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 .
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 1-5, 10-13, 16 and 19-22 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.
Claim 2 is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the LTA-type zeolite-based catalyst”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5, 10-13, 16 and 19-22 are indefinite because the claim has a broad range and a narrow range within the same claim. The limitations would be better be understood as separate dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vermeiren, US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0207038 (hereinafter referred to as Vermeiren).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5 and 7, Vermeiren discloses a process comprising: a) subjecting a bio feedstock to hydrodeoxygenation to prepare n-paraffins, and optionally hydrotreatment (Para. [0046]-[0048]); b) subjecting the n-paraffins to a hydroconversion reaction under hydroconversion conditions in the presence of a catalyst that converts n-C7 paraffins into linear paraffins in the C₂ -C₆ range (Para. [0077]-[0099]); c) collecting a stream with an increased C₂ -C₆ n-paraffin concentration (naphtha and LPG) at the expense of the n-C₇ + concentration from the hydroconversion reaction and pyrolyzing same in a steam cracker into lower olefins (Para. [0100]-[0103]).
LPG and naphtha obtained from hydrocracking is sent to steamcracking (Para. [0139]). Based on the feedstock composition of Vermeiren and operating parameters of the corresponding steps, it is beyond any doubt that n- paraffin are obtained in the hydrodeoxygenation step; that n-C₇ paraffins are hydrocracked into linear paraffins in the C₂ -C₆ range (Para. [0029]-[0045]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4, 6 and 8-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vermeiren in view of Chen et al., International Publication No. WO/2022/144802 (hereinafter referred to as Chen).
Regarding claims 4, 6 and 8-23, Vermeiren discloses all the limitations discussed above but does not disclose the presence of a LTA-type zeolite-based catalyst.
Chen discloses a process for selective hydroconversion of normal paraffins. The catalyst used is a LTA-based zeolite. The catalyst can comprise palladium, platinum or gold and also nickel, molybdenum or tungsten. In the examples an LTA zeolite having a silica to alumina ratio of 25 is loaded with palladium and pelletised. The reaction is run in the presence of a specific type of zeolite-based catalyst, with the zeolite having a requisite topology and acid site density. The present zeolite is of a framework type with voids greater than 0.50 nm in diameter. After the hydroconversion the product can be directly fed to a steam cracker. The feedstock is a hydrocarbon feedstock comprising at least 5 wt.% normal paraffins. The product comprises large amounts of C2 to C6 paraffins (Para. [0013], [0033]-[0038] and [0047] and see Claims 1-19 and see Examples 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the catalyst of Chen in the process of Vermeiren in order to evaluate and select zeolite- based catalysts which can be used in hydrocracking a n-paraffin containing feedstock with minimal iso-paraffin production. The present hydrocracking process thereby permits one to utilize a straight-forward and efficient catalytic process for hydroconverting normal paraffins into lighter normal paraffins while avoiding the present expensive and inefficient commercial separation processes (Para. [0014] of Chen).
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of co-pending application No. 19/509,781. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '781 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting II
Claims 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of co-pending application No. 19/509,676. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '676 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights