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 .
NOTE: Misnumbered claim 17 been renumbered 16.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claims 1 & 16: Both claims are rendered indefinite by the term “routing.” Routing in chemistry refers to the process of selecting the most effective and efficient route for synthesizing a compound or molecule. This involves considering various factors such as scalability, repeatability, cost reduction, and environmental impact. The specification refers to components of an apparatus when referencing “routing.” As there is no clear definition for this tern other than a component of an apparatus, this term is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claims 3-4, 6, 12-15, the term "and/or" used in claim(s) 3-4, 6, 12-15, is/are vague and unclear because this term leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the features to which they refer, thereby rendering the definition of the said claims unclear.
Regarding claims 3-4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Moreover, because of the subjective nature of the term, it is not clear when the “preference” is to be exercised.
Regarding claims 8, 12-14, it is noted that the claims merely recite results to be achieved.
Claim 8 reading on the second chloride removal agent, the selection of the agent is based on its ability to adsorb or absorb organic chlorides.
Claim 10, the wording "adjusting the space velocity (LHSV)" should be replaced with 'adjusting the liquid hourly space velocity (LHSV)' for clarity.
Claims 12-14 are rendered indefinite by attempting to define the invention in terms of the result to be achieved:
(claim 12) to a polyethylene removal step under polyethylene removal
conditions to obtain a polyethylene depleted feedstock,
(claim 13) to a free fatty acid (FFA) removal step under free fatty acid (FFA)
removal conditions to obtain a free fatty acid depleted feedstock'.
As there is no direction to obtaining said results, namely in terms of the essential process step features required for achieving both the desired polyethylene removal effect (see present description, paragraph bridging p.16-17 or p.17, 1.18-19), as well as the desired FFA removal effect (see p.18, 1.9-13), this is considered a result to be achieved.
Claim 14 implies that oil splitting conditions which merely comprise contacting with water or steam are sufficient in order to split the feedstock: subjecting [...] feedstock to an oil splitting step under oil splitting conditions to obtain an oil split feedstock, wherein the oil splitting conditions comprise contacting with water or steam," without defining the essential processing conditions (see p.19, 1.1-5 of the present application) leading to the desired effect of feedstock splitting.
Regarding claims 2, 7, 9, 11, claims which depend from an indefinite claim are also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, 14, 15 -16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Slade et al. (US Pub. 2019/0338200, hereafter USPub’200).
USPUB’200 discloses a process for producing a chloride depleted feedstock from a chloride containing crude oil or fat feedstock (see [0002], [0018], Example 1, [0067]– [0071]), comprising:
(a) providing the chloride containing crude oil or fat feedstock, namely a FOG feed comprising used cooking oil and tallow containing organic chlorine (Table 7; [0004], [0067]);
(b) degumming by contacting the feedstock with citric acid under degumming conditions using a high-shear mixer and hold tank to obtain a degummed feedstock ([0067]– [0069]; Table 6);
(c) first chloride removal by contacting the degummed feedstock with water and caustic soda in disc-stack centrifuges under chloride removal conditions, obtaining a first dechlorinated feedstock (Table 2, fn. (a); [0069]– [0071]);
(d) bleaching by contacting the first dechlorinated feedstock with silica and diatomaceous earth under bleaching conditions in a stirred slurry tank ([0036], [0070]);
(e) second chloride removal by contacting the bleached feedstock with adsorbent materials (silica/DE) and filtering through a pressure leaf filter pre-coated with DE to obtain a chloride depleted feedstock ([0050]– [0051]; Table 7); and
(f) routing out the chloride depleted feedstock downstream of the filter ([0050]).
Thus, USPUB’200 discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2
USPUB’200 discloses that the feedstock comprises waste oils and fats, cooking oil, and tallow ([0004], Example 1).
Claim 3
USPUB’200 discloses a degumming agent comprising an acid agent (citric acid) and water, and further treatment with a basic agent (caustic soda) ([0067]– [0069]; Table 6).
Claim 4
USPUB’200 discloses a first chloride removal agent comprising water and caustic soda used during washing in centrifuges (Table 2, fn. (a); [0069]– [0071]).
Claim 6
USPUB’200 discloses that degumming and first chloride removal are performed simultaneously and/or in the same processing sequence, as chloride removal occurs during acid degumming and subsequent integrated washing ([0067]– [0071]).
Claim 7
USPUB’200 discloses bleaching conditions comprising contacting with silica and filter aid (DE) followed by filtering off the bleaching agent using a pressure leaf filter ([0036], [0070]).
Claim 8
USPUB’200 discloses that the second chloride removal agent comprises an adsorbent/absorbent capable of removing organic chlorides, namely silica and DE ([0050]– [0051]; Table 7).
Claim 9
USPUB’200 discloses silica as the second chloride removal agent ([0036], [0070]).
Claim 11
USPUB’200 discloses a chloride concentration of 6.7 ppm, which is ≤50 ppm (Table 7).
Claim 12
USPUB’200 discloses a polyethylene removal step, as polyethylene is reduced to non-detectable levels after silica/DE treatment (Example 2; [0073]).
Claim 14
USPUB’200 discloses an oil splitting step comprising contacting with water or steam during washing with water and steam condensate in centrifuges ([0069]– [0071]).
Claim 15
USPUB’200 discloses subjecting the bleached and downstream treated feedstocks to the second chloride removal step using silica/DE prior to recovery ([0050]– [0051]).
Claim 16 (Formally claim 17)
USPUB’200 discloses an apparatus for producing a chloride depleted feedstock, comprising:
(a) means for providing the feedstock;
(b) means for degumming (high-shear mixer and hold tank);
(c) means for first chloride removal (disc-stack centrifuges with water/caustic washing);
(d) means for bleaching (slurry tank with silica/DE);
(e) means for second chloride removal (pressure leaf filter pre-coated with DE); and
(f) means for routing out the chloride depleted feedstock ([0018]; Example 1).
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.
Claims 1–17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0338200 (USPUB’200) in view of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, as exemplified by CN 106552611 (hereafter CN’611).
Claim 1
USPUB’200 discloses a method for upgrading low-value and waste fat, oil, and grease (FOG) compositions into chloride-depleted feedstocks for use in hydroprocessing ([0002]). USPUB’200 further teaches that chlorine removal prevents stress corrosion cracking during hydrotreatment ([0016]–[0017]).
Claims 5 and 10 recite specific operating ranges for acid concentration, temperature, pressure, and adsorbent activation/contact conditions.
USPUB’200 teaches citric acid treatment at 150–200°F (66–93°C) using 0.2–10 wt.% acid ([0035]), followed by caustic treatment to achieve a pH of about 2.0–6.5 ([0038]–[0039]), with no pressure disclosed, which reasonably implies atmospheric pressure (~1 bara). These disclosures overlap or encompass the ranges of claim 5.
It is well established that discovering optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation of known result-effective variables does not confer patentability. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
With respect to claim 10, USPUB’200 teaches contacting FOG with silica and diatomaceous earth in a stirred slurry tank (batch reactor) at 83–84°C under atmospheric pressure ([0070]). The thermal activation of adsorbents, use in batch or fixed-bed reactors, and operation at space velocities around 1 h⁻¹ are well known in the art, as exemplified by D3 (Example 4). Selection of these parameters represents routine optimization of known process conditions. In re Aller; In re Peterson. No unexpected results or criticality of the claimed ranges are disclosed.
Claim 13 recites removal of free fatty acids (FFAs). USPUB’200 expressly teaches that FFAs may be removed from FOG compositions using caustic treatment followed by centrifugation or filtration ([0018]). Incorporating such a step into the process of USPUB’200 would have been an obvious variation producing predictable results, consistent with KSR.
As set forth above, USPUB’200 teaches all major steps of claim 1. To the extent claim 1 is construed to differ from USPUB’200, such differences merely reflect the use of known process steps arranged according to their established functions, yielding predictable results, and therefore would have been obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH D CARR whose telephone number is (571)272-0637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10:30 am -7:00 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, Renee Claytor can be reached at 572-272-8394. 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.
/DEBORAH D CARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691