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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/31/2025 has been entered.
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 29-30 and 32-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dindi et al. (US 2008/0308457 A1).
Dindi discloses a process for producing one or more hydrocarbon products from a renewable feedstock (e.g., fresh plant oil [0014]) comprising triglycerides, free fatty acids or combinations thereof (claims 1- 4), the process comprising the steps of
diluting the renewable feedstock with a diluent (e.g., paraffin [0059]) to form a diluted feedstock (claim 20) and the diluent if from a recycled stream;
contacting the diluted feedstock with hydrogen gas and sulfiding agent resulting the hydrogen gas dissolved in the diluted feedstock to form a diluted feedstock enriched with dissolved hydrogen (claim 18 and 19; [0018]);
subjecting the diluted feedstock enriched with dissolved hydrogen to a reactor comprising a catalyst bed (comprising Ni, Mo, Y-zeolite, alumina supporter ([0020]-[0032]) and to form a reaction effluent enriched with dissolved hydrogen (claim 1). The reactor is operated at a temperature of from 250-425o C, at a pressure of from 500-2500 psig (34-172 bars), and at a WHSV of from .05 to 100 hr-1 ([0044], [0052]). It would be expected the WHSV of Dindi would overlap the claimed LHSV 25 h-1;
further contacting the reaction effluent with hydrogens gas and sulfiding agent resulting the hydrogen gas dissolved in the reaction effluent to form a reaction effluent enriched with dissolved hydrogen ([0053]-[0058]);
further subjecting the reaction effluent enriched with dissolved hydrogen to at least an additional reactor comprising a reactor bed thereby producing further reactor effluent which can be further processed to form one or hydrocarbon products ([0053]-[0058] and wherein all hydrogen is dissolved ([0055]). The additional reactor is operated at a temperature of from 250-425o C, at a pressure of from 500-2500 psig (34-172 bars), and at a WHSV of from .05 to 100 hr-1 ([0044], [0052]).
Dindi further teaches the use of high-pressure separators and the use of multi-separators and an additional reactor as disclosed in U.S Patent Nos. 6,123,835; 6,428,686; 6,881,326 and 7,291,257. These patents disclose separating units as claimed. These patents also teach that H2S, NH3 and H2O are removed from hydrocarbon products including a recycling diluent, so these patents teach that a sulfiding agent is free from an additional diluent.
Dindi does not teach that undissolved hydrogen in the additional reactor is from 0.1 to 0.25, does not explicitly teach that ratio of hydrogen gas to the renewable feedstock from 3.5 wt.% to 6 wt. % or (10 to 700 Nm3/m3), does not teach the ratio of the diluent to the renewable feedstock is 99/1 to 50/50, and Dindi does not explicitly teach LHSV of 25 hr-1
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Dindi by having undissolved hydrogen in the additional reactor from 0.1 to 0.25 because Dindi teaches that the percentage of hydrogen in the diluent is greater than the percentage of hydrogen in the feed; thus, the hydrogen require for reaction is made available in the solution upstream of the reactor [0059]. Therefore, it is within the level of one of skill in the art to employ any amount of hydrogen gas including the claimed amount.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Dindi by having the ratio of hydrogen to the renewable feedstock from 3.5 wt.% to 6 wt. % or (10 to 700 Nm3/m3) because Dindi teaches that the percentage of hydrogen in the diluent is greater than the percentage of hydrogen in the feed; thus, the hydrogen require for reaction is made available in the solution upstream of the reactor [0059]. It is within the level of one of skill in the art of use ratio as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Dindi by utilizing a ratio of diluent to feedstock as claimed because Dindi teaches that the amount of diluent added can be set so that the substantially all the hydrogen required in the reactions is available in the solution [0059]. Therefore, it is within the level of one of skill in the art to add any effective amount of diluent including the claimed amount.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Dindi by utilizing a LHSV as claimed because Dindi teaches a WHSV of from .05 to 100 hr-1 (if the density is about .8 g/mL, a WHSV of 20 hr-1 corresponds to LHVS of 25 hr-1) and it is known that space velocity (whether expressed as LHSV or WHSV) is a result-effective variable directly related to residence time. Conversion between WHSV and LHSV is routine and depends on feed density and catalyst bulk density, both of which are well known for triglyceride/FFA renewable feeds. It is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the space velocity within Dindi’s disclosed range to achieve desired conversion and throughput, and such optimization would inherently include operating conditions corresponding to an LHSV of about 25 hr⁻¹.
Response to Arguments
The argument that the examiner has not provide sufficient support to “recycling stream without diluent comprising only hydrogen and sulfide” is not persuasive because such limitations are not in the present claimed set.
The arguments that Dindi does not teach that undissolved hydrogen in the additional reactor is from 0.1 to 0.25 and does not explicitly teach that ratio of hydrogen gas to the renewable feedstock from 3.5 wt.% to 6 wt. % is not persuasive because the examiner maintains that it is within the level of one of skill in the art use the ratio/percentages as claimed.
The argument that Dindi does not teach LHSV of 25 hr-1 is not persuasive because of the new rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 on 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771