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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18996899 filed 1/17/25.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 1/17/25 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 1/17/25 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and all dependent claims 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..
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and all dependent claims recite the broad recitation (see respective claims), and the claim also recites the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The Examiner has taken the position that only one is present.
The term “preferably” in claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “preferably” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicants are required to further bring clarification and/or correction to claims.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEVERS (FR3117380; 6/17/2022) and as evidence by REINER ET AL. (CA3030553; 1/18/2018 – using WO2018013295; 1/18/2018 as ENGLISH TRANSLATION) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as DEVERS and REINER.
Regarding claims 1-20:
DEVERS teaches in para [0001] The invention relates to a method for rejuvenating a hydrotreating and/or hydrocracking catalyst and the use of the rejuvenated catalyst in the field of hydrotreating and/or hydrocracking.
DEVERS teaches in para [0016] - [0023] The invention relates to a method for rejuvenating an at least partially spent hydrotreating and/or hydrocracking catalyst, said at least partially spent catalyst comprising at least one group VIB metal, at least one group VIII metal, a oxide support, and optionally phosphorus, the at least partially spent catalyst having a group VIB metal content of between 1 and 40% by weight, expressed as oxide of said group VIB metal relative to the weight of the catalyst and a metal content from group VIII between 1 and 10% by weight expressed as oxide of said metal from group VIII relative to the weight of the catalyst, said process comprising the following steps:
a) the at least partially spent catalyst is regenerated in a flow of gas containing oxygen at a temperature of between 300° C. and 550° C. so as to obtain a regenerated catalyst,
b) then said regenerated catalyst is brought into contact with an impregnation solution consisting of a mixture of water, at least one precursor of a metal from group VIB, at least one precursor of a metal from group VIII and at least one organic compound, the content of organic compound introduced into the impregnation solution being between 6 and 21% by weight of organic compound relative to the weight of the regenerated catalyst, the group VIB metal content introduced into the impregnation solution being between 1 and 5% by weight, expressed as group VIB metal oxide relative to the weight of the regenerated catalyst, the group VIII metal content introduced into the impregnation solution being between 0.2 and 1% by weight, expressed as group VIII metal oxide relative to the weight of the regenerated catalyst, the molar ratio of the organic compound to the sum of the group VIB and group VIII metals present in the said solution being between 0.9 and 11 mol/mol,
c) then a drying step is carried out at a temperature below 200° C. without subsequently calcining it, so as to obtain a rejuvenated catalyst.
DEVERS teaches in para [0054] According to another variant of the invention, the fresh catalyst has undergone a calcination step during its preparation, that is to say that the impregnated catalytic precursor has been subjected to a heat treatment step at a temperature of between 200 and 1000° C. and preferably between 250 and 750° C., for a duration typically comprised between 15 minutes and 10 hours, under an inert atmosphere or under an atmosphere containing oxygen, in the presence of water or not.
DEVERS teaches in para [0070] The alumina support in the fresh catalyst advantageously has a total pore volume between 0.1 and 1.5 cm3./g-1, preferably between 0.4 and 1.1 cm3./g-1. The total pore volume is measured by mercury porosimetry according to ASTM D4284 with a wetting angle of 140°.
DEVERS teaches in para [0071] The specific surface area of the alumina support in the fresh catalyst is advantageously between 5 and 400 m2./g-1, preferably between 100 and 350 m2./g-1, more preferably between 200 and 350 m2./g-1. The specific surface area is determined in the present invention by the B.E.T. method according to ASTM D3663.
DEVERS teaches in para [0072] In another preferred case, the oxide support is a silica-alumina containing at least 50% alumina by weight relative to the weight of the support. The silica content in the support is at most 50% by weight relative to the weight of the support, most often less than or equal to 45% by weight, preferably less than or equal to 40%.
DEVERS teaches in para [0087] Preferably, the content for each metal, nickel, vanadium, iron, is less than 1% by weight and very preferably less than 5000 ppm by weight relative to the weight of the catalyst at least partially spent.
DEVERS teaches in para [0088] – [0089] Regeneration (step a) - The rejuvenation process according to the invention of the at least partially worn catalyst includes a step of removing coke and sulfur (regeneration step). Indeed, according to step a) of the process according to the invention, the at least partially used catalyst is regenerated in a gas stream containing oxygen at a temperature between 300°C and 550°C so as to obtain a regenerated catalyst.
DEVERS teaches in para [0090] Even if this is possible, regeneration is preferably not carried out by keeping the catalyst charged in the hydrotreating reactor (in situ regeneration). Preferably, the at least partially spent catalyst is therefore extracted from the reactor and sent to a regeneration facility in order to carry out regeneration in said facility (ex situ regeneration).
DEVERS teaches in para [0196] – [0197] Example 1: Obtaining the regenerated catalyst C1. A hydrotreating catalyst was used in a refinery for 2 years on a diesel hydrodesulfurization
unit. The spent catalyst contains cobalt, molybdenum, phosphorus with oxide equivalent contents of 4.1% CoO, 20.5% MoO<sub>3</sub> and 5.6% P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub>, (ignoring carbon and sulfur) supported on gamma alumina with 13% wt of carbon and 8.5% sulfur. After a deoiling step, the catalyst undergoes regeneration under an oxidizing atmosphere at 500°C. The resulting regenerated catalyst C1 contains the same levels of cobalt, molybdenum, and phosphorus. The molar ratio Co/Mo in the regenerated catalyst is thus 0.38 mol/mol. The water retention volume of catalyst C1 is 0.4 ml/g.
DEVERS teaches various hydrotreating catalysts as disclosed above; however it is known in the art to use other catalysts for the same hydrotreating processes as evident by REINER.
REINER teaches in para [0084] that the catalysts used for hydrotreatment can include conventional hydrotreatment catalysts, such as those that comprise at least one Group VIII non-noble metal (Columns 8-10 of IUPAC periodic table), preferably Fe, Co, and/or Ni, such as Co and/or Ni; and at least one Group VI metal (Column 6 of IUPAC periodic table), preferably Mo and/or W. Such hydrotreatment catalysts can optionally include transition metal sulfides impregnated and/or dispersed on a refractory support or carrier such as alumina and/or silica. Substantially carrier or support-free catalysts, commonly referred to as bulk catalysts, generally have higher volumetric activities than their supported counterparts. Para [0085] The catalysts can either be in bulk form or in supported form. In addition to alumina and/or silica, other suitable support/carrier materials can include, but are not limited to, zirconia, titania, zirconia-alumina, silica-irconia, silica-titania, and titania-alumina. Suitable aluminas are porous aluminas such as gamma or beta having average pore sizes. Suitable catalysts can include 10-member ring pore zeolites, such as EU-1, ZSM-35 (or ferrierite), ZSM-11, ZSM-57, NU-87, SAPO-11, ZSM-22, and the like, and combinations thereof. Exemplary materials can comprise EU-2, EU-11, ZBM-30, ZSM-48, and/or ZSM-23, particularly comprising at least ZSM-48. Note that a zeolite having the ZSM-23 structure with a silica to alumina (para [0073]). The metal is about 30 wt% or greater based on catalyst (para [0103]).
REINER teaches in para [0062] Suitable catalysts can include molecular sieves (both aluminosilicate zeolites and silicoaluminophosphates), metalloaluminophosphates, amorphous aluminosilicates, cationic acidic clays, and other solid acid catalysts or mixtures thereof. Examples of acid catalysts can include but are not limited to large pore zeolites (e.g., Faujasite, Beta, MWW family, etc.), medium (10-ring) to small (8-ring) pore zeolites (e.g., MFI, CHA, MOR, etc.) with small particle sizes, acidic mixed metal oxides (W0x/Zr02, Mo0x/Zr02), alumina, silica-alumina, and acidic clays, or mixtures thereof. Para [0063] More generally, examples of the molecular sieves can be of the large (>12-ring angfs opening), medium (10-ring opening) or small (<8-ring pore opening) pore type. The molecular sieves structure types can be defined using three letter codes. Non-limiting examples of small pore molecular sieves can include AEI, AFT, ANA, APC, ATN, ATT, ATV, AWW, BIK,CAS, CHA, CHI, DAC, DDR, EDT, ERI, GIS, GOO, KFI, LEV, LOV, LTA, MER, MON, PAU, PHI, RHO, ROG, SOD, THO, and substituted forms thereof Non-limiting examples of medium pore molecular sieves can include AFO, AEL, EUO, HEU, FER, MEL, MFI, MTW, MTT, MWW, TON, and substituted forms thereof. Non-limiting examples of large pore molecular sieves can include BEA, CFI, CLO, DNO, EMT, FAU, LTL, MOR and substituted forms thereof.
REINER teaches in para [0063] More generally, examples of the molecular sieves can be of the large (>12-ring pore opening), medium (10-ring opening) or small (<8-ring pore opening) pore type. The molecular sieves structure types can be defined using three letter codes. Non-limiting examples of small pore molecular sieves can include AEI, AFT, ANA, APC, ATN, ATT, ATV, AWW, BIK, CAS, CHA, CHI, DAC, DDR, EDT, ERI, GIS, GOO, KFI, LEV, LOV, LTA, MER, MON, PAU, PHI, RHO, ROG, SOD, THO, and substituted forms thereof Non-limiting examples of medium pore molecular sieves can include AFO, AEL, EUO, HEU, FER, MEL, MFI, MTW, MTT, MWW, TON, and substituted forms thereof. Non-limiting examples of large pore molecular sieves can include BEA, CFI, CLO, DNO, EMT, FAU, LTL, MOR and substituted forms thereof. In one embodiment, zeolite catalysts can have a Si/A1 molar ratio of greater than 2 and at least one dimension of the pore openings greater than or equal to 10-ring. Solid zeolites for some embodiments can include ZSM-5 (MFI), zeolite beta (BEA), USY family zeolites (FAU), MCM-22, MCM-49, and MCM-56 (MWW). Mesoporous materials with pore openings greater than 20 angstroms, such as the MCM-41 family and SBA-15 type with aluminum incorporated into the structure and thus possessing acidity, can also be used as oligomerization catalysts.
Therefore, from the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
In addition, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that adding duplicate / repeating process steps or recognizing additional instrumentation for analysis or additional analysis would not have been expected to confer any particular desirable property on the final product. Rather, the final product obtained according to the claim limitations would merely have been expected to have the same functional properties as the prior art product.
Further, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Additionally, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable, absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicants have recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Again, REINER is considered a teaching reference, not a modifying reference. See MPEP 2112.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights