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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully responds below.
Applicant argues that prior art Kalnes teaches a multi-step process, and the instant applicant teaches a single step process and thus is different than the prior art. The examiner concedes that the process of Kalnes is a multi-step process. Applicant states:
“By contrast, the presently claimed processes accomplish in a single step what Kalnes does over three distinct steps. Present claims 1, 16, and 27 include a step of hydrotreating a renewable feed stock comprising a renewable feed stock component to produce a renewable crude oil comprising at least 90 wt. % C4 to C24 n-paraffins. This claim element specifies that hydrotreatement of the renewable feedstock results in production of the paraffinic product. The presently claimed processes are therefore different from the multi-step process of Kalnes.”
This is not persuasive. First the claim limitations do not indicate the process must be done in a single step. Second the instant application teaches a multi-step process.
Claim 1 is stated below for ease of reference.
“A method of producing a renewable crude product, the method comprising the steps of:
hydrotreating a renewable feed stock comprising a renewable feed stock component to produce a renewable crude oil comprising at least 90 wt. % C4 to C24 n-paraffins; optionally blending the renewable crude oil with a petroleum-based crude oil; and distilling the renewable crude oil or the blend of renewable crude oil and petroleum-based crude oil to produce a renewable crude product.”
This claim language does not limit the process to a single step process. “The method comprising the steps of” indicates other steps may be present due to the word comprising. Each limitation of the claim can be found in the rejection below.
To the second point, the instant applicant does teach a multiple step process. Claim 1 states “comprising the steps of”. Claim 2 further describes or steps.
As the limitations of the claims are met, the rejection stands as stated below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 10, 15-19 and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalnes (US 2013/0310613 A1).
Kalnes teaches a method of producing paraffins for fuels from renewable resources, see abstract. The process may produce diesel and other fuels, see p 11. The product may be part of a jet fuel, diesel fuel, or naphtha., see p 7.
The process uses animal fats (tallow) and vegetable oil. Soy, rapeseed, algal and canola oils may all be used. See p 41.
The process includes pretreatment that includes demetallation (p 13) degumming and water removal. See p 18-20 and p 49-50.
After pretreatment the feed undergoes a hydrotreatment that is hydrodeoxygenating. See p 29. This is done at 200C to 400C. See p 54.
The result is at least 90% paraffins, see p 29. It is referred to as essentially n-paraffins having about 8 to 24 carbon atoms, see p 80. P 80 describes that different feedstocks will have different carbon number ranges, so propane production is possible. See p 73 for propane. This may be removed at any point.33
There is a subsequent optional isomerization step, see p 64. Other optional steps may follow, see p 55. These optional steps constitute further refinery processing by a unit.
The feed is fractionalized by distillation., see p 70-71 and 60 and 69.
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 6-7, 9, 20-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalnes (US 2013/0310613 A1) and Panditrao et al (US 2018/0079699 A1).
To see what Kalnes teaches please see above. Kalnes does not specifically state the propane is turned into propylene and then alkylated.
Panditrao teaches a method for converting propane to propylene. The propylene is then alkylated, see abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the propane of Kalnes in the invention of Panditrao. Panditrao uses propane as the feedstock, and the purpose of Kalnes is to produce a variety of products for use. Propane may be produced for use in Kalnes, please see above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights