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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species claims 1-6 (drawn to the embodiment of figure 2) and claims 7-12 (drawn to the embodiment of figure 3). The species are independent or distinct because they are drawn to different configurations as exemplified by the different figures for each claim set. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The claims are drawn to different embodiments having different order of steps, as exemplified by different figures.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Erich Gess on 22 July 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-6. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claims require “a second stage hydrocracking reactor”, however it is not seen where the claim recites a first stage hydrocracking reactor. Thus, it is unclear if there is a first hydrocracking reactor, and where it is located within the process.
Claims 2-6 are rejected for the same reasons, as they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what is meant by “a minimized portion of the bottoms fraction in (v)”, as step (v) does not create a bottoms fraction. Further, it is not clear what is meant by “minimized”. It is not clear if this is referring to an extra process step, or is simply just a portion of bottoms from the distillation column.
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 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass (US 3,132,089).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Hass teaches hydrotreating gas oil feedstock in the presence of hydrogen in hydrofiner 10, passing at least a portion of the hydrotreated effluent 12 to separation section 26 + 30 and passing at least a portion of the bottoms fraction 36 to low temperature hydrogenation reactor 44 (see figure 1, column 3, line 20-column4, line 75). The catalyst in reactor 44 is pt/pd on alumina (non zeolite) (column 4, lines 19-35). Hydrogenation temperatures of 400-725˚F are utilized (column 4, see hydrogenation conditions, operative range), which reads on the claimed range. The entirety of the effluent from hydrogenation reactor 44 is sent to hydrocracking reactor 48 to produce hydrocracked effluent 56, which is combined with hydrotreated effluent 22 and sent to separation stages 26 and 30 (see figure, column 4, lines 55-column 5, lines 60).
Hass does note specifically disclose the presence of HPNA including coronene, benzoperylene, methyl benzoperylene, methyl coronene, ovalene, or the conversion of the HPNA.
However, since Hass teaches the same feedstocks and process steps and process conditions as claimed, it is expected that the same intermediates and products having the same properties and compositions would result. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Regarding claim 2, Hass teaches the separation section comprises a distillation column (column 4, lines 1-20).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass (US 3,132,089) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hunter (US 2008/0230441).
Regarding claim 3, Hass teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Hass does not explicitly disclose sending a portion of the bottoms fraction to an FCC unit.
However, Hunter teaches a similar process for hydrotreatment and hydrocracking (see figure). Hunter teaches bottoms fraction from both the hydrotreatment and hydrocracking stage may be suitable as feed to an FCC unit [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the bottoms from Hass as feed to FCC unit, in order to provide further products.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass (US 3,132,089) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boualleg (US 2017/0120224).
Regarding claims 4-5, Hass teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Hass does not explicitly disclose the noble metal catalyst also comprises gold, mesopores, and macropores.
However, Boualleg teaches a catalyst useful for hydrogenation of gas oil range hydrocarbons [0129-134] comprising platinum and palladium on alumina [0028], [0031]. Boulleg additionally teaches that the catalyst may comprise gold as a promoter metal [0028], and comprises mesopores and macropores [0050-0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Boualleg catalyst comprising Pt, Pd, Au, alumina, mesopores, and macropores, in the process of Hass, since it is known for the same purpose of hydrogenation of hydrocarbons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 571-272-6381. 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights