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 .
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 10 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.
Regarding claim 10, the word "when" on line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites, in relevant part, “in steps (B1), (B2), and (B3), and, when included, also in (B4), only base metal catalysts are used.” Claim 10 depends from “any one of the preceding claims.” However, claims 1-6 do not require a step B4, whereas claims 7–9 expressly require step B4. Accordingly, when claim 10 depends from claims 1–6, it is unclear what is intended by “when included,” namely whether step B4 is an optional step of claim 10, whether the limitation merely applies if an unrecited B4 step happens to be performed, or whether B4 is excluded from the claimed method. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 10 are unclear.
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll et al. (US 6,517,704 B1) in view of CN 104449841A.
Regarding claim 1, Carroll teaches an integrated lubricant-upgrading process for lubricant-range feedstocks including deasphalted oils (DAO). Carroll teaches preliminary hydrotreating of a feedstock to produce a hydrotreated feedstock, followed by passing the hydrotreated feedstock to a hydrocracking zone, and thereafter catalytic dewaxing of the hydroprocessed material (Carroll, col. 8, lines. 20–67; col. 11, lines. 19–39; claims 1 and 3–6). Carroll expressly teaches that DAO is a suitable feed to the hydrotreating/hydrocracking system and that propane-deasphalted bright-stock feeds were conventionally used for lubricant production. Carroll teaches the first hydrotreating step at temperatures of 250–450°C, hydrogen partial pressures of 800–3000 psia, LHSV of 0.1–10 h⁻¹, and hydrogen treat-gas rates of 500–10,000 SCF/B (90–1780 Nm³/m³) (Carroll, col. 8, lines. 20–24; claim 3). The lower end of 800 psia corresponds to about 5.5 MPa and therefore Carroll's disclosed hydrogen-partial-pressure range overlaps the claimed B1 range of 5.0–7.0 MPa. Carroll teaches thereafter hydrocracking the hydrotreated product and teaches hydrogen partial pressure normally of at least 1200 psia (8.27 MPa), preferably 1200–3000 psia (8.27–20.68 MPa), thereby encompassing the claimed B2 range of 13–15 MPa. Carroll also teaches hydrocracking temperatures generally of 315–425°C, hydrogen circulation of about 340–1700 Nm³/m³, and LHSV of 0.1–10 h⁻¹, preferably 0.5–5 h⁻¹ (Carroll, col. 11, lines. 19–39). Carroll expressly teaches preliminary hydrotreating before hydrocracking because removal of nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen and saturation of olefins/aromatics improves subsequent hydrocracking catalyst performance and permits advantageous operating conditions. Carroll further teaches catalytic dewaxing downstream of hydrocracking, with temperatures of 205–400°C, hydrogen partial pressures of 400–3000 psia, LHSV of 0.25–5 h⁻¹, and hydrogen treat-gas rates of 1000–8000 SCF/B (Carroll, claims 1 and 6).
Carroll does not teach a naphthenic DAO feedstock having a viscosity of 45–65 mm²/s at 100°C.
CN 104449841A teaches producing brightstock from a naphthenic light deasphalted oil having a kinematic viscosity at 100°C of at least 60 mm²/s, and Table 1 exemplifies a naphthenic light DAO having a viscosity of 63.50 mm²/s at 100°C, which falls within the claimed 45–65 mm²/s range (CN '841, ¶¶[0001], [0017]; Table 1). CN '841 further processes the naphthenic DAO by hydrogenation pre-refining, hydrogenation isomerization dewaxing, supplementary refining, and product separation to obtain brightstock (CN '841, ¶¶[0007]–[0027], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the known naphthenic DAO feedstock of CN '841, including the exemplified naphthenic DAO having a viscosity of 63.50 mm²/s at 100°C, as the DAO feedstock in Carroll's lubricant hydroprocessing process because CN '841 expressly teaches that such a naphthenic DAO is suitable for hydroprocessing to produce brightstock, while Carroll expressly teaches sequential hydrotreating, hydrocracking, and catalytic dewaxing of DAO-containing lubricant feedstocks.
Regarding claim 2, Carroll teaches that residual bright-stock feeds are obtained by propane deasphalting vacuum-distillation bottoms (Carroll, col. 6, lines. 25–52). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the naphthenic DAO of CN '841 by the known propane solvent-deasphalting technique taught by Carroll because propane deasphalting was expressly taught for producing DAO/bright-stock feedstocks.
Regarding claim 3, CN '841 teaches a naphthenic light DAO having a kinematic viscosity at 100°C of at least 60 mm²/s (CN '841, ¶[0017]). Thus, CN '841 expressly encompasses 60 mm²/s, which is within the claimed 50–60 mm²/s range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a naphthenic DAO at about 60 mm²/s because CN '841 expressly identifies such viscosity as suitable for naphthenic DAO used in bright-stock production.
Regarding claim 4, Carroll teaches B1-type hydrotreating at 250–450°C, LHSV 0.1–10 h⁻¹, and H₂ treat gas 90–1780 Nm³/m³, which encompass respectively the claimed 340–375°C, 0.1–0.4 h⁻¹, and 300–700 Nm³/m³ ranges (Carroll, col. 8, lines. 20–24; claim 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the hydrotreating step within the claimed ranges because they fall within Carroll's expressly disclosed operating ranges.
Regarding claim 5, Carroll teaches hydrocracking temperatures generally of 315–425°C, hydrogen circulation of about 340–1700 Nm³/m³, and LHSV of 0.1–10 h⁻¹, preferably 0.5–5 h⁻¹, which encompass the claimed 370–420°C, 700–1400 Nm³/m³, and 0.7–1.4 h⁻¹ ranges (Carroll, col. 11, lines. 19–39; claim 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate B2 within the claimed ranges because they are within Carroll's disclosed hydrocracking conditions.
Regarding claim 6, Carroll teaches catalytic dewaxing at 205–400°C, hydrogen partial pressure of 400–3000 psia (about 2.76–20.68 MPa), LHSV of 0.25–5 h⁻¹, and H₂ treat gas of 1000–8000 SCF/B, thereby overlapping the claimed B3 temperature of 240–370°C, hydrogen partial pressure of 2.0–15 MPa, LHSV of 0.5–2.0 h⁻¹, and H₂/oil ratio ranges (Carroll, claim 6; catalytic dewaxing discussion, cols. 13–15). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate B3 within the claimed ranges because they fall within or overlap Carroll's expressly disclosed catalytic-dewaxing operating conditions.
Regarding claim 7, Carroll expressly teaches hydrofinishing following catalytic dewaxing in order to saturate olefins, remove heteroatoms and color bodies, and, where sufficient hydrogen pressure is used, saturate residual aromatics (Carroll, col. 16, lines. 1–37). Thus, Carroll expressly teaches the recited B4 catalytic hydrofinishing step.
Regarding claim 8, Carroll teaches post-dewaxing hydrofinishing at about 170–350°C, preferably 200–343°C, which overlaps the claimed temperature range of 240–370°C (Carroll, col. 16, lines. 1–20). Since claim 8 requires B4 to be operated at one or more of the recited conditions, the overlapping hydrofinishing-temperature range satisfies the added limitation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a hydrofinishing temperature within the claimed range because it lies within Carroll's expressly disclosed operating range.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll et al. in view of CN 104449841A and further in view of Patrick et al. (WO 2016/044646 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Carroll and CN '841 teach the method as discussed above with respect to claim 7. Carroll teaches sequential catalytic dewaxing followed by hydrofinishing, but does not clearly teach performing both B3 and B4 in the same reactor.
Patrick teaches a naphthenic bright-stock process comprising catalytic dewaxing followed by hydrofinishing and expressly states that the dewaxing and hydrofinishing may be carried out in separate reactors but desirably take place sequentially in the same reaction vessel (Patrick, ¶¶[0043]–[0046], particularly ¶[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out Carroll's sequential catalytic dewaxing and hydrofinishing steps in the same reactor as taught by Patrick because Patrick teaches that arranging those same consecutive lubricant-upgrading operations in one reaction vessel provides a known integrated reactor arrangement and avoids the need for separate reaction vessels.
Regarding claim 10, Carroll and CN '841 teach the method as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Carroll expressly teaches base-metal hydrotreating catalysts including CoMo and NiMo and lists numerous commercial NiMo catalysts for the preliminary hydrotreating step (Carroll, col. 8, Table 3). Carroll also teaches base-metal hydrocracking catalysts including NiMo/USY, NiW/USY, NiMo/zeolite, and NiW/zeolite (Carroll, col. 11, Table 4). For hydrofinishing, Carroll expressly identifies nickel-tungsten and nickel-molybdenum catalysts as suitable strong-hydrogenation catalysts.
Carroll, however, does not clearly require use of only base-metal catalysts throughout all hydroprocessing steps and includes noble-metal catalytic-dewaxing alternatives.
Patrick teaches catalytic-dewaxing catalysts having hydrogenation metals selected from Groups 6 and 8–10 and identifies Ni, Co, Mo, and W as preferred suitable metals (Patrick, ¶¶[0037]–[0040]). Patrick likewise teaches hydrofinishing using conventional hydrogenation metals, including base-metal alternatives such as Ni, Co, Mo, and W (Patrick, ¶¶[0043]–[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the expressly taught base-metal catalyst alternatives for the hydrotreating, hydrocracking, catalytic-dewaxing, and hydrofinishing steps because Carroll and Patrick each teach such base-metal catalysts as conventional suitable catalysts for the respective lubricant hydroprocessing operations. Employing the known base-metal alternatives throughout the process would predictably provide the hydrogenation and hydroprocessing functions for which those catalysts were expressly taught.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights