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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 March 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-23 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1 3-11, and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rispoli (US 2015/0353841) in view of Brandvold (US 2009/0253947) and Dougherty (US 2012/0004477).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 21, and 23, Rispoli teaches passing a feedstock originating from renewable source [0024] through a hydroprocessing step comprising hydrodeoxygenation catalyst[0024-0025] to produce a hydrotreated stream comprising hydrogen, NH3, CO, CO2, and water [0029], passing the hydro deoxygenated product to a separation step to remove the impurities [0029]. The separation unit includes recovering overhead 29 and separating into overhead gas 31, sour water (sw), and reflux overhead liquid stream 32 (see figure, [0147]). The separation unit also withdraws bottom stream 15, which is sent to hydro isomerization in reactor A2 (see figure, [0148]-[0152]). Examiner considers the Rispoli isomerization unit to read on the claimed dewaxing step, since Applicant’s instant specification defines dewaxing to be the same as isomerization (see instant spec page 10, lines 20-24). The hydroisomerized product is sent to product separation [0152-0157]. The entirety of the overhead liquid is recycled as reflux (see figure, stream 32 [0147]).
Rispoli does not explicitly disclose (1) sending the overhead from the first separation step to the second separation step.
Regarding (1), Brandvold teaches a similar process. Brandvold sends HDO effluent to separator 8, and gaseous overhead from the separator in mixture with dewaxed effluent from 30 to separator 34 to recover gas overhead and liquid, followed by further fractionation of products (see figure). Brandvold sends bottoms liquid 46a from the overhead gas recovery 42 to hydrogen stripper 23 as reflux. Brandvold separates water 40 from the hydrocarbon product 46 which are sent to stripping and gases sent to recovery hydrogen for recycle [0056-0057]. Brandvold sends OH gas 36 to zone 56 to remove impurities to create recycle hydrogen which is cooled and recirculated to deoxygenation zone 4 [0057], [0053].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Brandvold separation steps, reflux, purification and recycle of the combined overhead in the process of Rispoli, for the benefit of providing additional hydrogen to the HDO zone and reflux to the hydrogen stripper.
Regarding (2), Rispoli teaches nitrogen removal prior to HDO [0136]. Examiner notes that the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize this nitrogen removal to be hydro denitrificaiton.
Further, Dougherty teaches that hydrodenitrogenation is commonly performed in hydrotreatment stages with or in addition to hydrodeoxygenation [0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed hydrodenitrogenation and hydrodeoxygenation in the hydrotreatment step as disclosed by Dougherty, in order to remove oxygenates and nitrogen compounds.
Regarding claim 3, Rispoli does not add hydrogen stream 10 to dewaxing (hydroisomerization unit) (see figure). Rispoli teaches feeding makeup hydrogen gas through line 28 to hydroisomerization (dewaxing) unit A2 (see figure, [152]) and combining with hydrogen recycle stream 27 (see figure).
Regarding claim 5, Rispoli teaches the products obtained are fuel components including LPG, kerosene, diesel, and naphtha [0049].
Regarding claim 6, Rispoli teaches using a steam stripper (see figure, C1).
Rispoli does not disclose hydrogen stripping or the claimed conditions.
However, Brandvold teaches a similar process. Brandvold teaches that the stripper can use makeup hydrogen as the stripping gas and use high pressure conditions including 100-200 psia and temperatures of 40-350°C [0033], see figure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art that the Rispoli stripper could be operated using hydrogen and the claimed conditions, since Brandvold teaches that such conditions are suitable for separating the effluent into the desire fractions.
Regarding claim 7, Rispoli teaches a high pressure separator H1 followed by low pressure separator L1 to recover sour water (sw)[0142], see figure. Rispoli also teaches sour water removal form M to separate sour water stream (sw) from overheads 29 [0147]. Examiner considers the Rispoli unit M to read on the claimed hot separator since it removes water vapor (see Applicant’s instant spec page 9, lines 2-21).
Regarding claim 8, Rispoli teaches R1 recycle oil divided from bottoms stream 15 and recycled to HDO zone A21 [0148], see figure.
Regarding claims 9 and 19-20, Rispoli teaches fatty triglyceride feeds, vegetable oils or fats, seaweeds, recycle, etc [0024].
Regarding claims 10-11, Rispoli teaches HDO of renewable feeds [0024].
Rispoli does not teach the renewable feed mixed with fossil based feeds.
However, Brandvold teaches that renewable feeds can be mixed with fossil feeds and fed to HDO as a mixture [0027].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the renewable feed alone, or in mixture with fossil feeds, since Brandvold teaches that such mixtures are also suitable as HDO feeds. Examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the amounts and boiling range of such fossil fractions, based off of availability of feeds, economic factors, and desired products. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13, Rispoli teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Rispoli does not explicitly disclose cracking catalyst.
However, Brandvold teaches a similar process for HDO and HDI of renewable feedstocks to produce fuel range products [0004]. Brandvold teaches that hydrocracking catalyst can be combined with the isomerization catalyst for the benefit of producing products in the aviation boiling range [0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Brandvold catalyst mixture in the Rispoli isomerization zone, for the benefit of obtaining desirable aviation fuel ranging products.
Regarding claim 14, Rispoli teaches high pressure separator H2 and low pressure separator L2 [0152], [0153]. Examiner considers the Rispoli separators to read on the claimed cold separator since it removes water as liquid (see Applicant’s instant spec page 9, lines 2-21).
Regarding claim 15, Rispoli teaches makeup hydrogen provided from sources external of the HDO and HDI steps [0152]. Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately sourced the reactants based on availability, cost, and environmental factors. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, it is expected that the same products would result, since the prior art teaches the same process steps applied to the same feedstocks at the same conditions as claimed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Regarding claim 18, Rispoli teaches separating gas and liquid (two phases) from the HDO effluent [0026-0029]. Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to appropriately selected conditions including temperature, in order to achieve the desired separation.
Regarding claim 22, Brandvold teaches hydrogen recycled to the hdo/hdt step and not the dewax/hdi step (see figure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 March 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed by the updated rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cole (US 2010/0176026) – teaches coprocessing diesel biofeed with heavy oil (abstract).
Singh (US 2018/0370871) – teaches total reflux in the stripping vessel [0046] in a process for hydrotreatment and hydroisomerization (abstract).
Ahmed (US 2020/0385643) – teaches stripper 90 can be operated with total reflux [0067].
McCall (US 2009/0158637) – teaches hydrodeoxygenation and isomerization of renewable feeds (abstract).
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