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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-24, and 52 have been cancelled.
Claims 25-51 and 53-55 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 46 and 50-51 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/05/2026.
Applicant’s arguments for traversal of the restriction requirement are persuasive.
The previous restriction requirement, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 01/05/2026, is hereby withdrawn and claims 46 and 50-51 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability.
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 25-51 and 53-55 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, for example, claim 25 recites the broad recitation “less than 1 wt%”, and the claim also recites “and/or less than 0.8 wt% and/or less than 0.5 wt%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
This issue is present through the claims.
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 25, 30, 35, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALATAK (USPGPUB 20190093035)
MALATAK teaches a process for production of renewable fuels.
The process is taught in paragraph 13 and comprises obtaining a renewable paraffinic feedstock. The renewable paraffinic feedstock may be provided by hydrotreating fat and renewable oil feed stocks.
The renewable paraffinic feedstock is then processed in a cracking unit, such as a fluid catalytic cracking unit to product a renewable product fuel product.
The renewable product is taught in paragraph 13 to include propylene and gasoline.
The renewable paraffinic feedstock is further taught in paragraph 20 to comprise a boiling point range of 180 C to 400°C. The feedstock is further taught to preferably comprise at least 95% C8-C20 hydrocarbons. Propane may be present but it may also be separated from the hydrotreated renewable feed stock.
The term “gaseous compounds (NTP)” has been defined in the present specification as being compounds that are gaseous at normal temperature and pressure (20°C and 101.325 kPa)
A paraffinic feedstock comprising a boiling point range of 180°C to 400°C and comprising at least 95% C8-C20 hydrocarbons includes at least 99% C8-C20 paraffinic hydrocarbons and would be expected to comprise less than 1 wt% of gaseous compounds (NTP).
Conditions to catalytically crack the renewable paraffinic feedstock into a renewable hydrocarbon fuel product are taught in paragraph 22 and includes a temperature range between 400°C – 800°C.
The renewable hydrocarbon fuel product is taught in paragraph 29 and may be separated into two or more constituent streams such as a propylene stream.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 30, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 20 that the renewable paraffinic feedstock comprises greater than 90% paraffin compounds. Greater than 90% paraffin compounds would overlap with the sum of the isoparaffins and n-paraffins to be at least 40 wt%.
In the case where the claimed ranges "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 31, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 20 that the renewable paraffinic feedstock comprises greater than 90% paraffin compounds and substantially free of aromatic compounds.
Greater than 90% paraffin compounds would also mean a maximum of 10% aromatics and/or naphthenes. This would be less than 25% total aromatics and less than 80 wt% naphthenes.
In the case where the claimed ranges "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 32, the feedstock is further taught to preferably comprise at least 95% C8-C20 hydrocarbons.
An amount of hydrocarbons having at least a carbon number of at least C11 being present more than 50 wt% would be within the ranges that is taught by MALATAK.
In the case where the claimed ranges "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 35, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 14 that the renewable paraffinic feedstock is produced from renewable fats and oils. The carbon present would be expected to be biogenic carbon. The renewable paraffinic feedstock is taught in paragraph 19 to be blended with greater than 0% petroleum-based intermediate.
A renewable paraffinic feedstock comprising a biogenic carbon of more than 50 wt% would be expected when the renewable paraffinic feedstock is produced from renewable fats and oils.
Regarding claim 40, the renewable paraffinic feedstock is taught in paragraph 19 to be blended with greater than 0% petroleum-based intermediate.
A renewable paraffinic feedstock with 1 wt% petroleum based intermediate would comprise 99 wt% of renewable paraffinic feedstock such as more than 80 wt% of the catalytic cracking fresh feed.
Regarding claim 42, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 29 that a product stream includes ethylene.
Regarding claim 43, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 29 that the product can be separated into 2 or more streams.
Regarding claim 45, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 13 that one of the fractions to be collected is propylene. A fraction comprising propylene may comprise some amount of propane that remains. Such a fraction would be expected to comprise at least 99 wt% of bio-propylene. A trace amount of propane would be expected to comprise a propylene of at least 90 wt%.
Regarding claims 47-48, MALATAK teaches in paragraphs 13 and 29 that the renewable fuel product may include a fraction that includes propylene. MALATAK further teaches an olefinic constituent stream may be sent to a dimersol unit for further processing. MALATAK teaches in paragraph 13 that the renewable fuel production fractions may be refined.
Regarding claims 46 and 53, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 20 that the renewable paraffinic feed stock may comprise propane from glycerin. In some embodiments, at least a portion of propane is separated.
MALATAK also teaches in paragraph 13 that one of the fractions to be collected is propylene. A fraction comprising propylene may comprise some amount of propane that remains. Such a fraction would be expected to comprise at least 99 wt% of bio-propylene and have a bio-propylene to bio-propane ratio of at least 9.
Regarding claims 50 and 54, HWANG et al. teach in reference claim 6 that a refinery gasoline stream may be a reformate comprising C5 to C10 hydrocarbons.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to separate as the gasoline stream in MALATAK a C5 – C10 fraction.
A C5-C10 fraction would be expected to comprise 75 wt% of C5-C10 fractions. HWANG et al. teach in paragraph 12 that a gasoline stream may comprise at least 10 vol% of benzene.
The ratio of isoparaffin to normal paraffin of the renewable hydrocarbon fuel is taught in paragraph 27 of MALATAK is from about 0.0 to about 9.0.
A gasoline stream in MALATAK may comprise at least 32 wt% isoparaffin and at most 32 wt% n-paraffin with the ratio of isoparaffin to n-paraffin of 1.
In the case where the claimed ranges "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 claims 51 and 55, the gasoline produced would comprise an octane rating ranging from 40 to 100. The octane rating is the average of RON and MON.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 25-32, 35, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54 and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALATAK (USPGPUB 2019/0093035) in view of HWANG et al. (USPGPUB 2013/0331627).
MALATAK teaches a process for production of renewable fuels.
Regarding claim 25, the process is taught in paragraph 13 and comprises obtaining a renewable paraffinic feedstock. The renewable paraffinic feedstock may be provided by hydrotreating fat and renewable oil feed stocks.
The renewable paraffinic feedstock is then processed in a cracking unit, such as a fluid catalytic cracking unit to product a renewable product fuel product.
The renewable product is taught in paragraph 13 to include propylene and gasoline.
The renewable paraffinic feedstock is further taught in paragraph 20 to comprise a boiling point range of 180°C to 400°C. The feedstock is further taught to preferably comprise at least 95% C8-C20 hydrocarbons. Propane may be present but it may also be separated from the hydrotreated renewable feed stock.
The term “gaseous compounds (NTP)” has been defined in the present specification as being compounds that are gaseous at normal temperature and pressure (20°C and 101.325 kPa)
A paraffinic feedstock comprising a boiling point range of 180°C to 400°C and comprising at least 95% C8-C20 hydrocarbons includes at least 99% C8-C20 paraffinic hydrocarbons and would be expected to comprise less than 1 wt% of gaseous compounds (NTP).
Conditions to catalytically crack the renewable paraffinic feedstock into a renewable hydrocarbon fuel product are taught in paragraph 22 and includes a temperature range between 400°C – 800°C.
The renewable hydrocarbon fuel product is taught in paragraph 29 and may be separated into two or more constituent streams such as a propylene stream and a gasoline stream.
HWANG et al. teach in reference claim 6 that a refinery gasoline stream may be a reformate comprising C5 to C10 hydrocarbons.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to separate as the gasoline stream in MALATAK a C5 – C10 fraction.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 26, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 33 that renewable triglycerides may be converted by hydrotreating. Oxygen-containing compounds are largely converted.
Regarding claim 27, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 14 hydrotreating to form the renewable paraffinic feed stock includes hydrotreating fats and oils such as vegetable oil.
Regarding claim 28, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 16 that hydrotreating includes hydrodeoxygenation. In addition to hydrotreating, hydroprocessing and isomerization may also be applied.
Regarding claim 30, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 20 that the renewable paraffinic feedstock comprises greater than 90% paraffin compounds. Greater than 90% paraffin compounds would overlap with the sum of the isoparaffins and n-paraffins to be at least 40 wt%.
In the case where the claimed ranges "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 31, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 20 that the renewable paraffinic feedstock comprises greater than 90% paraffin compounds and substantially free of aromatic compounds.
Greater than 90% paraffin compounds would also mean a maximum of 10% aromatics and/or naphthenes. This would be less than 25% total aromatics and less than 80 wt% naphthenes.
In the case where the claimed ranges "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 32, the feedstock is further taught to preferably comprise at least 95% C8-C20 hydrocarbons.
An amount of hydrocarbons having at least a carbon number of at least C11 being present more than 50 wt% would be within the ranges that is taught by MALATAK.
In the case where the claimed ranges "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 35, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 14 that the renewable paraffinic feedstock is produced from renewable fats and oils. The carbon present would be expected to be biogenic carbon. The renewable paraffinic feedstock is taught in paragraph 19 to be blended with greater than 0% petroleum-based intermediate.
A renewable paraffinic feedstock comprising a biogenic carbon of more than 50 wt% would be expected when the renewable paraffinic feedstock is produced from renewable fats and oils.
Regarding claim 40, the renewable paraffinic feedstock is taught in paragraph 19 to be blended with greater than 0% petroleum-based intermediate.
A renewable paraffinic feedstock with 1 wt% petroleum based intermediate would comprise 99 wt% of renewable paraffinic feedstock such as more than 80 wt% of the catalytic cracking fresh feed.
Regarding claim 42, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 29 that a product stream includes ethylene.
Regarding claim 43, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 29 that the product can be separated into 2 or more streams.
Regarding claim 45, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 13 that one of the fractions to be collected is propylene. A fraction comprising propylene may comprise some amount of propane that remains. Such a fraction would be expected to comprise at least 99 wt% of bio-propylene. A trace amount of propane would be expected to comprise a propylene of at least 90 wt%.
Regarding claims 47-48, MALATAK teaches in paragraphs 13 and 29 that the renewable fuel product may include a fraction that includes propylene. MALATAK further teaches an olefinic constituent stream may be sent to a dimersol unit for further processing. MALATAK teaches in paragraph 13 that the renewable fuel production fractions may be refined.
Regarding claims 46 and 53, MALATAK teaches in paragraph 20 that the renewable paraffinic feed stock may comprise propane from glycerin. In some embodiments, at least a portion of propane is separated.
MALATAK also teaches in paragraph 13 that one of the fractions to be collected is propylene. A fraction comprising propylene may comprise some amount of propane that remains. Such a fraction would be expected to comprise at least 99 wt% of bio-propylene and have a bio-propylene to bio-propane ratio of at least 9.
Regarding claims 50 and 54, HWANG et al. teach in reference claim 6 that a refinery gasoline stream may be a reformate comprising C5 to C10 hydrocarbons.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to separate as the gasoline stream in MALATAK a C5 – C10 fraction.
A C5-C10 fraction would be expected to comprise 75 wt% of C5-C10 fractions. HWANG et al. teach in paragraph 12 that a gasoline stream may comprise at least 10 vol% of benzene.
The ratio of isoparaffin to normal paraffin of the renewable hydrocarbon fuel is taught in paragraph 27 of MALATAK is from about 0.0 to about 9.0.
A gasoline stream in MALATAK may comprise at least 32 wt% isoparaffin and at most 32 wt% n-paraffin with the ratio of isoparaffin to n-paraffin of 1.
In the case where the claimed ranges "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 claims 51 and 55, the gasoline produced would comprise an octane rating ranging from 40 to 100. The octane rating is the average of RON and MON.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 29, 33, and 34, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALATAK (USPGPUB 20190093035) as applied to claims 25, 30, 35, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, and 53, above, and further in view of MCCALL et al. (USPGPUB 2009/0283442).
The above discussion of MALATAK is incorporated herein by reference.
MALATAK teaches in paragraph 16 that the renewable paraffinic feed stock may be provided by hydrotreating and further hydroprocessed or isomerized.
MCCALL et al. teach production of fuel from renewable feedstocks.
MCCALL et al. teach in paragraph 16 that paraffinic hydrocarbons produced from hydrogenation and deoxygenation steps of renewable feedstock include paraffins having a carbon number of from about 8 to about 24 carbon atoms.
Regarding claims 29, and 33, MCCALL et al. teach in paragraph 33 a high iso/normal ratio for paraffins.
Regarding claim 34, MCCALL et al. teach in paragraph 16 that paraffins produced from hydrogenation and deoxygenation of renewable feedstocks comprise from 6 to 24 carbon atoms.
Depending on the desired product, different paraffinic feedstock such as different iso/normal ratio and at most 5 wt% of paraffins having a carbon number of at least 22 may be employed.
MATALAK teaches in paragraph 13 that cracking conditions can be altered to favor the selective production of one or more fractions.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 29, 33, and 34, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALATAK (USPGPUB 2019/0093035) in view of HWANG et al. (USPGPUB 2013/0331627) as applied to claims 25-32, 35, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54 and 55, above, and further in view of MCCALL et al. (USPGPUB 2009/0283442).
The above discussion of MALATAK in view of HWANG et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
MALATAK teaches in paragraph 16 that the renewable paraffinic feed stock may be provided by hydrotreating and further hydroprocessed or isomerized.
MCCALL et al. teach production of fuel from renewable feedstocks.
MCCALL et al. teach in paragraph 16 that paraffinic hydrocarbons produced from hydrogenation and deoxygenation steps of renewable feedstock include paraffins having a carbon number of from about 8 to about 24 carbon atoms.
Regarding claims 29, 33, MCCALL et al. teach in paragraph 33 a high iso/normal ratio for the paraffins.
Regarding claim 34, MCCALL et al. teach in paragraph 16 that paraffins produced from hydrogenation and deoxygenation of renewable feedstocks comprise from 6 to 24 carbon atoms.
Depending on the desired product, different paraffinic feedstock such as different iso/normal ratio and at most 5 wt% of paraffins having a carbon number of at least 22 may be employed.
MATALAK teaches in paragraph 13 that cracking conditions can be altered to favor the selective production of one or more fractions.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 36-39, 41, 44, and 49, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALATAK (USPGPUB 2019/0093035) as applied to claims 25, 30, 35, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, and 53, above, and further in view of GOMES et al. (USPGPUB 2009/0326293).
The above discussion of MALATAK is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 36, GOMES teaches a process for producing light olefins from a feed containing triglycerides.
GOMEs teaches recycling LCO generated in the catalytic cracking reactor back into the catalytic cracking reactor.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle a fraction of the catalytic cracking effluent back into the catalytic cracking reactor in the process that MALATAK teach.
Regarding claim 37, GOMES teaches in paragraph 50 that the yield of light olefins can be increased by recycling LCO back into the catalytic cracking reactor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a ratio wherein LCO comprises at least 10 wt% of the catalytic cracking feed given that there is no limits taught in GOMES for the ratio of LCO and original feed to the catalytic cracking reactor.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to use at least 10 wt% recycled catalytic cracker effluent in the feed to the catalytic cracking reactor with a reasonable expectation of success given that there is no reason to believe that the ratio would affect the catalytic cracking.
Regarding claim 38, GOMES teaches in paragraph 50 that the yield of light olefins can be increased by recycling LCO back into the catalytic cracking reactor.
LCO is taught in paragraph 10 to be light cycle oil and in table 4 to comprise heavier components in a fraction with carbon numbers larger than 5 and within the gasoline range. Light cycle oil also is known in the art to comprise carbon numbers greater than 5 such as from C9 to C25.
Regarding claim 39, LCO is known in the art to comprise carbon numbers greater than 5 such as from C9 to C25.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle a fraction that comprises at least 50 wt% of hydrocarbons greater than 5 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 41, GOMES teaches in table 4 that aromatics can be produced.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also collect an aromatic fraction.
GOMES teaches in paragraph 65 that aromatic hydrocarbons offer high economic value for the petrochemical industry.
Regarding claims 44 and 49, GOMES teaches how to selectively affect the yield of ethylene and propylene produced while minimizing gasoline produced.
GOMES teaches examples in table 4 that include a yield of 6.6 for ethylene and 22.3 for propylene. Such a yield would comprise a weight ratio of propylene to ethylene of greater than 1.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 36-39, 41, 44, and 49, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALATAK (USPGPUB 2019/0093035) in view of HWANG et al. (USPGPUB 2013/0331627) as applied to claims 25-33, 35, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54 and 55 above, and further in view of GOMES et al. (USPGPUB 2009/0326293).
The above discussion of MALATAK in view of HWANG et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 36, GOMES teaches a process for producing light olefins from a feed containing triglycerides.
GOMEs teaches recycling LCO generated in the catalytic cracking reactor back into the catalytic cracking reactor.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle a fraction of the catalytic cracking effluent back into the catalytic cracking reactor in the process that MALATAK teach.
Regarding claim 37, GOMES teaches in paragraph 50 that the yield of light olefins can be increased by recycling LCO back into the catalytic cracking reactor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a ratio wherein LCO comprises at least 10 wt% of the catalytic cracking feed given that there is no limits taught in GOMES for the ratio of LCO and original feed to the catalytic cracking reactor.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to use at least 10 wt% recycled catalytic cracker effluent in the feed to the catalytic cracking reactor with a reasonable expectation of success given that there is no reason to believe that the ratio would affect the catalytic cracking.
Regarding claim 38, GOMES teaches in paragraph 50 that the yield of light olefins can be increased by recycling LCO back into the catalytic cracking reactor.
LCO is taught in paragraph 10 to be light cycle oil and in table 4 to comprise heavier components in a fraction with carbon numbers larger than 5 and within the gasoline range. Light cycle oil also is known in the art to comprise carbon numbers greater than 5 such as from C9 to C25.
Regarding claim 39, LCO is known in the art to comprise carbon numbers greater than 5 such as from C9 to C25.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle a fraction that comprises at least 50 wt% of hydrocarbons greater than 5 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 41, GOMES teaches in table 4 that aromatics can be produced.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also collect an aromatic fraction.
GOMES teaches in paragraph 65 that aromatic hydrocarbons offer high economic value for the petrochemical industry.
Regarding claims 44 and 49, GOMES teaches how to selectively affect the yield of ethylene and propylene produced while minimizing gasoline produced.
GOMES teaches examples in table 4 that include a yield of 6.6 for ethylene and 22.3 for propylene. Such a yield would comprise a weight ratio of propylene to ethylene of greater than 1.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771