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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 58-88 are pending. This is the first Office Action on the merit.
Claim Objections
Claims 58, 67, 69, 70, 72, 78, 80, 83, and 86-88 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 58: Applicant is suggested to amend “low biomass feedstock” in line 1 to state “low moisture biomass feedstock” to be consistent with the recitation “low moisture biomass feedstock” in claim 58, line 3, and any other relevant limitations in dependent claims.
Claim 67: the limitation “the low moisture biomass” in line 1 and 2 should state “the low moisture biomass feedstock” for consistency.
Claim 69: The limitations “the pyrolysis reactor” and “the low moisture biomass” lack antecedent basis. Applicant is suggested to amend 69 as follows:
A process according to claim 58, wherein the pyrolysis step is conducted in a pyrolysis reactor, wherein the pyrolysis reactor is arranged such that the low moisture biomass feedstock is conveyed in a counter-current direction to any pyrolysis gases formed, and optionally wherein the biochar formed as a result of the pyrolysis step leaves the pyrolysis reactor separately from [[to]] the pyrolysis gases,
Claim 70: The limitation “biochar” should state “the biochar” since it is in reference to “biochar” recited in claim 58. The limitation “the hydrocarbon feedstock product” lacks antecedent basis and should be amended to state “the hydrocarbon feedstock
Claim 72: The limitations “the hydrocarbon feedstock product” and “the active carbon compound” lack antecedent basis and should be amended to state “the hydrocarbon feedstock an active carbon compound,” respectively.
Claim 72 recites “further comprising the step of…” to introduce a new process step. Applicant is suggested to delete the recitation “the step of” or amend it to read “[[the]] a step of.”
Claim 78: The limitation “one or more metals selected Groups VB, Groups VIB…” should state “one or more metals selected from Groups VB, Groups VIB…”
Claim 80 recites “further comprising the step of…” to introduce a new process step. Applicant is suggested to delete the recitation “the step of” or amend it to read “[[the]] a step of.”
Claim 83 recites “further comprises the step of…” to introduce a new process step. Applicant is suggested to delete the recitation “the step of” or amend it to read “[[the]] a step of.”
Claim 86 recites “further comprising the step of…” to introduce a new process step. Applicant is suggested to delete the recitation “the step of” or amend it to read “[[the]] a step of.”
Claim 87: The recitations “the separated fraction” in lines 2-3 and 5 lack antecedent basis. For clarity, Applicant is suggested to amend claim 87 as follows:
A process according to claim 74, wherein the fractionation step comprises separating a first fractionation cut having a cut point of between 30 °C and 220°C, wherein the the first fractionation cut is collected as a bio-derived gasoline fuel, and wherein the fractionation step further comprises performing a second fractionation cut having a cut point between 280°C and 320°C, wherein the second fractionation cut is collected as a bio-derived jet-fuel.
Claim 88: The recitation “the bottom stream” lacks antecedent basis. For clarity, Applicant is suggested to amend claim 88 as follows: A process according to claim 87, wherein the fractionation step further comprises collecting [[the]] a bottom stream of the bio-oil as a bio-derived diesel fuel.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 62, 63, 73-83, and 86-88 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.
Claim 62 is indefinite for reciting “wherein initial moisture content of the biomass feedstock is up to 50% by weight of the biomass feedstock,” because it is unclear as to what “initial moisture content” is referring to. The specification discloses that the moisture of the biomass feedstock is reduced to a lower level, e.g., 10% or less by weight, prior to the pyrolysis (Spec., pg. 10-11). For the purpose of examination, claim 62 is construed as follows: A process according to claim 58, further comprising reducing moisture of a raw biomass feedstock having an raw biomass feedstock to obtain the low moisture biomass feedstock.
Claim 63 is indefinite for reciting “wherein the moisture content of the biomass feedstock is reduced to 7% or less by weight of the biomass feedstock,” because it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to mean (i) the moisture content of “the low moisture biomass feedstock” having a moisture content of 10% or less, recited in claim 58, is further reduced to 7% or less, or (ii) the low moisture biomass feedstock having a moisture content of 10% or less comprises a moisture content of 7% or less and is obtained by reducing the moisture content from an initial moisture content. In view of the specification on pg. 10-11, claim 63 is construed as follows: A process according to claim 58, wherein low moisture biomass feedstock has a moisture content of and is obtained by reducing moisture of a raw biomass feedstock.
Claim 73 is indefinite for reciting “the tar removed from the hydrocarbon feedstock” because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the tar” and it is unclear as to what the recitation is referring to. The instant specification discloses that the contaminants removed from the hydrocarbon feedstock may include tar. For the purpose of examination, claim 73 is construed as follows: A process according to claim 72, wherein the contaminants comprise tar and wherein the tar removed from the hydrocarbon feedstock is recycled and optionally combined with the low moisture biomass feedstock in step a.
Claim 74 is indefinite for reciting “the bio-derived hydrocarbon feedstock produced according to claim 1,” because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation and claim 1 has been canceled in the instant application. It is noted that the term “bio-derived hydrocarbon feedstock” is recited in canceled claim 26, said feedstock “comprising at least 0.1% by weight of one or more C8 compounds, at least 1% by weight of one or more C10 compounds, at least 5% by weight of one or more C12 compounds, at least 5% by weight of one or more C16 compounds and at least 30% by weight of one or more C18 compounds” (see original claim 26; see also corresponding description in Spec., pg. 17-18). For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the bio-derived hydrocarbon feedstock produced according to claim 1” in claim 74 is construed as “[[the]] a bio-derived hydrocarbon feedstock comprising at least 0.1% by weight of one or more C8 compounds, at least 1% by weight of one or more C10 compounds, at least 5% by weight of one or more C12 compounds, at least 5% by weight of one or more C16 compounds and at least 30% by weight of one or more C18 compounds”
Claims 75-83 and 86-88 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 74.
Claim 82 is indefinite for reciting “the hydro-desulfurization step,” because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation and it is unclear what “the hydro-desulfurization step” is in reference to. It is noted that claim 81, upon which claim 82 depends, recites “at least partially removing sulfur containing components from the bio-oil formed and/or the bio-derived diesel fuel fraction formed,” and that the instant specification discloses the sulfur removal may comprise a hydro-desulfurization step (Spec. pg. 22). For the purpose of examination, claim 82 is construed as follows: A process according to claim 81, wherein the step of at least partially removing sulfur containing components comprises a hydro-desulphurization, and wherein the hydro-desulfurization step is performed at a temperature of from 250°C to 400 °C, and/or
Claim 83 is indefinite for reciting “the catalytic hydro-desulfurization step,” because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation and it is unclear what “the hydro-desulfurization step” is in reference to. It is noted that claim 81, upon which claim 83 depends, recites “at least partially removing sulfur containing components from the bio-oil formed and/or the bio-derived diesel fuel fraction formed,” and that the instant specification discloses the sulfur removal may comprise a hydro-desulfurization step, preferably a catalytic hydro-sulfurization step (Spec. pg. 22). For the purpose of examination, claim 83 is construed as follows: A process according to claim 81, wherein the step of at least partially removing sulfur containing components comprises a catalytic hydro-desulphurization, wherein the catalytic hydro-desulfurization process during the catalytic hydro-desulfurization process, and optionally wherein hydrogen removed is recycled to the hydrocracking process step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 58, 67, 69, 70, and 72 are objected to for the informalities as described above, but would be allowable if appropriate correction is made.
Claims 59-61, 64-66, 68, 71, 84, and 85 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.
Claims 62, 63, 73-83, and 86-88 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. No prior art of record, individually or in combination, teaches or suggests a method for producing a bio-diesel fuel, the method comprising pyrolyzing a biomass feedstock having a moisture content of 10% or less by weight to produce a reaction mixture comprising biochar, hydrocarbon feedstock, non-condensable light gases, and water; and hydrocracking the hydrocarbon feedstock, separated from the reaction mixture, to produce a bio-oil containing the bio-derived diesel.
Trewella et al. (US 9,475,960 B2) discloses a method for providing a coating composition comprising a biomass T-C oil, i.e., bio-oil produced from the thermo-catalytic conversion of biomass, the method comprising: pyrolyzing a biomass feedstock at a temperature ranging from about 200° C to about 1000° C to form a mixture comprising biochar, biomass T-C oil, non-condensable gas, and water (col. 3, lines 4-44; col. 8, lines 7-10); separating the biomass T-C oil from the mixture (col. 9, lines 26-59); hydrotreating the biomass T-C oil in the presence of hydrogen to produce a hydrotreater liquid effluent (col. 9. Ine 60- col. 10, line 13); and fractionating the hydrotreater liquid effluent to produce a first low molecular weight fraction (Fig. 2, 242) having a boiling point of at least 232°C or preferably at least 343°C (col. 10, lines 14-20), which corresponds to a diesel fraction. Trewella provides examples in which a lignocellulosic feedstock having a 5 wt% moisture content is used as a pyrolysis feedstock (col. 12, lines 14-18). However, Trewella fails to teach or reasonably suggest that the hydrotreatment step results in hydrocracking (conversion to lower hydrocarbon compounds) of the hydrocarbons present in the biomass T-C oil. Trewella discloses that hydrotreatment step is conducted to reduce the oxygen content from the biooil (col. 4, lines 49-60). Given the objective of Trewella is to obtain a high molecular weight fraction to be used as a part of a coating composition (col. 8, lines 59-61), the reference does not seem to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the hydrotreatment at reaction conditions which would crack the hydrocarbons in the biomass T-C oil into lower hydrocarbons.
Bitting et al. (US 2020/0369966 A1) discloses a process for converting waste material to produce pyrolysis oil useful for steam cracking ([0006]-[0010]), the process comprising pyrolyzing waste materials, such as waste biomass, in a pyrolysis reactor (Fig. 2, 118) at a temperature which can be 325-1100°C to produce an effluent (120) containing char, pyrolysis oil, pyrolysis gas (e.g. methane), and water ([0215], [0219], [0225], [0255], [0285]); separating the pyrolysis oil (136) from the effluent ([0231]-[0232]); and hydro-processing, e.g., hydrocracking, the pyrolysis oil in a hydroprocessing unit (142) to produce a hydroprocessed pyrolysis oil ([0233]-[0234]). However, Bitting is silent on the moisture content of the biomass feedstock and also fails to teach fractionating the hydroprocessed pyrolysis oil to obtain a bio-derived diesel fuel fraction.
Medoff (US 2016/0289704 A1) discloses a process for processing biomass, e.g., plant biomass, the process comprising: pyrolyzing a biomass feedstock at a temperature in a range from 150° C to 1100° C to produce an effluent comprising pyrolysis oil, char (“solid product”), non-condensable gas, water ([0486], [0488], [0497], [0501]; Fig. 14, 6050); and separating the pyrolysis oil from the effluent ([0501]). Medoff, however, discloses that pyrolysis of feedstock occurs most efficiently when the moisture content of the feedstock is between about 10% and about 30% by weight of the feedstock ([0482]). Medoff teaches that if the feedstock has a moisture content of lower than about 10 wt%, then the feedstock can be combined with wetter feedstock material with a higher moisture content ([0484]), thereby teaching away from the claimed moisture content of 10% or less by weight. Medoff also fails to teach subjecting the pyrolysis oil to hydrocracking to produce a bio-oil and fractionating the resulting bio-oil to obtain a bio-derived diesel fuel fraction.
Ellens et al. (US 8,100,990 B2) discloses a method for converting biomass into bio-oil fraction, the method comprising: pyrolyzing a biomass feedstock, which comprises about 10 wt% or less moisture, to produce a reaction mixture comprising biochar, bio-oil (“condensable vapors”), non-condensable gases, and water (col. 9, lines 1-65); separating the bio-oil from the reaction mixture (col. 7, lines 62-64; col. 10, lines 53-56; col. 11, lines 33-39; col. 14, lines 54-59; see Fig. 1); and upgrading the bio-oil fractions in the presence of hydrogen in a catalytic reactor (col.16, lines 62-64). The reference, however, discloses that the reaction temperature for the pyrolysis step is between about 300-600° C, such as about 300-600° C, and fails to teach or reasonably suggest an operating temperature of “at least 950° C,” as required by the claimed invention. Ellens also fails to teach or suggest that the hydro-upgrading step comprises hydrocracking of the bio-oil fractions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772