. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
In regards to claims 2, 3, Wang teaches the catalyst wherein the hydrogenation metals including tungsten, molybdenum, cobalt and/or nickel is/are present at from 10 to 30%, and the tungsten (i.e., Group VIb) can be present at from 8 to 22%, which provides a balance of other metals such as including the Group VIII metals of from 8 to 22% [0041].
In regards to claim 5, Wang teaches the catalyst having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regards to claim 6, 7, Wang teaches the catalyst having zeolite Y in amounts of from about 45% to about 60% by weight of the catalyst [0039]. Since the ratio of zeolite Y to beta is 5 to 12, the amount of zeolite beta would be within the claimed range as well.
In regards to claim 8, Wang teaches the catalyst which comprises the zeolites in amounts overlapping the claimed range [0039]. Zeolites are porous mineral matrices.
In regards to claim 9, Wang teaches the catalyst having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regards to claim 10, Wang teaches the process of hydrocracking comprising providing hydrocarbon feed having boiling point of above 340C and ending at below about 565C or below about 482C, and wherein hydrogen is fed at a rate of about 168 to about 1884 ltr/ltr of the feed, and the process takes place at 232C up to 454C at pressures of 5171 kpa (5.171 MPa) to 24132 kpa (24.132 MPa), and having a feed rate of 0.3 to 3 hr-1 [0046, 0047].
In regards to claim 11, Wang teaches the catalyst having the claimed ingredients as previously discussed.
In regards to claim 12, Wang teach the catalyst having cobalt or nickel (Group VIII) at from 2 to 8% in the catalyst [0041].
In regards to claims 13, 14, Wang teaches the catalyst having the Group VIb elements in the claimed amounts as previously stated.
In regards to claim 16, Wang teaches the catalyst having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regards to claims 17, 18, Wang teaches the catalyst having zeolite Y with cell size of 24.50A as previously stated. While the claimed range is not overlapped, it is close and thus obvious as previously discussed.
In regards to claims 19, 20, Wang teaches the catalyst wherein the ratio of zeolite Y to zeolite beta is 5 to 12 which is close to, but does not overlap the claimed range, and thus makes it obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the inventive example D demonstrates superior and unexpected benefits of the claimed invention over the prior art of Wang. The argument is not persuasive.
The sole inventive example is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
While the claims allow for the zeolite Y lattice parameter of from 24.42 A or higher (i.e., up to an unbounded size), the inventive example strictly requires 24.54A which does not support the breadth of the claims nor demonstrate criticality at 24.42A.
While the claims allow for the ratio of Y to beta zeolites of greater than 12 (i.e., up to an unbounded upper limit), the inventive example strictly requires a ratio of 18 which does not support the breadth of the claims nor demonstrate criticality at amounts of slightly larger than 12.
The results are not persuasive.
The results merely demonstrate that the presence of zeolite Y having a larger lattice parameter performs tan composition having lesser amounts. The results do not demonstrate synergism of the combination of zeolite Y with zeolite beta at the claimed ratios for providing superior properties over comparative examples that slightly outside the claimed cell size and with ratios of Y to beta that are slightly lower than the claimed ranges.
Thus, applicant has failed to provide inventive examples that are commensurate in scope with the claims for demonstrating unexpected results sufficient to rebut the case of obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: Wang et al. (US 2007/0102321) fails to teach the presence of phosphorus in the catalyst at the claimed amounts.
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 TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights