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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group IV, claims 62, 2-5, 25-28, 30-32, 36-39, and 72 in the reply filed on June 22, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 29, 33 and 34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 22, 2026.
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.
Claims 62, 2-5, 25-28, 30-32, 36-39, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rytter et al (US 2023/0174376) in view of Yagi et al (US 2011/0015282).
Applicants’ claimed invention is directed to a process for producing a liquid hydrocarbon product comprising naphtha boiling-range hydrocarbons, jet fuel boiling-range hydrocarbons, and/or diesel boiling-range hydrocarbons, the process comprising: contacting an FT feed, comprising synthesis gas, with a Fischer-Tropsch (FT) catalyst contained in an FT reactor operating under FT reaction conditions, to convert H2 and CO in the synthesis gas to hydrocarbons, including C4+ hydrocarbons present in an FT synthesis effluent withdrawn from the FT reactor, contacting a cracking feed, comprising at least a portion of the FT synthesis effluent and including unconverted CO from the FT feed, with a cracking catalyst contained in a cracking reactor operating under cracking reaction conditions, to crack C2o+ hydrocarbons present in the FT synthesis effluent and increase a yield of C4-C19 hydrocarbons in the liquid hydrocarbon product, said liquid hydrocarbon product being contained in a polishing effluent withdrawn from the cracking reactor; and separating the liquid hydrocarbon product from the polishing effluent.
Regarding claim 61, Rytter teaches a process for producing liquid hydrocarbon products (such as naphtha, jet fuel, and diesel boiling range hydrocarbons) utilizing F-T synthesis followed by downstream upgrading. Specifically, Rytter teaches contacting a F-T feed comprising synthesis gas with an F-T catalyst in an F-T reactor under FT conditions to convert the synthesis gas into hydrocarbons, including C4+ hydrocarbon fraction present in the FT synthesis effluent withdrawn from the reactor. Rytter further teaches subsequent hydroprocessing/cracking of the heavy hydrocarbon fractions (C20+ waxes) to maximize the yield of mid-distillate (C4-C19 hydrocarbons) and separating the desired liquid hydrocarbon fractions. See paragraph 0049 and description of Figures 1-4.
The difference between the present claim and Rytter is the explicit limitation that the cracking feed includes unconverted CO from the FT feed contacting the cracking catalyst in the cracking reactor to create the polishing effluent. However, Yagi teaches an integrated FT and hydrocarbon upgrading (polishing/cracking) configuration. Yagi explicitly addresses optimization of the cracking/polishing step by feeding at least a portion of the unseparated or partially separated FT effluent including unconverted CO from the FT feed directly into a downstream cracking reactor containing a cracking catalyst under cracking conditions. Yagi teaches that maintaining a controlled amount of unconverted CO within the cracking feed avoids complex intermediate separation steps, stabilizes or modifies catalyst selectivity, and efficiently cracks the C20+ heavy fraction to increase the yield of liquid fuels (C4-C19) before subsequent separation. See paragraph 0096 and description of Figures 1-2.
A person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Rytter by integrating the cracking feed configuration of Yagi to allow unconverted CO from the F-T stage to pass to downstream cracking reactor. This combination represents a known process optimization strategy that eliminated complex intermediate scrubbing steps, thereby lowering expenses and achieving a streamlined process flow.
Regarding claims 62 and 63, Rytter teaches [0031] the syngas is produced in the first reactor at least partly by a reverse water-gas-shift reaction. Optionally, the syngas is produced in the first reactor at least partly by steam-methane reforming. Optionally, the syngas is produced in the first reactor at least partly by autothermal reforming.
[0032] Optionally, the hydrocarbons are produced in the second reactor by a Fischer-Tropsch process. Hydrogen is fed to the RWGS reactor 1 through line 12. The hydrogen can come from any viable source, e.g. produced by electrolysis of water. The process units 1, 2, 3, and 4 may be operated at elevated pressures typically between 10 and 60 bar, preferably in the range 25-40 bar. Accordingly, both feed streams of hydrogen and CO2 may be pressurized to operating pressure before entering RWGS. It is understood that the process units can be operated at the same or different elevated pressures [0071].
Regarding claim 64, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to optimize process variables like temperature, space velocity, and pressure to achieve at least 70% conversion efficiency of heavy paraffin waxes into mid-distillate, as Rytter [0049] and Yagi [0063 and 0075] motivate intensive hydrocracking for liquid fuel yields. This routine optimization lacks patentable weight due to its predictable results.
Regrading claims 65-67, routing at least 95% of the FT synthesis effluent into the cracking feed represents a standard, advantageous operational design configuration. Yagi [0049] teaches that directing minimally separated effluent directly into the downstream reactor eliminates intermediate scrubbing steps and reduces equipment footprint, making the full-stream feed an obvious choice for practitioners.
Regarding claims 68-70, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find the claims obvious because its conversion and residual gas parameters reflect standard, predictable optimization. Prior art from Rytter [0075] and Yagi [0096] demonstrates that targeting high CO conversion and recycling residual gases naturally yields the claimed operational ranges.
Regarding claim 71, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find claim 71 is obvious because controlling gas parameters falls under routine engineering design. As demonstrated by Retter [0060] manipulating CO partial pressure is a known method for shifting reaction behavior, making the selection of an operational cracking feed range between 5 psi and 200 psi a predictable optimization of the continuous upgrading process taught by Yagi.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would find claim 72 obvious because recycling a portion of a reactor effluent back to the reactor inlet or feed stream is a routine chemical engineering practice used to control reaction temperature, manage catalyst residence time, and maximize product yield. Implementing this recycling loop in the cracking reactor represents a predictable application of standard process design to optimize the continuous hydrocracking and polishing system by Yagi [0063 and 0096] and Rytter [0073].
Regarding claim 2, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to utilize a feed mixture where the combined amount of H2 and CO2 is at least about 75 mol%. In alternative or reverse water gas shift integration feeding into FT systems, maximizing the concentration of active reactants while minimizing inert components is a routine optimization practice to increase reaction rates and throughput efficiency, rendering this concentration thresholds a predictable design choice. See Rytter [0018]-[0019] and [0062].
Regarding claim 3, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to restrict the independent or combined amounts of CO, H2O and O2 to less than about 10 mole% in the initial feed mixture. As Rytter teaches oxygen and secondary components are deliberately mixed with CO2 inputs in controlled, fractional amounts such as 10%, 20% or 40% of the feedstock sub-stream to manage reactions prior to the primary reactors. Limiting these oxidizing or competitive components below a10 mole% total thresholds in the primary feed mixture represents standard chemical engineering practice to protect downstream catalysts from premature deactivation, poisoning or uncontrolled side reaction. See Rytter [0018]-[0019].
Regarding claims 4 and 27, a person ordinary skill in the art would find claims 4 and 27 obvious because utilizing a feed mixture that comprises biogas represents a predictable choice of an equivalent feedstock source. Rytter [0048] explicitly teaches using carbon dioxide derived from biomass for sustainable synthesis loop, and because biogas is a universally known source of biomass-derived carbon gases, substituting or incorporating it into the process fulfills the environmental and structural goals motivated by prior art.
Regarding claim 25, see claim 61 and claim 64.
Regarding claim 26, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find claim 26 obvious because achieving a liquid hydrocarbon product where at least 20% of the total carbon content is derived from carbon dioxide is a predictable outcome of utilizing sustainable feeds. Rytter [0048] explicitly motivates using carbon dioxide from biomass or alternative source as a major carbon input for the synthesis loop. Adjusting the feedstock ratios to ensure that a substantial portion such as at least 20% of the resulting product’s carbon skeleton originates from these CO2 feeds represents routine operational optimization of the mass balance to meet targeted environmental, regulatory or sustainability benchmarks.
Regarding claim 28, Ryter teaches Carbon dioxide is available in large amounts; in particular there is presently approximately 410 ppm in the global atmosphere, steadily increasing. Adsorbents have been installed to capture CO2 from the atmosphere for use in greenhouses on a small scale. Another source of CO2 is from biomass; either through combustion or fermentation, or by photochemical or chemical processing. It has been assumed that such CO2 does not contribute to the greenhouse effect and global warming. CO2 is also readily available from several industrial processes [0048]. Rytter teaches the hydrogen can come from any viable source, e.g. produced by electrolysis of water. The process units 1, 2, 3, and 4 may be operated at elevated pressures typically between 10 and 60 bar, preferably in the range 25-40 bar. Accordingly, both feed streams of hydrogen and CO2 may be pressurized to operating pressure before entering RWGS. It is understood that the process units can be operated at the same or different elevated pressures [0071].
Regarding claims 30-31, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find claims 30-31 obvious because combining a micro-structured FT catalyst and a cracking catalyst within a reactor represents a predictable process intensification strategy, Rytter [0050] teaches selecting specific catalysts to produce long-chain waxes intended for cracking into clean diesel, and co-locating these catalyst under shared thermal conditions simply streamlines the continuous production loop taught by Yagi to minimize product residence times.
Regarding claims 32 and 37-38, a person ordinary skilled in the art would find claims 32 and 37-38 obvious because isolating the hydrocracking step from the synthesis step to protect catalytic integrity is a well-established process design choice as evidenced by US 4,665,042, cracking catalyst are conveniently comprised of zeolites with high silica to alumina ratio (desirably at least 12), which posses strong acid driven active sites highly sensitive to competitive adsorption. Because the primary FT catalyst active sites such as, cobalt or iron excel a chain growth rather than acid catalyzed cracking, an artisan would be motivated to contact the cracking feed with cracking catalyst in the substantial absence of the FT catalyst. This separation ensures optimal product selectivity, avoids cross contamination or mechanical dilution of the respective active sites, and prevents the premature degradation of the high silica zeolite infrastructure under conflicting reaction conditions. See col. 3, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 36, a person ordinary skill in the art would find claim 36 obvious because introducing a fresh makeup hydrogen containing feed directly to a hydrocracking stage is a standard engineering method used to maintain catalytic activity. Because the hydrocracking of heavy C20+ fractions continuously consumes hydrogen, the partial pressure of H2 within the cracking feed will naturally deplete as it progresses through the system. Providing a fresh makeup stream comprising at least 50 mole% H2 directly to the cracking catalyst represents a predictable optimization step to replenish the reactant concentration, sustain the required hydrocracking reaction rates, and prevent catalyst cooking without unnecessarily diluting upstream stages.
Regarding claim 39, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find claim 39 obvious because separating and recovering unreacted gaseous components from a reactor effluent is a standard chemical engineering practice to optimize atom efficiency. As taught by Yagi [0013] the residual gas separated downstream from a liquid hydrocarbon production process naturally contains components like carbon dioxide and methane as main components. Separating a fraction enriched H2 and CO2 from the polishing effluent represents a predictable application of these separation methods to recover valuable reactant gases, allowing them to be recycled or repurposed within the integrated system to lower operating cost and reduce waste.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAFAR F PARSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM-6:30PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/JAFAR F PARSA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights