DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 were rejected in Office Action mailed on 08/13/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 1-4, 6, 8 and 11, and added claims 17-21 on 11/06/2025.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending.
Claims 1-4, 6-18, and 21 are rejected.
Claims 19-20 are objected to.
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 .
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.
Claim 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreillard et al., WO 2023/088772 A1 (Dreillard).
Regarding claim 1, Dreillard teaches a process comprising preparing renewable jet fuel blendstock by: feeding biomass, catalyst, to a catalytic pyrolysis process (Dreillard, Abstract); maintained at reaction conditions, for example, a temperature from 300 to 1000 °C and pressure from 0.1 to 3.0 MPa, to manufacture a raw fluid product stream (Dreillard, page 17, bottom paragraph), which encompasses or overlaps the range of presently claimed.
Dreillard further teaches biomass used can most preferably be solid materials chosen from among wood, forestry waste, corn stover, agricultural solid waste, lignocellulosic material (reading upon a lignocellulosic biomass) (Dreillard, page 8, 2nd paragraph).
Dreillard further teaches conditions for conversion of biomass may include moving bed (i.e., for the catalytic pyrolysis); a temperature from 300 to 1000 °C and pressure from 0.1 to 3.0 MPa (Dreillard, page 17, bottom paragraph), which encompasses or overlaps the range of presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Dreillard further teaches the catalyst composition particularly advantageous comprises a crystalline molecular sieve characterized by a silica to alumina ratio (SAR) greater than 12; Nonlimiting examples of these crystalline molecular sieves are those having the structure of ZSM-5, ZSM-11, ZSM-12, ZSM-22, ZSM-23, ZSM-35, ZSM-48, ZSM-50 or combinations thereof (reading upon a metal oxide catalyst) (Dreillard, page 19, bottom paragraph)
the suitable molecular sieve may be employed in combination with a support such as, for example, a porous inorganic oxide support/binder; non-limiting examples of such binder materials include alumina, zirconia, silica, magnesia, thoria, titania, boria and combinations thereof (reading upon an oxide support) (Dreillard, paragraph spanning between pages 20-21).
Dreillard further teaches a solid catalyst/biomass mass ratio of from 0.1 to 40, or 2 to 20, or 3 to 10 (Dreillard, page 17, bottom paragraph). It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of solid catalyst and biomass amount to suit for varying reactor size, while maintaining the desired mass ratio, e.g., for per kg metal oxide catalyst per hour, use 0.025 kg to 10 kg (i.e., 1/40=0.025; 1/10=0.1) biomass, which encompasses the range of presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Dreillard further teaches solid catalyst may be regenerated in an oxidative process and in part returned to the reactor; solid catalyst may be removed from the reactor, stripped with steam to displace organic materials and reactive gases, and then regenerated in a fluid bed catalyst regenerator by treatment with an oxygen containing gas (i.e., organic material oxidized with oxygen, reading upon a combustion process), and in part returned to the reactor.
Dreillard further teaches following conversion (i.e., biomass pyrolysis) in the fluid bed reactor, the products are recovered by a combination of process including gas-liquid separation, compression cooling, gas-liquid absorption, condensation of condensable compounds, or other methods known in the art, to produce a mixture of C4+ hydrocarbons (Dreillard, p.18, 3rd paragraph). Therefore, the biomass of Dreillard is converted to a gaseous fraction and a liquid fraction, following biomass pyrolysis.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 1, given that Dreillard teaches the suitable molecular sieve may be employed in combination with a support such as, for example, a porous inorganic oxide support/binder; non-limiting examples of such binder materials include alumina, zirconia, silica, magnesia, titania, and combinations thereof (Dreillard, paragraph spanning between pages 20-21). It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose zirconia, silica or titania combined with magnesia as the inorganic oxide support/binder material, wherein magnesia reads upon wherein the meta oxide catalyst comprises magnesium, and zirconia, silica or titania reads upon the oxide support selected from the group consisting of alumina, silica, silica-alumina, titania, zirconia, or a mixture thereof.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreillard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Badger et al., US 2012/0258021 A1 (Badger).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Dreillard does not explicitly disclose wherein the moving bed reactor is a concurrent downflow reactor in which the lignocellulosic biomass feedstock and the metal oxide catalyst flow from a top of the moving bed reactor to a bottom of the moving bed reactor.
With respect to the difference, Badger teaches thermal treatment (i.e., pyrolysis) of carbonaceous materials in a moving bed (Badger, [0003]). Badger specifically teaches within the moving bed reactors, gravity or mechanical means may be used to accomplish bed particle mixing and movement, which is typically downward (Badger, [0027]).
Badger is analogous art as Badger is drawn to thermal treatment (i.e., pyrolysis) of carbonaceous materials in a moving bed.
In light of the disclosure of Badger, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to operate the moving bed reactor of Dreillard in a downward movement, wherein particles of biomass and catalyst are moving downward, i.e., a concurrent downflow reactor in which the biomass and catalyst flow from a top of the moving bed reactor to a bottom of the moving bed reactor, with reasonable expectation of success, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreillard and Badger as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dayton et al., US 2015/0051428 A1 (Dayton).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2, Dreillard in view of Badger does not explicitly disclose wherein the combustion process in the fluidized bed regenerator adds heat to the metal oxide catalyst that is returned to the moving bed reactor.
With respect to the difference, Dayton teaches processes for biomass pyrolysis (Dayton, [0001]). Dayton specifically teaches the exothermic carbon oxidation (i.e., catalyst regeneration through combustion) also can impart heat into the catalyst solids to drive the endothermic biomass pyrolysis reactions as the catalyst is recirculated back (Dayton, [0055]).
As Dayton expressly teaches, no additional fuel may be required to drive the process; all heat required for catalytic biomass pyrolysis may be obtained from char and coke oxidation if desired (Dayton, [0055]).
Dayton is analogous art as Dayton is drawn to processes for biomass pyrolysis.
In light of the motivation of utilizing the heat imparted to the catalyst during catalyst regeneration, as taught by Dayton, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to return catalyst with heat imparted during catalyst regeneration from the fluidized reactor of Dreillard in view of Badger, in order to avoid using additional fuel to drive the biomass pyrolysis, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 3, given that Dreillard in view of Badger and Dayton teaches no additional fuel may be required to drive the process; all heat required for catalytic biomass pyrolysis may be obtained from char and coke oxidation if desired (Dayton, [0055]), therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to conduct the biomass pyrolysis process herein the biomass is below a reaction temperature when mixed with the metal oxide catalyst and wherein the metal oxide catalyst that is returned to the moving bed reactor from the fluidized bed regenerator raises the temperature of the lignocellulosic biomass feedstock to at least the reaction temperature, in order to rely on the heat imparted during catalyst regeneration from the fluidized reactor to drive the biomass pyrolysis process and avoid using additional fuel and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreillard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et. al., CN 102786966 A (Zhang).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Zhang et. al., CN 102786966 A. The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 6-7, as applied to claim 1, Dreillard further teaches feeding biomass and catalyst composition to reactor at reaction conditions (Dreillard, page 15, 3rd paragraph). Dreillard does not explicitly disclose further comprising mixing the lignocellulosic biomass feedstock with the metal oxide catalyst in a top conduit before the metal oxide catalyst enters a top of the moving bed reactor or wherein the mixing is facilitated by a static mixer.
With respect to the difference, Zhang teaches pyrolyzing with a moving bed reactor (Zhang, Abstract). Zhang specifically teaches leading the dried powder feed into a static mixer and leading the mixed powder into the moving bed reactor from the top (Zhang, [0027] and claim 1); the static mixer comprises mixer cylinder (Zhang, page 3, 2nd paragraph from bottom).
As Zhang expressly teaches, the solid materials are mixed evenly and it can realize long-term continuous stable operation (Zhang, [0018]).
Zhang is analogous art as Zhang is drawn to pyrolyzing with a moving bed reactor.
In light of the motivation of using a static mixer on the feed for a moving bed reactor, as taught by Zhang, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to mix the biomass and catalyst in Dreillard in a static mixer, which comprises a mixing cylinder (reading upon a top conduit), prior leading the biomass and catalyst into the moving bed reactor, in order to achieve even mixing and long-term continuous stable operation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreillard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al., Superheated steam as carrier gas and the sole heat source to enhance biomass torrefaction, Bioresource Technology, 2021 (Zhang’2021) and Sadowski, US 5145490A (Sadowski).
Regarding claims 8-9, as applied to claim 1, Dreillard further teaches pyrolysis refer to the transformation of a compound, e.g., a solid hydrocarbonaceous material, into one or more other substances, e.g., volatile organic compounds, gases and coke, e.g., by heat (Dreillard, page 11, 3rd paragraph).
Dreillard does not explicitly disclose further comprising injecting steam directing a top of the moving bed reactor or with the metal oxide catalyst or with the lignocellulosic biomass feedstock; or wherein the steam is superheated.
With respect to the difference, Zhang’2021 teaches superheated steam for biomass processing (Zhang’2021, Abstract). Zhang’2021 specifically teaches superheated steam for heating feedstocks (i.e., biomass) (Zhang’2021, page 2, left column, 1st paragraph).
Sadowski teaches coal pyrolysis with steam (Sadowski, Abstract). Sadowski specifically steam needed for carbon gasification are introduced at the top of the pressure vessel such that gas and ash exiting the pyrolyzer flow co-currently down through a hot gasification region of the pressure vessel with sufficient residence time to allow any carbon to form carbon monoxide (Sadowski, column 3, 1st paragraph).
As Zhang’2021 expressly teaches, superheated steam is superior to many conventional methods at evenly heating feedstocks because of its direct contact with biomass (Zhang’2021, page 2, left column, 1st paragraph).
As Sadowski expressly teaches, steam needed for carbon gasification are introduced at the top of the pressure vessel such that gas and ash exiting the pyrolyzer flow co-currently down through a hot gasification region of the pressure vessel with sufficient residence time to allow any carbon to form carbon monoxide (Sadowski, column 3, 1st paragraph).
Both Zhang’2021 and Sadowski are analogous art as Zhang’2021 is drawn to superheated steam for biomass processing and Sadowski is drawn to coal pyrolysis with steam.
In light of the motivation of using superheated steam to heat biomass, as taught by Zhang’2021, and adding steam from the top of a reactor, and flow con-currently down, as taught by Sadowski, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art add superheated team at the top of the moving bed reactor of Dreillard, in order to evenly heat the biomass and allow sufficient residence time for reaction, and thereby arrive at the claimed inventions.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreillard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henrich et al., US 2010/0163395 A1 (Henrich).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1, Dreillard does not explicitly disclose
With respect to the difference, Henrich teaches pyrolysis of lignocellulose (i.e., biomass) (Henrich, Abstract). Henrich specifically teaches the heat treatment also serves to preheat the biomass prior to introduction into the fast pyrolysis process, i.e. yields a further energy saving and better temperature management of the fast pyrolysis (smaller temperature difference and thus a further reduction in the quantity of heat required) …
As Henrich expressly teaches, preheat the biomass prior to introduction into the fast pyrolysis process, i.e. yields a further energy saving and better temperature management of the fast pyrolysis (smaller temperature difference and thus a further reduction in the quantity of heat required) (Henrich, [0017]).
Henrich is analogous art as Henrich is drawn to pyrolysis of lignocellulose (i.e., biomass).
In light of the motivation of preheating biomass prior pyrolysis, as taught by Henrich, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to preheat the biomass of Dreillard prior pyrolysis prior directing the biomass into the moving bed reactor, in order smaller temperature difference (i.e., a temperature that is below a reaction temperature) and thus a further reduction in the quantity of heat required (i.e., during pyrolysis), and yield a further energy saving, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreillard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stamires et al., WO 2010/071677 A1 (Stamires).
Regarding claim 11, Dreillard further teaches following conversion, the products are recovered by a combination of process including gas-liquid separation, gas-liquid absorption, condensation of condensable compounds (Dreillard, page 18, 3rd paragraph), reading upon to obtain a gaseous fraction and a liquid fraction.
Dreillard does not explicitly disclose producing a bio-oil having a total acid number of less than 100 mg KOH/g, as determined by ASTM D664.
With respect to the difference, Stamires teaches bio-oil conversion through pyrolysis of biomass (Stamires, Abstract). Stamires specifically teaches the bio-oils produced by pyrolysis of the intimate mixture of solid biomass material and carbonaceous material generally have a TAN (total acid number, defined as the amount of KOH in mg required to neutralize 1 g of the bio-oil) of less than 30 (Stamires, [0043]).
As Stamires expressly teaches, in addition to increasing the bio-oil yield, the presence of the carbonaceous material also improves the quality of the bio-oil that is produced (Stamires, [0042]).
Stamires is analogous art as Stamires is drawn to bio-oil conversion through pyrolysis of biomass.
In light of the motivation of including carbonaceous material in pyrolysis of biomass, as taught by Stamires, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include carbonaceous material in pyrolysis of biomass of Dreillard, in order to increase bio-oil yield and quality, and product bio-oil with total acid number of less than 30 (defined as the amount of KOH in mg required to neutralize 1 g of the bio-oil), and thereby arrive at the claimed limitation.
Although there is no disclosure that the test method is conformity with ASTM D664, given that the Dreillard in view of Stamires discloses total acid number as the presently claimed and absent evidence criticality how the total acid number is measured, it is an examiner's position that total acid number disclosed by Dreillard in view of Stamires to meet the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 11, Dreillard in view of Stamires further teaches the hydrogenation of the naphthalene-rich fraction may be conducted by contacting the liquid with a H2 containing gas (Dreillard, page 25, 3rd paragraph); the finished jet fuel finished blend with boiling range of <10 wt% below 205˚C, balance between 205 and 300 ˚C, which is either within or overlaps the range of the presently claimed (Dreillard, page 26, 1st paragraph).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 12, Dreillard in view of Stamires further teaches in one embodiment, a fuel blending system can be used to combine a petroleum derived jet fuel (i.e., a mineral oil) with at least a portion of the renewable biomass derived blendstocks (i.e., bio-oil) to produce renewable jet fuel compositions (Dreillard, page 28, 3rd paragraph).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreillard in view of Stamires as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Marker et al., US 20080053870 A1 (Marker).
Regarding claims 13-14, Dreillard in view of Stamires does not explicitly disclose wherein the catalytic hydroprocessing comprises at least a hydrodeoxygenation step, or wherein the catalytic hydroprocessing comprises at least a hydrodeoxygenation step followed by one or more steps selected from hydroisomerization and hydrocracking steps.
With respect to the difference, Marker teaches conversion of biomass to a liquid fuel (Marker, Abstract). Marker specifically teaches pyrolysis oil generated from biomass is separated into an oil phase stream and a pyrolytic lignin stream. The pyrolytic lignin stream is treated in a hydrodeoxygenation unit generating a deoxygenated oil stream. The deoxygenated oil stream is separated to produce an aqueous phase and an organic phase. The organic phase is further treated in a hydrocracking unit under mild hydrocracking conditions to produce a hydrocarbon product stream. The product stream comprises aromatic and naphthenic compounds that are useful as gasoline and naphtha, or as additives to gasoline products.
As Marker expressly teaches, the product stream comprises aromatic and naphthenic compounds that are useful as gasoline and naphtha, or as additives to gasoline products.
Marker is analogous art as Marker is drawn to conversion of biomass to a liquid fuel.
In light of the motivation of applying processing steps including hydrodeoxygenation followed by hydrocracking, as taught by Marker, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to conduct the processing steps to the pyrolysis fluid of Dreillard in view of Stamires, in order to useful compounds such as gasoline and naphtha, or as additives to gasoline products, and thereby arrive at the claimed inventions.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreillard in view of Stamires as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Han et al., Advancing the application of bio-oils by co-processing with petroleum intermediates: A review, Energy Conversion and Management, 2021 (Han).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 15, Dreillard in view of Stamires teaches the finished jet fuel finished blend with boiling range of <10 wt% below 205˚C, balance between 205 and 300 ˚C, which is either within or overlaps the range of the presently claimed (Dreillard, page 26, 1st paragraph).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Dreillard in view of Stamires does not explicitly disclose further comprising subjecting the mixture to catalytic hydroprocessing in the presence of hydrogen.
With respect to the difference, Han teaches processing of bio-processing. Han specifically teaches bio-oils co-processing with petroleum intermediates (Han, Title); the commonly investigated bio-oils for coprocessing strategies include hydrodeoxygenated bio-oils and catalytic pyrolysis bio-oils; co-processing can be carried out in a hydro-cracking unit (i.e., hydroprocessing in the presence of hydrogen) to upgrade oils (Han, page 2, left column, bottom paragraph).
As Han expressly teaches, coprocessing CPOs (i.e., catalytic pyrolysis oils) with petroleum intermediates show less operational issues at the CPO blend level below 10 wt%; no obvious adverse effects on product yields were seen when replacing fast pyrolysis oils with CPOs (Han, page 2, right column, 1st paragraph); upgrading crude bio-oils by direct catalytic cracking causes severe char and coke formation due to the hydrogen-deficit nature and instability of crude bio-oils; co-processing bio-oils with petroleum intermediates provides a promising solution owing to the hydrogen transfer from hydrogen-rich petroleum hydrocarbons to hydrogen deficit bio-oils in the co-feedstock (Han, page 2, left column, bottom paragraph).
Han is analogous art as Han is drawn to treatment of biomass.
In light of the motivation of co-processing bio-oils with petroleum intermediates in a hydrocracking unit, as taught by Han, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use co-processing strategy to prepare the fuel blend of Dreillard in view of Stamires, such as co-processing hydrodeoxygenated bio-oils with petroleum intermediate in a hydrocracking unit, to achieve a process with less operational issues, and avoid severe char and coke formation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreillard as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Li et al., Applications of calcium oxide-based catalyst in biomass pyrolysis/gasification-A review, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021 (Li).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 1, Dreillard teaches the suitable molecular sieve may be employed in combination with a support such as, for example, a porous inorganic oxide support/binder; non-limiting examples of such binder materials include alumina (Dreillard, paragraph spanning between pages 20-21).
Given that Dreillard discloses the catalyst that overlaps the presently claimed particulate catalyst, including alumina, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the catalyst, which is both disclosed by Dreillard and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed limitation.
Dreillard does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal oxide catalyst comprises a metal selected from the group consisting of Na, K, Mg, Ca, Sr, and Mo, or a mixture thereof.
With respect to the difference, Li teaches catalytic pyrolysis/gasification to convert biomass into biofuel (Li, Abstract). Li specifically teaches CaO as a catalyst in biomass catalytic pyrolysis/gasification (Li, Abstract).
As Li expressly teaches, as a non-toxic and low-cost material, CaO has been widely used as a catalyst in biomass catalytic pyrolysis/gasification (Li, Abstract);combining CaO and HZSM-5 is an ideal method to upgrade biofuel during biomass catalytic pyrolysis/gasification, in which CaO cracked heavy compounds and then subsequently HZSM-5 converted them into aromatics; above all, CaO-based catalyst is efficient in upgrading biofuel during biomass catalytic pyrolysis/gasification (Li, page 10, Conclusion).
Li is analogous art as Li is drawn to catalytic pyrolysis to convert biomass into biofuel.
In light of the motivation of use a catalyst comprising CaO in biomass catalytic pyrolysis/gasification, as taught by Li, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include CaO in the catalyst of Dreillard, in order to upgrade biofuel efficiently and use a catalyst that is non-toxic and low-cost, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 19, none of Dreillard, Badger, Dayton, Zhang, Zhang’2021, Sadowski, Henrich, Stamires, Marker, Han or Li discloses or suggests wherein the steam is mixed with the particulate catalyst that has been regenerated in the fluidized bed regenerator and is being returned to the moving bed reactor.
Regarding claim 20, none of Dreillard, Badger, Dayton, Zhang, Zhang’2021, Sadowski, Henrich, Stamires, Marker, Han or Li discloses or suggests wherein the steam is mixed with the lignocellulosic biomass feedstock before contacting the mixture with the particulate catalyst in the moving bed reactor.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amended claims, the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant primarily argues:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action fails to meet its burden to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to try using the combination of references cited in the Office Action to use the operations recited in amended claim 1 to produce a treated stream comprising a gaseous fraction and a liquid fraction, or why they would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”
Remarks, p. 7
“However, the Office Action does not meet its burden to explain why Zhang'2021 and Sadowski would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) to try to modify Dreillard to use the operations recited in amended claim 1 to produce a treated stream comprising a gaseous fraction and a liquid fraction, or why they would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”
“However, the Office Action does not meet its burden to explain why Zhang'2021 and Sadowski would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) to try to modify Dreillard to use the operations recited in amended claim 1 to produce a treated stream comprising a gaseous fraction and a liquid fraction, or why they would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”
Remarks, p. 8
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Given that Dreillard further teaches following conversion (i.e., biomass pyrolysis) in the fluid bed reactor, the products are recovered by a combination of process including gas-liquid separation, compression cooling, gas-liquid absorption, condensation of condensable compounds, or other methods known in the art, to produce a mixture of C4+ hydrocarbons (Dreillard, p.18, 3rd paragraph), therefore, the biomass of Dreillard is converted to a gaseous fraction and a liquid fraction, following biomass pyrolysis, as set forth above on page 5, absent evidence to the contrary.
Applicant further argues:
“Indeed, both Zhang'2021 and Sadowski are directed to significantly different types of processing than disclosed by Dreillard. For example, Dreillard discloses a process involving "a catalytic pyrolysis process fluidized bed reactor maintained at reaction conditions to manufacture a raw fluid product stream containing renewable aromatics" and "feeding to the raw fluid product stream...to a solids separation and stripping system to produce separated solids and a fluid product stream." (Dreillard, abstract). Zhang'2021 is expressly directed to using "[s]uperheated steam as carrier gas and the sole heat source to enhance biomass torrefaction." (Zhang'2021, title, emphasis added). And Sadowski is expressly directed to a "process for fixed bed coal gasification." (Sadowski, title, emphasis added).”
Remarks, p. 8
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, it is also noted that there is no requirement in 35 U.S.C. 103, the MPEP or KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. that a secondary reference must implicitly or explicitly
acknowledge, appreciate or address the need for the solutions offered by a primary
reference. Applicant's argument would improperly restrict the meaning of “obvious”
under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Secondly, Dreillard and Zhang’2021 are related art, as Dreillard is drawn to catalytic pyrolysis of biomass and Zhang’2021 is drawn to biomass processing.
Zhang’2021 provides proper motivation to combine, namely superheated steam is superior to many conventional methods at evenly heating feedstocks because of its direct contact with biomass (Zhang’2021, page 2, left column, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dreillard with Zhang’2021, in order to evenly heat the biomass, absent evidence to contrary.
Thirdly, Dreillard and Sadowski are related art, as Dreillard is drawn to catalytic pyrolysis of biomass and Sadowski is drawn to coal pyrolysis.
Sadowski provides proper motivation to combine, namely steam needed for carbon gasification are introduced at the top of the pressure vessel such that gas and ash exiting the pyrolyzer flow co-currently down through a hot gasification region of the pressure vessel with sufficient residence time to allow any carbon to form carbon monoxide (Sadowski, column 3, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dreillard with Sadowski, in order to allow sufficient residence time, absent evidence to contrary.
Applicant further argues:
“The Office Action does not explain why a POSA would reasonably have expected that Zhang'2021's purported teachings would have led the POSA to believe: (1) that Dreillard's process needed the biomass to be more "evenly heat[ed]" than Dreillard's process already provides and thus needed steam; and (2) that the steam would not detrimentally affect Dreillard's reactions.”
Remarks, p. 8-9
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, given that Zhang’2021 provides proper motivation to combine, namely superheated steam is superior to many conventional methods at evenly heating feedstocks because of its direct contact with biomass (Zhang’2021, page 2, left column, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dreillard with Zhang’2021, in order to evenly heat the biomass, absent evidence to contrary.
Second, Dreillard does not teach away from other techniques, such as the teaching from Zhang’2021, for further improvement.
Applicant further argues:
“Moreover, the Office Action ignores that Sadowski's teachings relate to injecting steam into a "fixed bed ," and does not explain why such disclosure would have motivated a POSA to try to instead inject steam into a moving bed as recited in amended claim 1, or why they would have had a reasonable expectation of success to "produce a treated stream comprising a gaseous fraction and a liquid fraction" in doing so.”
Remarks, p. 9
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
First, Sadowski provides proper motivation to combine, namely steam needed for carbon gasification are introduced at the top of the pressure vessel such that gas and ash exiting the pyrolyzer flow co-currently down through a hot gasification region of the pressure vessel with sufficient residence time to allow any carbon to form carbon monoxide (Sadowski, column 3, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dreillard with Sadowski, in order to allow sufficient residence time, absent evidence to contrary.
Second, Sadowski does not teach away from the application of its steam addition method to a moving bed, which is an alternative type of chemical reactor to fixed bed.
Applicant further argues:
“Lastly, while the Office Action states that Sadowski is "analogous art...drawn to coal pyrolysis with steam," the Office Action contains no evidence or explanation why "coal pyrolysis with steam" should be considered analogous art to the present application, let alone to Zhang'2021, and/or to Dreillard. Applicant respectfully request the Examiner to meet the legal burden to explain why Sadowski is "analogous art," or withdraw the rejections based on this reference.”
Remarks, p. 9
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
As cited in MPEP 2141.01(a),
“In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. [...] This does not require that the reference be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, in light of the Supreme Court's instruction that "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one." Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d 1396. Rather, a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.”
Sadowski is analogous art to the present invention, given that (1) Sadowski is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, i.e., they are both drawn to pyrolysis processes, or (2) Sadowski is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e., effective pyrolysis process, while the present invention is to upgrade biomass to pyrolysis oil through pyrolysis (specification, [0001]).
Therefore, Sadowski is analogous to the present invention.
Zhang’2021 is analogous art to the present invention, given that (1) Zhang’2021 is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, i.e., they are both drawn to biomass processing, or (2) Zhang’2021 is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e., effective conversion of biomass, while the present invention is to upgrade biomass to pyrolysis oil through pyrolysis (specification, [0001]).
Therefore, Zhang’2021 is analogous to the present invention.
Therefore, the Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, but they are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1732