DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the application filed 1/15/2025.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROY-AUBERGER (US 20150144529).
With respect to claim 1, ROY-AUBERGER teaches a process for the hydrotreating of a vacuum distillate feedstocks having a WAT of more than 380 C and preferably less than 580C, [0036] (A WAT greater than 380C includes at least 50% by weight of the compounds having an IBP greater than 300°C and a FBP less than 650°C).
ROY-AUBERGER teaches a reaction temperature of 200-450°C which is within the claimed range, a pressure of 0.5-30 MPa, an hourly space velocity of between 0.1 and 20 h-1 and a hydrogen/feedstock ratio between 50 1/1 and 2000 1/1. [0026]. The process occurs in two stages (a) and (b). The first hydrotreating stage (a) is carried in a first catalyst bed at least one first catalyst comprising an amorphous support based on alumina, phosphorus, and an active phase formed by at least one metal from group VIB in the oxide form and at least one metal from group VIII in the oxide form, the first prepared using calcining. [0013] The VIB may be Molybdenum and the VIII may be Nickel. [0021]
The effluent from (a) is passed to the second hydrotreating stage (b), carried out in a catalyst bed having at least one second catalyst comprising an amorphous support based on alumina, phosphorus, an active phase formed by at least one metal from group VIB and at least one metal from group VIII, and at least one organic compound containing oxygen and/or nitrogen. [0014] The VIB may be Tungsten and the VIII may be Nickel. [0021] The alumina support may be silica-alumina. [0068], [0107] (also see example 5 (Table) where catalyst D is in stage (b) and comprises silica-alumina [0162]).
With respect to claim 2, “step a) is carried out in a first zone containing the first catalyst which occupies a volume V1, and step b) is carried out in a second zone containing the second catalyst which occupies a volume V2, the distribution of the volumes, V1/V2, being in the range 10% by volume/90% by volume to 50% by volume/50% by volume respectively for the first and second zone.” 50%/50% overlaps the claimed range.
With respect to claim 3, the art teaches the catalyst less inhibited by basic nitrogen and thus more active for sulfur and nitrogen upstream, which requires less volume. [0018]; [0047] However, “[t]he percentage by volume of the first zone containing the catalyst in the oxide form of step a) is adjusted so as to maximize the conversion of the inhibiting nitrogen-containing compounds,” [0047] However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to increase the bed of the more active catalyst for sulfur and nitrogen removal where the feed contained increased basic nitrogen contaminants or higher conversion were required before passing to the catalyst sensitive to such compounds.
With respect to claims 4, 5, 8, 9 and 17, the catalyst of step a) or b) may contain a quantity of metal from group VIB is in the range 5% to 40% and a quantity of metal from group VIII is in the range 1% to 10%. [0022]. A quantity of phosphorus is in the range 0.1% to 10% by weight of P2O5. [0022]
With respect to claim 6, in the second catalyst the molar ratio of the metal from group VIII to the metal from group VIB in the catalyst in the oxide form is preferably in the range 0.1 to 0.8, [0059] and the molar ratio P/Group VIB is of between 0.08 and 0. 5 mol/mol, [0062]. [0101]
With respect to claim 7, the amorphous support is preferably silica-alumina containing at least 50% alumina and at most 50% silica with respect to the total weight of the support. [0068]
With respect to claim 10, the art teaches wherein organic compound, which includes e.g. oxygen containing compounds such as acetic acid, increases the activity of the catalyst though is susceptible to deactivation in the presence of nitrogen in the feed. [0004], [0017] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include the organic contaminant where increased activity were desired or where basic nitrogen compounds in the feed were limited, in order to do no more than obtain the predictable results of increased activity and potentially increased deactivation.
With respect to claim 11, “the organic compound is one or more selected from a carboxylic acid, an alcohol, an aldehyde, an ester, an amine, an aminocarboxylic acid, an aminoalcohol, a nitrile or an amide.” [0024]
With respect to claim 12, includes e.g. citric or acetic acid. [0024]
With respect to claim 13, the content of organic compound is e.g. 7%. [0162]
With respect to claim 14, the first and/or the second catalyst is at least partially sulfur-based. [0094], [0139]
With respect to claim 15, the hydrotreating is carried out as pretreatment in a fluidized bed catalytic cracking process. [0149]
With respect to claim 16, which is carried out as pretreatment in a hydrocracking process. [0143]
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,683,180 in view of the teaching of 9,683,180. With respect to claim 1, the patent merely claims the same process with overlapping limitations or limitations requiring selection of a limited number of items. The additional dependent claim limitations not claimed in the patent are rendered obvious in view of the text itself, which constitutes prior art (details given above under 103).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 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 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights