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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for the following reasons:
Line 1 recites the implied phrase “The present disclosure generally relates to”.
It is suggested to amend “phosphororic” to “phosphoric” in line 5.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to ensure the proper spelling, it is suggested to amend “phosphororic” to “phosphoric” in claim 1, line 5.
In order to ensure the proper range syntax:
It is suggested to amend “from 4.5 and 5.5” to “from 4.5 to 5.5” in claim 2, line 2.
It is suggested to amend “of 25 and 65” to “of 25 to 65” in claim 5, line 2.
It is suggested to amend “of 5 and 15” to “of 5 to 15” in claim 5, line 3.
It is suggested to amend “of 5 and 50” to “of 5 to 50” in claim 6, line 2.
It is suggested to amend “of 0.1 and 10” to “of 0.1 to 10” in claim 6, lines 2-3.
In order to ensure proper Markush group language:
It is suggested to amend “a group selected from” to “the group consisting of” in claim 3, lines 1-2.
It is suggested to amend “a group” to “the group” in claim 4, line 1.
In order to ensure proper antecedent basis:
It is suggested to amend “with Meso Y zeolite” to “with the Meso Y zeolite”, in claim 1, line 6.
It is suggested to amend “bottom cracking catalyst” to “bottoms cracking catalyst” in claim 7, line 3.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites, “the Y zeolite comprises SiO2/Al2O3 in a ratio ranging from 4.5 and 5.5”. However, it is unclear what this ratio is in terms of, i.e., molar ratio, weight ratio, volume ratio, etc, and is not clarified by the specification. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the ratio as a molar ratio. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2019/0184375 A1) (Singh) in view of Verboekend et al. (WO 2020/127664 A1) (Verboekend), Ludvig et al. (WO 2017/015597 A1) (Ludvig), and Gao et al. (WO 2019/055246 A2) (Gao).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, Singh teaches spray-dried, fluidizable catalysts for fluid catalytic cracking (Singh, [0002]) (i.e., a process for preparing a catalyst for a fluid catalytic cracking unit) formed from the method comprising:
peptizing pseudoboehmite alumina by mixing water and a monoprotic acid with the pseudoboehmite (Singh, [0018]; [0025]; [0026]; [0029]) (i.e., preparing an aqueous solution of pseudoboehmite alumina and an acid),
mixing with a zeolite, including Y zeolite (Singh, [0038]; [0049]), and
mixing in an added silica including colloidal silica in the form of a slurry (Singh, [0047]) (i.e., Y zeolite, mixed with an aqueous solution of pseudoboehmite and an acid to form solution A, and mixing a dispersion of colloidal silica to form a solution B and mixing solution A and solution B to form the catalyst).
However, Singh does not explicitly teach (a) treating the Y zeolite with an organic acid, followed by treating with an alkali to obtain Meso Y zeolite; (b) phosphoric acid as the acid in the aqueous solution of the pseudoboehmite; and (c) mixing the dispersion of colloidal silica with an aqueous solution of boric acid.
With respect to the difference (a), Verboekend teaches a method for generating new faujisite zeolites including Y type zeolites for use in fluid catalytic cracking catalysts (Verboekend, Abstract; p. 1, lines 28-30; p. 4, lines 28-29). Verboekend specifically teaches performing an acid treatment using an organic acid such as citric acid (i.e., claim 3), followed by a base treatment with a strong inorganic base such as NaOH or KOH (i.e., claim 4) (Verboekend, p. 3, lines 8-12).
As Verboekend expressly teaches, using an acid-base treatment, Y zeolites can be converted into materials containing strongly enhanced mesoporosity and largely preserved intrinsic zeolite properties (Verboekend, p. 3, lines 6-8).
Verboekend is analogous art as it is drawn to Y zeolites used in fluid catalytic cracking (Verboekend, Abstract; p. 1, lines 28-30).
In light of the motivation of an acid-base treatment on the Y zeolite as disclosed by Verboekend, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Y zeolite of Singh by an acid-base treatment in order to transform it into a material containing strongly enhanced mesoporosity and largely preserved intrinsic zeolite properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference (b), Ludvig teaches a process for manufacturing a fluid catalytic cracking catalyst additive composition comprising mixing an alumina source with water and phosphoric acid, wherein the alumina is pseudoboehmite alumina, and wherein a zeolite is added to the aluminum phosphate binder (Ludvig, Abstract).
As Ludvig expressly teaches, the present invention is based on a process with low amount of pseudo-boehmite binder and without the need to use a monoprotic acid for pretreating the alumina. The pseudo-boehmite alumina binder is reacted with phosphoric acid to make an in-situ aluminum phosphate at least equivalent in physical properties and performance as FCC additive made by previously known methods at this low alumina binder level. It is believed that the in-situ aluminum phosphate of the present invention creates an alternative manufacturing route by eliminating the need for dispersing or dissolving the alumina with, for example, a monoprotic acid (Ludvig, [0010]).
Ludvig is analogous art as it is drawn to acid treatment of pseudo-boehmite alumina for FCC catalysts (Ludvig, Abstract).
In light of the disclosure of Ludvig of the equivalence and interchangeability of using a monoprotic acid treatment as disclosed in Singh (Singh, [0026]), with using a phosphoric acid treatment as presently claimed, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a phosphoric acid treatment as the pseudo-boehmite treatment to form the solution in Singh, and thereby arrive claimed invention.
With respect to the difference (c), Gao teaches adding a solution of a boron-containing compound to a composition comprising a zeolite and a colloidal oxide binder for use as a fluid catalytic cracking additive (Gao, Abstract). Gao specifically teaches the boron -containing compound includes boric acid (Gao, [0027]) and the colloidal oxide binder includes colloidal silica (Gao, [0032]).
As Gao expressly teaches, the addition of the boron-containing compound improves the attrition resistance in the fluid catalytic cracking additive (Gao, Abstract).
Gao is analogous art as it is drawn to an additive comprising colloidal silica for a fluid catalytic cracking catalyst (Gao, Abstract; [0032]).
In light of the motivation of treating the colloidal silica with boric acid as disclosed by Gao, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the colloidal silica of Gao with boric acid in order to improve the attrition resistance of the additive, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While there is no disclosure that the fluid catalytic cracking catalyst is a bottoms cracking catalyst presently claimed, applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. as a bottoms cracking catalyst, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which is identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Regarding claim 2, Singh, in view of Verboekend, Ludvig, and Gao, teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the Si/Al ratio of Y zeolites ranges from 2.5 to 5 mol/mol (Verboekend, p. 2, lines 3-6), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 5, Singh, in view of Verboekend, Ludvig, and Gao, teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of P/Al is between 1 and 3 (Ludvig, claim 9) and wherein the amount of phosphorus added can act to react with alumina and to stabilize the zeolite (Ludvig, [0018]).
Although there are no disclosures on the volume concentrations of pseudoboehmite alumina being in a range of 25 and 65 and of phosphoric acid being in a range of 5 and 15 in solution A as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here 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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the volume concentrations of pseudoboehmite alumina and phosphoric acid, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to have a sufficient amount of phosphorus added to react with alumina and to stabilize the zeolite, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Singh, in view of Verboekend, Ludvig, and Gao, teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the amount of boron added improves the attrition resistance of the FCC additive by about 10% to about 50% compared to an FCC additive without boron (Gao, [0008]).
Although there are no disclosures on the volume concentration of colloidal silica being in a range of 5 and 50% and of boric acid being in a range of 0.1 and 10% as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here 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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the volume concentrations of colloidal silica and boric acid, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve the desired improved attrition resistance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Singh, in view of Verboekend, Ludvig, and Gao, teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the catalyst mixture is washed to remove excess alkali metal followed by drying (Singh, [0053]; [0054]) and then calcined at a temperature of from about 250°C to about 800°C for a period of about 10 seconds to about 4 hours (Singh, [0051]), which overlaps with the ranges of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catriona Corallo whose telephone number is (571)272-8957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/C.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights