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 .
Office Action Summary
This is the initial office action for application 18/720522 filed 06/14/2024.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LADEBECK et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0116717) in view of BAILEY et al. (US 4634515).
LADEBECK et al. teach a method of desulfurization of fuels with highly active nickel carrier catalyst based on aluminum oxide.
The catalyst that LADEBECK et al. teach is also defined in paragraph 13 to be an adsorption material.
Regarding claim 1, the method is taught to be for the reduction of content of sulphur compounds in hydrocarbon-based fuels. The method is taught in paragraphs 38 and 42 to make possible the adsorption of sulphur compounds such as mercaptans. (A process for trapping mercaptans contained in a sulfur-containing hydrocarbon feedstock)
LADEBECK et al. teach in paragraphs 152-153 the conditions of an application example for desulphurization of gasoline.
The temperature is taught to be about 175°C. The pressure is taught to be at 10 bar. 10 bar is 1 MPa. The LHSV is taught to be 8 hr-1. These ranges overlap those that are presently claimed. (contacting said feedstock at a temperature of between 170°C and 220°C, a pressure of between 0.2 MPa and 5 MPa, at an hourly space velocity, defined as the volume flow rate of feedstock at the inlet per volume of trapping mass, of between 0.1 h-1 and 50 h-1, in the presence of with a trapping mass)
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).
LADEBECK et al. is explicitly directed toward a highly active nickel carrier catalyst based on aluminum oxide. Aluminum oxide is alumina. LADEBECK et al. teach in paragraph 66 an example with 77.9% NiO and 15% Al2O3. (comprising a nickel-based active phase and an inorganic support selected from the group consisting of alumina, silica, silica-alumina, and clays)
LADEBECK et al. teach in paragraphs 31 and 32 that the oxidic catalyst precursor may be reduced by manufacturer or user. LADEBECK et al. teach in table 1 under paragraph 77 the chemical composition and properties of the catalyst. The catalyst is taught to comprise both NiO and Ni.
BAILEY is relied on to teach a weight ratio of the nickel present in the trapping mass in reduced form to the nickel present in the trapping mass in oxide form being between 0.25 and 4.
BAILEY teaches a nickel adsorbent for sulfur removal from hydrocarbon feeds. BAILEY teaches in lines 10-35 of column 3 the nickel adsorbent comprises greater than 60 percent of the nickel is in reduced state.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for one of ordinary skill in the art to also ensure greater than 60 percent of the nickel in LADEBECK et al. is reduced.
One of ordinary skill in the art would do so given that BAILEY teaches in lines 10-23 of column 7 that sulfur adsorption improvement occurs when greater than 60 percent of the nickel is reduced.
An amount of nickel oxide that is reduced at 60 percent to an amount of nickel oxide that is not reduced at 40 percent would be a ratio of 1.5. The weight ratio of the nickel present in the trapping mass in reduced form to the nickel present in the trapping mass in oxide would be expected to be greater than 1.5. These ranges overlap those that are presently claimed. (a weight ratio of the nickel present in the trapping mass in reduced form to the nickel present in the trapping mass in oxide form being between 0.25 and 4)
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).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 2-3, BAILEY teaches a nickel adsorbent for sulfur removal from hydrocarbon feeds. BAILEY teaches in lines 10-35 of column 3 the nickel adsorbent comprises greater than 60 percent of the nickel is in reduced state.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for one of ordinary skill in the art to also ensure greater than 60 percent of the nickel in LADEBECK et al. is reduced.
One of ordinary skill in the art would do so given that BAILEY teaches in lines 10-23 of column 7 that sulfur adsorption improvement occurs when greater than 60 percent of the nickel is reduced.
An amount of nickel oxide that is reduced at 60 percent to an amount of nickel oxide that is not reduced at 40 percent would be a ratio of 1.5. The weight ratio of the nickel present in the trapping mass in reduced form to the nickel present in the trapping mass in oxide would be expected to be greater than 1.5. These ranges overlap those that are presently claimed. (a weight ratio of the nickel present in the trapping mass in reduced form to the nickel present in the trapping mass in oxide form being between 0.4 - 3 as well as 0.5 -2.5)
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).
Regarding claim 4, LADEBECK et al. teach in paragraph 153 that the temperature used in desulphurization of gasoline is averaged to be 175°C. 175°C that is average to be 175°C would be expected to include temperatures above and below 175°C. Furthermore, 175°C is close to 180°C. (temperature between 180°C – 210°C).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 5, LADEBECK et al. teach in paragraph 13 the catalyst comprises 20-70% nickel.
Regarding claim 6, LADEBECK et al. teach in paragraph 22 that the surface area of the catalysts is from approximately 180 to 250 m2/g. (surface area between 150 to 250 m2/g)
These ranges overlap those that are presently claimed.
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).
Regarding claim 7, LADEBECK et al. teach in paragraph 24 that the total pore volume is approximately 150 to 450 mm3/g. 150 to 450 mm3/g is 0.156 ml/g to 0.45 ml/g. (0.20 ml/g to 0.70 ml/g)
These ranges overlap those that are presently claimed.
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).
Regarding claims 8-9, LADEBECK et al. teach in paragraph 66 an example with 15% Al2O3. LADEBECK et al. further teach chemical properties of a reduced catalyst in table 1 that comprises NiO and Ni and Al2O3. (5% -45% of Alumina)
These ranges overlap those that are presently claimed.
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).
Regarding claim 10, BAILEY et al. teach in lines 29-51 of column 2 that it is known to hydro-refine a sulfur-containing feed with a catalyst to remove a majority of the sulfur prior to passing sulfur-containing feed through a adsorbent to remove residual amounts of sulfur.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a hydrorefining step to remove a majority of the sulfur of the hydrocarbon-based fuel such as the gasoline with 37 sulfur ppm in paragraph 37 of LADEBECK et al. prior to pass the hydrocarbon-based fuel to the catalyst. (feedstock that has been partially desulfurized by a catalytic desulfurization step)
BAILEY et al. teach in lines 25-28 of column 2 that by removing virtually the last traces of sulfur from the naphtha feed, catalyst activity and C5 + liquid yield of high-octane gasoline can be significantly increased.
BAILEY et al. further teach in lines 39-51 of column 2 that catalysts containing from about 10 percent to about 70 percent nickel, alone or in admixture with other metal components, supported on an inorganic oxide base, notably alumina, have been found particularly effective in removing sulfur from naphtha feeds, notably naphtha feeds containing from about 1 to about 50 ppm sulfur, or higher.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LADEBECK et al. (USPGPUB 20100116717) in view of BAILEY et al. (US 4634515) as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of KHARE et al. (US 6683024).
The above discussion of LADEBECK et al. in view of BAILEY et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
LADEBECK et al. teach the desulphurization of a gasoline with a catalyst/adsorption material. Gasoline is taught to include catalytically cracked gasoline in LADEBECK et al. BAILEY et al. is relied on to teach hydrodesulphurization of the gasoline prior to desulphurization with the catalyst/adsorption material.
KHARE et al. is relied on to teach the catalytically cracked gasoline with olefin content between 5-60% is known in the art for desulphurization.
KHARE et al. teach sorbent compositions for desulphurization of gasoline.
KHARE et al. teach in lines 25-32 of column 1, and 23-32 of column 17, that gaseous catalytically cracked gasoline generally comprises olefin content in amounts of about 10 to about 35%.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art use as the gasoline in LADEBECK et al. a catalytically cracked gasoline with olefin content in amounts of about 10 to about 35%.
KHARE et al. teach in lines 59-65 of column 1 that olefin content is a consideration as adverse effect on olefin content may lead to a decrease in octane number.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DYSARD et al. (USPGPUB 2005/0252831) teach desulfurizing mercaptans with overlapping conditions and a adsorbent with nickel or nickel oxide. The nickel or nickel oxide may be reduced.
GUPTA et al. (CA 2421731) teach an adsorbent with both nickel oxides and its reduced form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771