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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 October 2025 has been entered.
Claims 45-59, 61-62, 64-87, and 89-103 are pending.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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.
Claims 45-46, 52-58, 61-62, 64-74, and 100-103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackay (US 2011/0113676) in view of DeKlerk (US 2010/0108568), Behrendt (US 2010/0307428), Norbeck (US 2005/003920), and O’Rear (US 2003/0191198).
Regarding claims 45 and 52, , Mackay teaches converting feedstock to synthesis gas [0033], converting the synthesis gas by fischer tropsch reaction into a mixture comprising liquid hydrocarbons and separating the liquid fraction into various products [0033] and hydrotreating the light hydrocarbons in range of c5-20 [0048], [0052] to form synthetic fuel [0060].
Examiner notes that the Mackay C5-20 stream would encompass kerosene range products. Further in this regard, Examiner notes that De Klerk teaches a similar process for converting Fischer tropsch products into synthetic jet fuel. De Klerk teaches separating the fischer tropsch product into various fractions and treating individually, including hydrotreatment of FT kerosene [0020-25]. Examiner considers the DeKlerk hydrotreated kerosene produced form hydrotreated (c) (see figure), to read on the claimed “synthetic jet fuel product”. De Klerk teaches kerosene products having boiling range of 149-288°C and notes that variations may exist [0013]. DeKlerk teaches that desired products have freezing point maximum of -47°C [0015]. In this regard, Examiner considers DeKlerk to teach refining and fractionation of the fischer tropsch products in order to obtain synthetic jet fuel products having the claimed properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art that the light fraction of Mackay would encompass kerosene, and alternatively, the person having ordinary skill in the art may separate the FT product into various fractions to be treated individually, as disclosed by De Klerk, in order to obtain desired fractions.
Mackay teaches gasification and reforming biomass to form syngas for Fischer tropsch synthesis.
Mackay does not explicitly (1) disclose pyrolysis under aqueous conditions to form syngas (2) the hydrotreatment does not comprise hydrocracking or hydroisomerization (3) adjusting the temperature in the oligomerization zone to control the percentage of aromatic content.
Regarding (1), Norbeck teaches combined steam pyrolysis, gasification, and reforming of biomass to created liquid fuel and syngas [0014]. Norbeck teaches pyrolysis of biomass [0082] combined with gasification to produce synthesis gas [0082], [0088] and the fuel synthesis gas is sent to a fischer tropsch process to produce clean diesel fuel and recycle water [0092].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Norbeck steps to produce the biomass derived syngas of the previous combination.
Regarding (2), Behrendt teaches that FT kerosenes can be treated by various processed including hydrotreatment. Behrendt teaches prior art includes a two stage hydrotreatment process, where kerosene from f-t is subject to a first stage with no isomerization or hydrocracking in order to hydrogenate olefins and oxygen containing compounds, followed by a separate hydrocracking stage [0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Behrendt staged hydrotreatment, in order to hydrogenate olefinic and oxygen containing compounds prior to further hydroconversion.
Regarding (3), O’Rear teaches oligomerization of fischer tropsch products to produce olefin products [0023]. O’Rear teaches that the temperature of the oligomerization unit may be adjusted, and that lower temperatures favor olefin products, and higher temperatures favor aromatic products [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the temperature adjustment as disclosed by O’Rear, for the benefit of modifying the oligomerization unit to favor olefin yield or aromatic yield as desired.
Regarding claim 46, Examiner considers Norbeck steam pyrolysis, gasification, and reforming of biomass to created liquid fuel and syngas [0014] to encompass conditions of greater than or less than 40 wt% water.
Regarding claim 53, Mackay teaches iron FT catalyst [0047].
Regarding claim 54, Mackay teaches a water gas shift reaction to increase concentration of H2 [0044].
Regarding claims 55, Mackay teaches FT pressures of 350-550 psig [0042], overlapping with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 56, it is expected that the same ratio would result, since the previous combination teaches the same process steps applied to the same feeds, as discussed with respect to the claims above. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Regarding claims 57-58 and 68-70, Mackay teaches separation of vapor from light and heavy liquids [0015]. Mackay additionally notes that a naphtha stream may be recovered [0048]. Additional separation and combination of fractions is disclosed by De Klerk (see figures) as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. DeKlerk teaches kerosene boils from 149-288°C with suitable variation of range[0013].
Regarding claims 61-62 and 64, DeKlerk teaches feeding FT naphtha to oligomerization in order to produce more desirable products including kerosene (see figures 1-5). DeKlerk teaches ZSM-5 catalyst [0050] and pressures of 1-10 Mpa [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the DeKlerk oligomerization step, in order to produce further products. It is further expected that the same products having the same products would result, since the same steps are performed to the same feeds as claimed.
Regarding claims 65-67, DeKlerk teaches hydrocracking of gas oil [0045] with pressures of 2-20 MPa and Pt on silica alumina catalyst [0050].
Regarding claims 71-74, DeKlerk teaches hydrotreating kerosene with Nickel alumina catalyst at pressures of 2-20 MPa [00560]. Mackay similarly teaches Nickel on alumina [0056-0057] at pressures of 200-3000 psig [0058], also overlapping with the claimed ranges. Examiner considers the jet fuel product to be synthetic as claimed and have the same properties as claimed, since it is produced by the same process steps as claimed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Regarding claims 100-102, O’Rear teaches tempeartuers for the oligomerization/aromatization in the range of 500-950°F (260-510°C) [0029].
Regarding claim 103, O’Rear teaches sending the kerosene product from the oligomerization to hydrotreatment zone with additional similar feeds [0022-0023].
Claims 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackay (US 2011/0113676) in view of DeKlerk (US 2010/0108568), Behrendt (US 2010/0307428), Norbeck (US 2005/0032920) and O’Rear (US 2003/0191198) as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Henriksen (US 2009/0305355).
Regarding claims 47 and 49, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 45, as discussed above.
Mackay teaches that any type of gasifier may be used in combination with reforming to form syn gas [0031-0033]. Mackay teaches catalytic reforming (dry) [0035]. Further, Norbeck teaches steam reforming to produce syn gas [0014].
Further, Henriksen teaches that syngas can be formed from biomass by supercritical water gasification [0049-50].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Henriksen supercritical water gasification, since Mackay teaches that any known gasification process may be used.
Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to have used both reforming methods, since they are both known to produce the desired syn gas. See MPEP 2144.06, I drawn to combining known equivalents.
Regarding claim 48, it is expected that the mixture would comprise the same components since it is formed by the same process steps. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackay (US 2011/0113676) in view of DeKlerk (US 2010/0108568), Norbeck (US 2005/0032920) and O’Rear (US 2003/0191198) as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Yakobson (US 2009/0172996).
Regarding claim 50, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 45, as disclosed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose alcohol feed.
However, Yakobson teaches a similar process for producing syngas from biomass, using alcohol as a cofeed [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have sued the alcohol cofeed as disclosed by Yakobson, since it is also known for production of syngas.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackay (US 2011/0113676) in view of DeKlerk (US 2010/0108568), Behrendt (US 2010/0307428), Norbeck (US 2005/0032920) and O’Rear (US 2003/0191198) as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Kelfkens (US 2016/0152905).
Regarding claim 51, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 45, as discussed above.
Mackay teaches selecting H2/CO ratio for the FT process.
Further, Kelfkens teaches that the ribblett ratio is an alternative ratio which takes into account CO2 content to optimize fischer tropsch reaction [0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have taken into account CO2 content as disclosed by Kelfkens, in order to optimize the FT unit.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackay (US 2011/0113676) in view of DeKlerk (US 2010/0108568), Behrendt (US 2010/0307428), Norbeck (US 2005/0032920) and O’Rear (US 2003/0191198) as applied to claim 57 above, and further in view of Agee (US 9,677,005).
Regarding claim 59, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 57, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose water recycle.
However, Agee teaches a similar integrated process. Agee teaches recycling water recovered from FT/Hydrotreatment steps, so that it may be used for treatment of biomass feed (see figures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have recycled the water as disclosed by Agee, for the benefit of reducing costs to treat the biomass in the previous combination. It is not seen where such a modification would result in any new or unexpected results.
Claims 75-78 and 81-87 and 89-99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackay (US 2011/0113676) in view DeKlerk (US 2010/0108568), Behrendt (US 2010/0307428), Norbeck (US 2005/0032920), and O’Rear (US 2003/0191198), Henriksen (US 2009/0305355) and of Agee (US 9,677,005).
Regarding claim 75 and 98-99, the prior art teaches the claim limitations as discussed above with respect to claims 45, 47-48, 52, 59, and 65 above.
Regarding claim 76, Examiner considers Norbeck steam pyrolysis, gasification, and reforming of biomass to created liquid fuel and syngas [0014] to encompass conditions of greater than or less than 40 wt% water.
Regarding claims 77-78, Mackay teaches that any type of gasifier may be used in combination with reforming to form syn gas [0031-0033]. Mackay teaches catalytic reforming (dry) [0035]. Further, Norbeck teaches steam reforming to produce syn gas [0014].
Further, Henriksen teaches that syngas can be formed from biomass by supercritical water gasification [0049-50].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Henriksen supercritical water gasification, since Mackay teaches that any known gasification process may be used.
Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to have used both reforming methods, since they are both known to produce the desired syn gas. See MPEP 2144.06, I drawn to combining known equivalents.
Regarding claim 81, Mackay teaches iron FT catalyst [0047].
Regarding claim 82, Mackay teaches a water gas shift reaction to increase concentration of H2 [0044].
Regarding claims 83, Mackay teaches FT pressures of 350-550 psig [0042], overlapping with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 84, it is expected that the same ratio would result, since the previous combination teaches the same process steps applied to the same feeds, as discussed with respect to the claims above. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Regarding claims 85, Mackay teaches separation of vapor from light and heavy liquids [0015]. Mackay additionally notes that a naphtha stream may be recovered [0048]. Additional separation and combination of fractions is disclosed by De Klerk (see figures) as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. DeKlerk teaches kerosene boils from 149-288°C with suitable variation of range[0013].
Regarding claims 86-87 and 89, DeKlerk teaches feeding FT naphtha to oligomerization in order to produce more desirable products including kerosene (see figures 1-5). DeKlerk teaches ZSM-5 catalyst [0050] and pressures of 1-10 Mpa [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the DeKlerk oligomerization step, in order to produce further products. It is further expected that the same products having the same products would result, since the same steps are performed to the same feeds as claimed.
Regarding claims 90-91, DeKlerk teaches hydrocracking of gas oil [0045] with pressures of 2-20 MPa and Pt on silica alumina catalyst [0050].
Regarding claims 92-97, DeKlerk teaches hydrotreating kerosene with Nickel alumina catalyst at pressures of 2-20 MPa [00560]. Mackay similarly teaches Nickel on alumina [0056-0057] at pressures of 200-3000 psig [0058], also overlapping with the claimed ranges. Examiner considers the jet fuel product to be synthetic as claimed and have the same properties as claimed, since it is produced by the same process steps as claimed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackay (US 2011/0113676) in view of DeKlerk (US 2010/0108568), Behrendt (US 2010/0307428), Norbeck (US 2005/0032920) and O’Rear (US 2003/0191198), Henriksen (US 2009/0305355) and of Agee (US 9,677,005) as applied to claim 75 above, and further in view of Yakobson (US 2009/0172996).
Regarding claim 79, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 75, as disclosed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose alcohol feed.
However, Yakobson teaches a similar process for producing syngas from biomass, using alcohol as a cofeed [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have sued the alcohol cofeed as disclosed by Yakobson, since it is also known for production of syngas.
Claim 80 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackay (US 2011/0113676) in view DeKlerk (US 2010/0108568), Behrendt (US 2010/0307428), Norbeck (US 2005/0032920) and O’Rear (US 2003/0191198), Henriksen (US 2009/0305355) and of Agee (US 9,677,005) as applied to claim 75 above, and further in view of Kelfkens (US 2016/0152905).
Regarding claim 80, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 75, as discussed above.
Mackay teaches selecting H2/CO ratio for the FT process.
Further, Kelfkens teaches that the ribblett ratio is an alternative ratio which takes into account CO2 content to optimize fischer tropsch reaction [0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have taken into account CO2 content as disclosed by Kelfkens, in order to optimize the FT unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 27 October 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed by the updated rejections as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aulich (US 2009/0000185) – teaches biomass gasification, reforming, and fischer tropsche reaction (see figure).
Diebold (US 2010/0036181) – teaches integration of biomass treatment, fischer tropsche, and hydrogenation steps (abstract).
Ozdenkci (WO 2018/115593, of record on IDS) – teaches supercritical conversion of biomass.
Knuuttila (US 2010/0317903) -teaches integrated biomass treatment with fischer tropsche to produce fuel products (abstract).
Moulton (US 8,679,368) – teaches water gas shift reactions to adjust syngas composition (see figure).
Carryer (US 2010/0256246) -teaches adjusting h2/CO ratio in syn gas (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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 C 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771