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 18 December 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 1,3-7, 9-37 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 1, 4-14, 16, 19-25, 27, 29, and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodall (US 2012/0116138) in view of Maurer (US 5,332,492), Al-Babtain (US 2007/0017155), and Snell (US 2018/0362856).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 9, 13, 19, 21-22, 27, and 29, Goodall teaches a process for converting algae feedstock (renewable source) by hydrodeoxygenation to produce a renewable naphtha stream (which would boil above the claimed range of 30°C) [0093-0094], [0122], [0127], [0147]; upgrading the naphtha stream by passing it to a catalytic reforming stage where [0127] aromatization occurs to produce a high octane gasoline product [0127], [0131]. Goodall teaches separation of light gas form the gasoline product (see [0132], [0137], page 12 figure). Examiner considers the Goodall light gas separated to read on the claimed LPG stream.
Goodall does not explicitly disclose (1) the aromatics content or octane number of the gasoline product (2) passing at least a portion of said light hydrocarbon gas to a hydrogen producing unit (3) psa off gas sent to steam reforming of fired heaters or aromatization or steam production (4) the aromatization step is free of noble metals comprising alumino silicate zeolite.
Regarding (1), it is expected that the same or similar gasoline product would result having the same or similar properties, including aromatics content and RON, since Goodall teaches the same steps applied to the same feeds, including catalytic reforming to produce aromatics and high octane number gasoline. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Regarding (2), Maurer teaches a process for recovering hydrogen rich gas from naphtha reformer light gas using a pressure swing adsorption unit (column 1, line 5-column 2, line 65). Maurer teaches that high purity hydrogen is suitable for hydrocracking processes wherein high purity hydrogen is necessary (column 2, lines 50-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Maurer PSA steps to produce high purity hydrogen, that may be recycled to the hydroprocessing step, as a supply of high purity hydrogen that will not disrupt the catalyst.
Regarding (3), Al-Babtain teaches that off gas from PSA may be used as fuel for catalytic steam reformer [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the PSA offgas as fuel for steam reforming, as disclosed by Al-Babtain, in order to maximize recovery. Further, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used any well-known steam reforming unit, such as autothermal, electrically heated, etc. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results
Regarding (4), Snell teaches a similar process for hydrodeoxygenation followed by aromatization to make gasoline products. Snell teaches that the aromatization catalyst may be selected from metals including cobalt, nickel, and iron (which are not noble metals) and fluorine (not chlorine) [0105]. Snell teaches reforming catalyst on aluminosilicate zeolite support [0106].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used any suitable catalyst including the Snell cobalt, nickel, or iron metals and fluorine, which are not noble metals or chlorine.
Regarding claim 4, Goodall teaches that the reforming steps comprise simultaneous aromatization and isomerization steps [0131]. Examiner considers splitting the steps into two separate stages to be an obvious modification. It is not seen where performing separate isomerization and aromatization would differ in manner or result from the simultaneous steps of Goodall.
Regarding claim 5, Goodall teaches a feed effluent heat exchanger (column 16, lines 31-45) which would simultaneously cool the effluent and heat the feedstock.
Regarding claims 6-7, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Further, Al-Babtain teaches that refinery offgas may be combined with additional light gases 160 and fed to psa together [0016]. Al-Babtain also notes that natural gas (lpg) are suitable feeds for hydrogen recovery [002].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined additional gas such as lpg, to the feed to the hydrogen purification system, since Al-Babtain teaches that such feeds may be combined.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Examiner notes that hydrogen compressors are well-known in the art in order to provide circulation of hydrogen gases throughout the processes and provide appropriate pressures. In this regard, Examiner notes that Maurer teaches hydrogen compressor 307 (column 14, lines 39-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided appropriate hydrogen compressors, as known in the art, for the benefit of providing hydrogen to the steps at appropriate pressures. It is not seen where such a modification would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, Goodall teaches algae feed [0093].
Regarding claim 12, Goodall teaches the algal oil can be blended with conventional fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and other fuel components [0081].
Regarding claim 14, Goodall teaches that the upgrading can also include hydrocracking stages [0090].
Regarding claim 16, Goodall teaches catalytic reforming in the presence of fresh and recycle hydrogen (see page 12 figure).
Regarding claim 23, Goodall teaches the algae feed can be combined with fuel components including gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel [0081].
Regarding claim 24, Goodall teaches compressed hydrogen fed to hydroprocessing section (see figure on page 12).
Regarding claim 25, Goodall teaches hydrocracking in addition to deoxygenation [0090], [0094].
Regarding claims 33-37, the previous combination teaches the limitations as discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
Further, it is expected that the process of the previous combination would result in a renewable naphtha having the same or similar properties, since the previous combination teaches the same steps performed on the same feeds at the same conditions as claimed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Claims 3, 15, 17, 26, 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodall (US 2012/0116138) in view Maurer (US 5,332,492), Al-Babtain (US 2007/0017155), and Snell (US 2018/0362856) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrison (US 3,871,993).
Regarding claims 3, 15, 17, 26, 30, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Goodall teaches catalytic reforming temperatures of 495-525°C and 5-45 atm [00129], overlapping with the claimed ranges.
Further, Morrison teaches that Zn-ZSM 5 catalysts are known for catalytic reforming of naphtha (see examples 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Morrison catalyst, since it is known for the same purpose of naphtha reforming. It is not seen where such a modification would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 31, Goodall teaches hydrocracking in addition to deoxygenation [0090], [0094].
Regarding claim 32, Snell teaches feeding hydrogen to the aromatization zone [0119].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodall (US 2012/0116138) in view of Maurer (US 5,332,492), Al-Babtain (US 2007/0017155), and Snell (US 2018/0362856) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hojlund Nielsen (US 2007/0178034).
Regarding claim 28, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, including sending offgas from PSA to steam reforming.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose the steam reformer is HTCR (convection reforming).
However, Hojlund Nielsen teaches a similar process for steam reforming [0039]. Hojlund Nielsen teaches that well known types of steam reforming include autothermal and convection [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected an appropriate steam reformer, such as convection reforming, since Hojlund Nielsen teaches that such units are well known steam reformers in the art. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments 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.
Kalnes (US 2012/0151828) -teaches hydrodeoxygenation, hydrocracking, and hydroisomerizaiton to produce lpg and bio naphtha.
Quignard (US 2013/0324775) – teaches hydrotreatment and hydrocracking to produce naphtha which is subject to catalytic reforming.
Perego (US 2009/0300970) – teaches integration of deoxygenation and isomerization.
Abhari (US 2009/0300971) – teaches hydrotreatment and hydrocracking to produce bio naphtha which is isomerized to increase the RON [0039].
McCall (US 2009/0283442) – teaches aromatization to produce high octane products [0041-42]. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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