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 because it uses legal phraseology. 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).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1: “the rejuvenation” should be –rejuvenation—(delete “the”).
Claim 13, lines 3-4: “an at least partially spent catalyst” should be –the (or said) at least partially spent catalyst—to make clear Applicant is referring back to the partially spent catalyst introduced in claim 1.
Claim 15: “A process for the hydrotreating and/or hydrocracking” should be –A process for hydrotreating and/or hydrocracking—(delete “the”).
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.
Claims 1-15 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, it is unclear what is meant by “an aqueous solution consisting of water, of phosphoric acid and of an organic acid having each acidity constant pKa greater than 1.5” (emphasis added), specifically with respect to what “each acidity constant” refers. Is the recited pKa intended to limit the solution, one or both of the acid components, or something else? The office understands the pKa to be limiting the phosphoric acid and organic acid components, individually, and has adopted this interpretation for the purposes of examination.
Claim 5 suffers from the same issue as claim 1 with respect to recitation of “having each acidity constant pKa greater than 3.5.”
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what, if anything, is implied by recitation of “group VIb already present in the regenerated catalyst.” By recitation of “already”, it is unclear whether additional group VIb metal is intended to be added. However, the claims set forth no such step, so use of the term “already” is ambiguous.
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.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devers (FR 3 089 826).
Devers is cited from the English language equivalent: US 2022/0062874.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 12, Devers discloses a process for rejuvenation of an at least partially spent catalyst resulting from a hydrotreating (HDT) and/or hydrocracking (HDC) process, the spent catalyst resulting from a fresh catalyst comprising at least one metal from group VIII, at least one metal from group VIb, an oxide support not comprising zeolite, and optionally phosphorus, the process comprising (see [0010]; [0024]; [0041], listing suitable supports which do not include zeolite):
(a) regenerating the at least partially spent catalyst in an oxygen-containing gas stream at a temperature of between 300 and 550°C so as to obtain a regenerated catalyst comprising a carbon content of between 0.1 to 0.5% by weight and a sulfur content of between 0.1 to 0.8% by weight (see [0011], wherein the temperature overlaps the claimed range; [0080]; [0082], wherein the sulfur content overlaps the claimed range);
(b) bringing the regenerated catalyst into contact with an aqueous solution consisting of water, phosphoric acid, and an organic acid, each acid having a pKa greater than 1.5 (see [0012]; [0088]-[0090]; [0101]); and
(c) drying at a temperature of less than 200°C, without subsequent calcination, so as to obtain a rejuvenated catalyst (see [0013]).
Devers is silent with respect to the XRD patterns of the regenerated catalyst. However, given that the composition of the regenerated catalyst is the same as that claimed (refer also to below rejections of dependent claims establishing the same concentrations of components) and regeneration is performed at substantially similar and/or overlapping conditions, the XRD patterns of the resulting regenerated catalyst are reasonably expected to be as claimed or, at the very least, overlapping therewith. MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claims 4-6, Devers discloses wherein the organic acid used in step b) has an acidity constant pKa greater than 3.5 and is chosen from gluconic acid, γ-ketovaleric acid, lactic acid, pyruvic acid, ascorbic acid, and succinic acid (see [0089]-[0090]).
Regarding claim 7, Devers discloses wherein the molar ratio of organic acid added per metal(s) from group VIb present in the regenerated catalyst is between 0.01 and 5 mol/mol (see [0092]).
Regarding claim 8, Devers discloses wherein the molar ratio of phosphorus added per metal(s) from group VIb present in the regenerated catalyst is between 0.01 and 5 mol/mol (see [0095]).
Regarding claim 9, Devers discloses wherein the fresh catalyst has a content of metal(s) from group VIb between 1% and 40% by weight of the oxide and a content of metal(s) from group VIII of between 1 and 10% by weight of the oxide, each with respect to the weight of the catalyst (see [0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Devers discloses wherein the fresh catalyst contains phosphorus in an amount of between 0.1 and 20% by weight, expressed as P2O5, with respect to the total weight of the catalyst (see [0023]).
Regarding claim 11, Devers discloses wherein the oxide support not comprising zeolite is chosen from aluminas, silica, silica-aluminas, or titanium or magnesium oxides, used alone or as a mixture with alumina or silica-alumina (see [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Devers discloses wherein the regeneration step (a) is preceded by a deoiling stage which comprises bring the spent catalyst into contact with a stream of inert gas at a temperature of between 300 and 400°C (see [0027]).
Regarding claim 14, Devers discloses subjecting the rejuvenated catalyst after step (c) to a sulfidation step (see [0028]).
Regarding claim 15, Devers discloses a process for HDT and/or HDC of hydrocarbon cuts comprising performing HDT and/or HDC in the presence of the catalyst described therein (and as taught in the rejection of claim 1 above) (see [0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights