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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 22-23, 25 and 27 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse with a phone call on 7/6/2026.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 are 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 1 may have 0% of the Y type zeolite. Claim 1 also required a ratio of pentasil zeolite to Y zeolite of greater than 3. A ratio is not possible with the Y zeolite value being 0 (you cannot divide by 0). This effects all dependent claims. For the purpose of this office action having 0% of the Y type is assumed to meet the claim limitation.
Claims 11 requires that the hydrogen content of the petroleum feedstock is redistributed to C4 products. The specification reads that the claim limitation should be it is redistributed to C4- products. For the purpose of this office action it is assumed that C4- products are the intended claim limitations. Clarification for the record on this claim limitation is required in the response to this office action.
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, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadjigeorge et al (US 2008/0188702 A1, hereafter ‘702) and Harandi (US 4922048).
‘702 teaches a method for making an aromatic gasoline and olefins (abstract) in a single riser reactor.
The feedstocks include vacuum gas oils, gas oil, coker gas oil. See p 21. Fisher-Tropsch feeds may also be used. Such feedstocks contains the aromatics of claim 3. The examiner takes official notice that Fischer-Tropsch streams from organic of plastic feedstocks are well known and commonly used in the art.
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
The reaction includes temperature of 400C to 700C (p 41).
The catalyst used may be only ZSM-5, see example 1 pages 4-5. Also see p 40. Small amount of zeolite Y may also be used.
The products include propylene and other olefins (p 38) and can be filtered, separated and distilled into different cuts (p 38). For the possible cuts see table 2 and 3 on pages 5 and 6. These cuts include those from a C5+ to 221C cut point.
Regarding claim 11, the conversion to C4- products is the intended product with a selectivity of 76%. See table 1 page 5. As such 60% of the hydrogen of the feedstock may be converted to c4- products.
Regarding claims 14 the process does not require product recycle.
‘702 does not state the WHSV or the catalyst/feedstock ratio.
Harandi teaches a process for making gasoline and olefins (abstract) in a riser reactor (table 4 column 5-6). The process has a WHSV of up to 250 hr-1 or up to 50 hr-1. See table 1 column 5-6. The catalyst/feed ratio is 0.5 to 20, see table 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the WHSV and catalyst/feedstock ratio of Harandi in the invention of ‘702. These reaction conditions have the advantage of being effective at producing a gasoline in a riser reactor.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadjigeorge et al (US 2008/0188702 A1, hereafter ‘702) and Harandi (US 4922048) and Gao et al US 2014/0206526 A1).
Regarding claim 5 ‘702 does not teach the addition of a phosphorous compound to the ZSM-5.
Gao teaches use of a ZSM 5 catalyst to make olefins and gas (abstract). The process uses P2O5 in the amount of up to 10% of the catalyst. See p 24. This increases light olefin selectivity, see p 2-6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ZSM-5 of ‘702 with the P2O5 as taught in Gao. This has the advantage of increasing the light olefin selectivity of the catalyst, which is a goal of ‘702.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights