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 1/22/2025.
Claims 1-20 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) 1-7, 10-14, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Herz (US 11827855) in view of Chamberlain (WO 9521693).
With respect to claim 1, Al-Herz (US 11,827,855) teaches a process for upgrading crude oil to light olefins, aromatics or both using catalytic cracking under high severity conditions (col. 6). The feed is a whole or desalted crude oil (col. 8). The FCC catalyst composition comprises a nano-ZSM-5 zeolite (cracking additive) and an ultrastable Y-type zeolite (col. 1). The ZSM-5 is impregnated with phosphorous and includes Kaolin clay, silica (i.e. quartz), and alumina (col. 2). Al-Hertz teaches wherein the ZSM-5 is impregnated with phosphorous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize aluminum phosphate to achieve the desired impregnation.
The Y-zeolite is known to include silicon dioxide and aluminum oxide and “can also comprise one or more transition metals, such as zirconium, titanium, or hafnium”. Iron and titanium are both transition metals. Additionally, “one or more of the zeolitic components of the FCC catalyst composition 124 can include one or more phosphorous-containing compounds, such as phosphorous pentoxide”. Al-Herz does not expressly state the Y-zeolite includes sodium dioxide and aluminum sulfate, however, such is expected. As is well known, Chamberlain (WO 9521693) teaches Y-zeolite contains sodium (page 3) and may be ion exchanged with aluminum, including by washing with aluminum sulfate and phosphorous, page 4, to improve selectivity and decrease coke, page 2-3. Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to exchange the sodium oxide of the zeolite-Y catalyst in Al-Hertz with aluminum sulfate as taught in Chamberlain to improve selectivity and decrease coke production in the reaction.
With respect to claim 2, Al-Hertz discloses wherein the catalyst includes zeolite Y, “the term “Y-type zeolite” refers to a zeolite having an FAU framework type according to the IUPAC zeolite nomenclature and consisting of silica and alumina,” and the molar ratio may be greater than 5. Thus, the silicon dioxide and aluminum oxide would be expected to fall in range overlapping the claimed range.
With respect to claim 3, Al-Hertz “the molar ratio of silica to alumina in the USY zeolite can be from 5 to 50.” (col. 6; col. 12)
With respect to claim 4, given the Y-zeolite is exchanged with metals and phosphorus, they are expected to be available on the surface of the particle.
With respect to claim 5, “[t]he USY zeolite can have an average surface area of from 200 m2/g to 900 m2/g.“ (col. 12)
With respect to claim 6, “[t]he USY zeolite may have an average total pore volume per unit weight of the USY zeolite of from 0.050 mL/g to 0.600 mL/g.“ (col. 12)
With respect to claim 7, “the FCC catalyst composition 124 can be in the form of shaped microparticles, such as microspheres. As used in the present disclosure, “microparticles” refer to particles having an average particle size of from 0.1 microns and 100 microns.”
With respect to claim 10, “the nano-ZSM-5 zeolite can have an average surface area from 200 meters squared per gram (m2/g) to 800 m2/g.”
With respect to claim 11, “the nano-ZSM-5 zeolite has an average particle size of from 0.01 micrometers (μm) to 0.2 μm.” The art is silent regarding the density but given the same composition, the density is expected to fall in a range which overlaps the claimed density.
With respect to claim 12, the crude oil feed may be Arab light crude oil having paraffins, naphthenes, aromatics, sodium vanadium, nickel, sulfur, nitrogen (Table 1). Al-Herz does not expressly state the Arab light crude contains iron, however, given it is the same feed from the same source as claimed, iron would be expected.
With respect to claim 14, “the hydrocarbon feed 102 can be an Arab Light (AL) crude oil” with a conversion above 85% (Table 5).
With respect to claim 13, the art teaches wherein the feed may have an API of 15 to 50 (col. 7), which includes extra light crude. Where the same feed and same conditions are used, it is expected the same conversion of greater than 90% is expected.
With respect to claims 16-17, the catalytic cracking system is a fluidized catalytic cracking (FCC) system comprising an FCC reactor, a fluid-solid separator disposed at an outlet of the FCC reactor, and a catalyst regenerator downstream of the fluid-solid separator (col. 18).
With respect to claim 20, the crude has not undergone processing.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Herz (US 11,827,855) in view of Chamberlain (WO 95/021693) as applied to claims 1-7, 10-14, 16-17, and 20 further in view of Smith (US 7,585,804).
With respect to claim 8, Al-Herz teaches an improved ZSM-5 containing microsphere for use in catalyst in FCC. The catalyst may comprise (a) at least about 30% by weight of an intermediate pore size zeolite, (b) about 3-15% by weight phosphorus, measured as P2O5, (c) about 15 to 45 wt. % kaolin, and (d) an unreactive component (claim 1), wherein zeolite in (a) is ZSM-5 (claim 2) and wherein the unreactive component may be alumina (claim ). “Levels of the inactive component are such as to provide a final level of unreactive alumina or other unreactive component in the microsphere in amounts ranging from 3-25 weight %, more typically from about 4-10% by weight.”
Claim(s) 9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Herz (US 11,827,855) in view of Chamberlain (WO 95/021693) as applied to claims 1-7, 10-14, 16-17, and 20 further in view of Jin (US 11725149).
With respect to claim 15, Al-Herz teaches a catalyst comprising Y-zeolite and ZSM-5 additive but is silent regarding the amounts of each component, including wherein the catalyst comprises greater than 60 wt.% of the Y-zeolite and up to 40 wt.% of the cracking additive. In analogous art of FCC cracking a crude oil, Jin teaches a similar catalyst composition having zeolite Y and ZSM-5. The composition % includes 5-70% USY, col. 8, and up to 10% ZSM-5, col. 11. Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select up to 70% USY and up to 10% ZSM-5 in the catalyst composition of Al-Herz as taught in Jin to achieve the desired crude oil cracking because both are directed to FCC cracking catalyst having zeolite Y and additive.
With respect to claim 9, Jin teaches ZSM-5 (MFI zeolite) is known to have a molar ratio of silica (SiO.sub.2) to alumina (A1.sub.2O.sub.3) from 5:1 to 200:1.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Herz (US 11,827,855) in view of Chamberlain (WO 95/021693) as applied to claims 1-7, 10-14, 16-17, and 20 further in view of Akah (US 2024/0299916).
With respect to claim 18-19, the art is silent regarding wherein the catalytic cracking occurs in a fixed bed catalytic cracking system comprising a fixed bed cracking reactor.
Akah teaches catalytic cracking of crude oils to produce olefins and aromatics. The reaction system may include fluid beds as in Al-Herz and may also be Fixed Bed. [0045] The catalyst from the fixed bed may be regenerated. [0056] Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify to crack the crude oil in the process of Al-Herz in a fixed bed reactor as taught in Akah because both are directed to catalytic cracking of crude oil with zeolite catalyst, Akah teaches crude oil may be cracked in a fluid or fixed bed, and substitution would do not more than combine known elements to achieve predictable results.
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