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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 31 March 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-14, 18-31, and 33-37 are pending.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated 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 9 and 28 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the steam reforming unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this regard, it is unclear where the steam reforming unit is in relation to the other claimed elements.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the off-gas stream from the PSA unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this regard, it is unclear where the steam reforming unit is in relation to the other claimed elements.
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, 11-12, 29-30, 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snell (US 2018/0362856).
Regarding claims 1, 29-30, and 33-37, Snell teaches converting a feedstock originating from a renewable source in a hydrodeoxygenation reactor to produce a bio derived feedstock and introducing the bioderived feedstock into an aromatization reactor to produce aromatic hydrocarbons and hydrogen and recycling at least a portion of the hydrogen produced to the hydrodeoxygenation reactor of step 1 [0009-0012].
Snell teaches that the aromatization catalyst comprises group 8-10 metals including nickel on ZSM-5 support [0105-0112]. Snell teaches aromatization temperatures of 370-570˚C and pressures of 0-40 bar [0119], overlapping with the claimed range.
Snell deos not explicitly disclose the RON of the product or other properties of the products or intermediates.
However, it is expected that the same or similar product would be produced, since Snell teaches the same process steps applied to the same feeds at the same conditions as claimed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Regarding claim 11, Snell teaches biomass feeds including consumer wastes, agricultural wastes, and plant wastes [0056].
Regarding claim 12, Snell teaches using bio feedstocks alone or in combination with petroleum fossil derived feeds [0062].
Claims 4-5, 14, 23, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snell (US 2018/0362856) in view of Goodall (US 2012/0116138).
Regarding claim 4, Snell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Snell does not explicitly disclose a separate isomerization stage.
However, Goodall teaches a similar process for hydrodeoxygenation followed by reforming (including aromatization and isomerization) [0093-0131]. , 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have alternatively reformed the deoxygenated feed of Goodall by aromatization + isomerization, as disclosed by Goodall, to form alternate reformate products.
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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Goodall heat exchange, in order to provide sufficient temperatures to the streams.
Regarding claims 14 and 31, Goodall teaches that the upgrading can also include hydrocracking stages [0090].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated additional conversion stages, such as those of Goodall, for the benefit of obtaining the desired products.
Regarding claim 23, Goodall teaches the algae feed can be combined with fuel components including gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel [0081].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Goodall fossil feeds as the petroleum feed of Snell, since they are known for the same purpose of feeding to hydrodeoxygenation with biomass.
Claims 6-7, 9-10, 13, 18, 20-22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snell (US 2018/0362856) in view of Goodall (US 2012/0116138) as applied above, and further in view of Maurer (US 5,332,492) and Al-Babtain (2007/0017155).
Regarding claims 6-7, 9, 13, 18, 21-22, and 27, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Snell teaches recovering hydrogen and recycling to be used in the process. Snell teaches that various units are known in the art to produce hydrogen for deoxygenation processes [0064].
Snell does not explicitly disclose the specifics.
Further, Goodall teaches a similar process for deoxygenation, aromatization, and hydrogen recycle. 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.
However, 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.
Further, Al-Babtain teaches that off gas from PSA may be used as fuel for catalytic steam reformer [0015]. 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 used the PSA offgas as fuel for steam reforming and to have combined additional gas such as lpg, to the feed to the hydrogen purification system, as disclosed by Al-Babtain, in order to maximize recovery and since Al-Babtain teaches such feeds may be combined. 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 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 24, Goodall teaches compressed hydrogen fed to hydroprocessing section (see figure on page 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used compressed hydrogen, since Goodall teaches such feed is known in the art for the same process of hydrodeoxygenation.
Regarding claim 25, Goodall teaches hydrocracking in addition to deoxygenation [0090], [0094].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated additional conversion stages, such as those of Goodall, for the benefit of obtaining the desired products.
Regarding claim 26, 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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snell (US 2018/0362856) in view of Goodall (US 2012/0116138), Maurer (US 5,332,492) and Al-Babtain (2007/0017155), and further in view of Hojlund Nielsen (US 2007/0178034).
Regarding claim 28, the previous combination teaches the limitations of the claims 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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights