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 5/13/2025.
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, 4-10, 12-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benazzi (US 7,704,378).
With respect to claims 1, 4-5, 9, 15, 17-18, and 20, Benazi discloses a hydrocracking and hydroisomerization process for the production of middle distillate fuels from Fischer-Tropsch paraffin feed. Abstract. The feedstock includes Fischer-Tropsch heavy fraction subject to hydrotreatment and then fractioned to form a feedstock having a boiling point between 300-410°C, which includes a T10 of greater than 280°C. Col. 21 (“separation of a single "heavy" fraction with an initial boiling point comprised between 120 and 200.degree. C., b) hydrotreatment of at least part of said heavy fraction, c) fractionation into at least three fractions; at least one intermediate fraction having an initial boiling point T1 comprised between 120 and 200.degree. C., and a final boiling point T2 greater than 300.degree. C. and less than 410.degree. C., at least one light fraction boiling below the intermediate fraction, at least one heavy fraction boiling above the intermediate fraction”). The paraffin content of the feedstream is at least 50%, which encompasses the range of 70% or more. Col. 31, line 30+.
The feedstock is subject to hydrocracking in the presence of a catalyst and hydrogen with a conversion relative to 370°C of greater than 80%, which falls within the claimed range of 20 wt% or more conversion relative to 371 °C. Col. 23, line 65+. The hydrocracking temperature may be 200-450°C, which overlaps the range of 355°C or less. Col. 33, line 4+. The products include middle distillates including kerosene and diesel. Abstract; col. 24.
The catalyst includes noble hydrogenation metal on silica-alumina acidic support. Col. 2. The metal may include 0.5-10% noble meal, including Pt or Pd, col. 9, line 44+. The pore volume is 0.1-0.6 mL/g, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.55-0.9 cm3/g. Col. 3, line1+. The surface area between 100-550 m2/g, which overlaps the range of 360 m2/g or more. The catalyst is extruded. Col. 9, line 57.
With respect to claim 6, the silicon to aluminum ratio is less than 2.3, which encompasses the range of 0.2 to 0.7. Col. 9
With respect to claim 7, Benazzi is silent regarding support comprises an acidity of 0.3 meq/g to 0.7 meq/g, or of 110 pmols/g or more, or a combination thereof. Benazzi discloses use of a bifunctional catalyst having acid and hydrogenating function. The acid function is provided by the large surface area silica-alumina support. Benazzi explains that the acidity and hydrogenating functions control the activity and selectivity of the catalyst. Weak acid with strong hydrogenation is inactive and selective towards isomerization, strong acid with week hydrogenation function is highly active and selective towards cracking, and strong acid and hydrogenation allows high activity and selectivity towards isomerization. One should “judiciously choosing each of the functions, to adjust the activity/selectivity ratio of the catalyst.”.
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the acidity of the catalyst of Benazzi such that the desired acid function is achieved because the Benazzi teaches that the acidity of the catalyst affects the activity and selectivity of the catalyst and the discovery of optimum value of a result effective variable is a process known in the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. MPEP 2144.
With respect to claim 8, Benazi discloses a catalyst having the same total surface area and having an average pore diameter falling in the range of 20-140 ang, but is silent with respect to the micropore surface area of 60 m2/g or less. Given the same catalyst material is taught it is expected that the micropore surface area would also fall within a range claimed.
With respect to claim 10, feedstock comprises a Fischer-Tropsch product, which is 100% and in the range of 50 wt% or more of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis products. Col. 21.
With respect to claims 12-13, the feedstock is a fraction with a lower cut point of up to 410C, which includes a feedstock comprising a T10 distillation point of 315°C or 343°C or more.
With respect to claim 16, the feedstock may be treated to reduce the oxygenates content to less than 0.5%, which falls within the claimed range comprising 1.0 wt% or less of oxygenates. Col. 22.
With respect to claim 19, feedstock includes practically few or no aromatics, which includes 2.5 wt% or less of aromatics. Col. 1.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benazzi (US 7,704,378) as applied to claims 1, 4-10, 12-13, and 15-20 above, further in view of Biswas et al., Processing of Alumina Honeycomb Catalyst Substrates and Studies on Methyl Cellulose Binder Burn Out Kinetics, Journal of Advanced Catalysis Science and Technology, 2015, 2, 38-43.
With respect to claim 2, the support is formed from extruding a mixture of silica-alumina in acidic medium which may be nitric acid. Col. 33. Additional additives may be used, including “additives in order to facilitate the moulding and/or improve the final mechanical properties of the silica-alumina supports. As examples of additives, there may in particular be mentioned cellulose, carboxymethyl-cellulose, carboxyethyl-cellulose, tall-oil, xanthan gum, surface-active agents, flocculating agents such as the polyacrylamides, carbon black, starches, stearic acid, polyacrylic alcohol, polyvinylic alcohol, biopolymers, glucose, polyethylene glycols etc.” Col. 33. Benazi does not explicitly list methylcellulose as the additive to effect molding or support properties.
However, as evidenced by Biswas et al., “Methylcellulose is a well known binder used for the processing of ceramics and . . . has very good compatibility characteristics with most of the common ceramic systems.” It is known for use in binding catalyst substrates with improvements in flowability, shaping, and final product strength. The methylcellulose is mixed with the ceramic powder prior to extrusion, then burned off, leaving a ceramic catalyst of improved strength. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Benazi by selecting methylcellulose as the molding additive in preparing the silica-alumina support as taught in Biswas et al. because both are directed to extruding ceramic catalysts, Benazi teaches using a molding additive for facilizing molding and improving mechanical properties of the support and Biswas discloses methylcellulose is a known additive for doing the same. Each of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have selected methylcellulose as the additive for use in the silica-alumina, nitric acid mixture for forming the catalyst with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 3, Biswas et al. discloses using methylcellulose in an amount of 1 to 4% of the powder, which overlaps the weight ratio of silica-alumina to methylcellulose 50-250.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benazzi (US 7,704,378) as applied to claims 1, 4-10, 12-13, and 15-20 above, further in view of Janssen (US 20220267684).
With respect to claim 11, Benazzi is silent regarding wherein the feedstock comprises 1.0 wt% or more bio-components. Benazzi does teach wherein the paraffin feed is obtained from a Fischer-Tropsch process. However, it is well known that synthesis gas for Fischer-Tropsch production may be derived from petroleum or bio-components as disclosed in Janssen. Par. [0038]. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to uses as the a bioderived feed in the process of Benazzi because Benazzi teaches wherein the feed is a Fischer-Tropsch hydrocarbon effluent and Janssen discloses wherein the feed to Fischer Tropsch process including biomass derived feed. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 14, Benazzi is silent regarding the T90 point of the feedstock. feedstock comprises a T90 distillation point of 5000C or more. Janssen discloses the product produced in a Fischer-Tropsch process may have an end boiling point of greater than 7500C. Par. [0028]. Benazzi discloses separating out and treating the highest boiling fraction from the Fischer-Tropsch effluent. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to uses as the highest boiling feed one having a T95 boiling point greater than 5000C because Benazzi teaches wherein the feed is from fractionating and utilizing the bottoms product from a Fischer-Tropsch effluent, and Janssen discloses the boiling range for Fischer-Tropsch effluents.
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