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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 24 November 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 26-30 are pending.
The previous rejections have been maintained. The rejections follow.
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 28-30 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.
Regarding claims 28-30, it is not clear what is meant by “uses a difference”, the “calculating” steps, or the amount “based on the calculated renewable content”. It is not clear what units of measure are used, how the values are measured, and it is unclear what type of calculation is performed. It is unclear what calculation is performed. Further, by “based on”, it is unclear if there is further math performed, further determination steps, or something else. It is unclear what the steps are being performed. Examiner additionally notes that it is unclear if 101 rejections apply, as it is unclear what the claim language covers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-16 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foody (US 2015/0225233) alone, or further in view of Gudde (US 2011/0068047).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 10, Foody teaches a) providing renewable hydrogen [0078]; b) selectively directing the renewable hydrogen to one or more hydroprocessing units in a fuel production facility comprising a plurality of hydroprocessing units to provide one or more transportation fuel products [0088], [0090-000107]. Foody teaches the products comprise renewable content [0019]. Foody teaches renewable hydrogen and renewable fuel contributes to the renewable content of the fuel in order to meet established renewable fuel targets set by governments [0021]. Foody teaches running the process in order to allow for generation of renewable fuel credits by meeting GHG profile, RFS, RIN, etc [0128-0130], which Examiner considers to be indicative of determining renewable fuel content. Examiner considers determination of amount of feed/and products to be within the skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art, in order to keep track of reactants needed and product quantity for economic consideration (sales).
Foody teaches that the non-renewable hydrogen can be used for hydrodesulfurization of crude oil derived liquid hydrocarbons, and that the desulfurized hydrocarbons can be further hydrotreated with renewable hydrogen [0020]. In this regard, Examiner considers the Foody further hydrotreatment to read on the claimed “hydrofinishing”.
Further, Foody teaches that renewable hydrogen can be utilized in hydrogenation reactions, which include “without limitation, any reaction in which renewable hydrogen is added to a crude oil derived liquid hydrocarbon through a chemical bond or linkage to a carbon atom” [0088].
Gudde teaches that hydrofinishing is a type of hydrotreatment known in the art and incorporated into refining facilities [0090].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the renewable hydrogen for hydrofinishing disclosed by Foody or Gudde, while non-renewable hydrogen can be used in the other processes.
Further, Foody teaches that the renewable hydrogen is utilized in order to obtain renewable fuel credits [0126-0154]. In this regard, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected an appropriate amount of renewable hydrogen to be used in the refinery, for the benefit of obtaining the desired fuel credits.
Examiner additionally considers the hydrotreatment steps claimed to be well known hydrotreatment known in the art, that would be suitable for Foody hydrogenation reactions, which include “without limitation, any reaction in which renewable hydrogen is added to a crude oil derived liquid hydrocarbon through a chemical bond or linkage to a carbon atom” [0088].
Regarding claims 4- 11 and 13-15, Foody teaches sending the renewable hydrogen to distillate hydrotreaters [0094-0096]. Foody teaches fuel range products include for motor vehicle engines [0113], which Examiner considers to encompass diesel. Examiner notes that the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to appropriately selected the amount of renewable hydrogen fed to each unit, in order to achieve the desired conversions, environmental and economic benefits. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
It is further expected that the same amount of renewable energy would end up in the diesel product, since the same process steps as claimed are disclosed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Examiner additionally considers the hydrotreatment steps claimed to be well known hydrotreatment known in the art, that would be suitable for Foody hydrogenation reactions, which include “without limitation, any reaction in which renewable hydrogen is added to a crude oil derived liquid hydrocarbon through a chemical bond or linkage to a carbon atom” [0088].
Regarding claim 16, Foody teaches the fuel production facility is an oil refinery [[0086]-[0101].
Regarding claims 26-30, Foody teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 13-15 above. Further, Foody teaches that the hydrogen can be produced from reforming renewable natural gas [0077-0079]. Foody teaches that renewable feeds may be combined with non renewable feeds [0019]. ]. Foody teaches running the process in order to allow for generation of renewable fuel credits by meeting GHG profile, RFS, RIN, etc [0128-0130], which Examiner considers to be indicative of determining renewable fuel content. Foody teaches refining units including isomerization, reforming, alkylation, or cracking [0110], [0089].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected amounts of renewable and fossil feeds, based off of availability, economic factors, and to meet environmental standards. Examiner additionally notes that yield has been addressed with respect to claims above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments to be:
The instant specification describes in detail what is meant be “uses a difference” and “calculating”.
Foody fails to teach “finishing hydrotreaters”.
The prior art does not disclose “selectively directing”.
Regarding Applicant’s first argument, Examiner notes that the language “uses a difference” and “calculating” as recited in claims 28-30, does not make clear if the “difference” is the “calculating” or if further “calculating” steps are utilized. It is not clear to the person having ordinary skill in the art what the claimed steps are referring to.
Regarding Applicant’s second argument, Foody teaches that the non-renewable hydrogen can be used for hydrodesulfurization of crude oil derived liquid hydrocarbons, and that the desulfurized hydrocarbons can be further hydrotreated with renewable hydrogen [0020]. In this regard, Examiner considers the Foody further hydrotreatment to read on the claimed “hydrofinishing”.
Further, Foody teaches that renewable hydrogen can be utilized in hydrogenation reactions, which include “without limitation, any reaction in which renewable hydrogen is added to a crude oil derived liquid hydrocarbon through a chemical bond or linkage to a carbon atom” [0088].
Gudde teaches that hydrofinishing is a type of hydrotreatment known in the art and incorporated into refining facilities [0090].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the renewable hydrogen for hydrofinishing disclosed by Foody or Gudde, while non-renewable hydrogen can be used in the other processes.
Examiner additionally notes that hydrofinishing in the art is known to be performed after other hydrotreatment processes.
Regarding Applicant’s third argument, directing the renewable hydrogen to one or more hydroprocessing units in a fuel production facility comprising a plurality of hydroprocessing units to provide one or more transportation fuel products [0088], [0090-000107]. Foody teaches the products comprise renewable content [0019]. Foody teaches renewable hydrogen and renewable fuel contributes to the renewable content of the fuel in order to meet established renewable fuel targets set by governments [0021]. Foody teaches that the non-renewable hydrogen can be used for hydrodesulfurization of crude oil derived liquid hydrocarbons, and that the desulfurized hydrocarbons can be further hydrotreated with renewable hydrogen [0020]. In this regard, Examiner considers the Foody further hydrotreatment to read on the claimed “hydrofinishing”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the renewable hydrogen for hydrofinishing disclosed by Foody or Gudde, while non-renewable hydrogen can be used in the other processes.
Further, Foody teaches that the renewable hydrogen is utilized in order to obtain renewable fuel credits [0126-0154]. In this regard, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected an appropriate amount of renewable hydrogen to be used in the refinery, for the benefit of obtaining the desired fuel credits.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Application 18578697 – related application drawn to renewable hydrogen fed to hydroprocessing
Marker (US 2019/0144274) – teaches mixing renewable and non renewable feeds to reduce carbon foot print [0042], [0054], in order to provide hydrogen to various hydrotreatment processes [0029].
Reddy (US 2004/0255778) -teaches steam methane reforming, water gas shift, and PSA in order to obtain purified hydrogen (see figures).
Guo (US 2005/0150820) – teaches integration of hydroprocessing units with units to obtain high purity hydrogen [0019], [0026].
Matson (US 2004/0224396) -teaches producing hydrogen from renewable methane [0011] by steam reforming, cryogenic separation, PSA, and membrane [0047], and using the hydrogen to hydrogenate oils [0058].
Hsu (US 2017/0130582) -teaches natural gas or renewable feeds to produce hydrogen for industrial use (see figure).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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