finiDETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03 December 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, and 11-19 are amended. Claim 20 is cancelled. Claims 21-23 are new.
The amendments overcome the previous 112(a) rejections.
Claims 1-19 and 21-23 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under USC 103 over Brandevold have been fully considered and are persuasive. Brandevold does not teach condensing a vapor phase bio-oil product from pyrolysis with the lipid in a contactor to form the organic liquid phase. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered prior art in view of the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 15, 18, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claims 11 and 15, the claims have been amended to refer to contacting with the lipid stream in “step b)”. However, the contacting takes place in step a) in instant claim 1. Thus, the claims should be amended to recite “step a)”.
With regard to claim 18, the claim recites “the primary reaction solvent”. This should be “a primary reaction solvent” for antecedent basis purposes.
With regard to claim 23, the claim recites “the mass ratio”. This should be “a mass ratio” for antecedent basis purposes.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 11-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claims 3 and 17, claim 3 recites “producing the vapor stream by…hydrothermal liquefaction or solvent liquefaction” and claim 17 recites “producing the bio-oil vapor stream exclusively from solvent liquefaction”. However, the instant specification does not support passing the bio-oil vapor stream from liquefaction to the contactor step. The embodiment for biomass liquefaction is presented in the instant specification and in Fig. 3. While the liquefaction does produce a vapor stream comprising condensable products, this vapor stream 211 is only passed to the separator 220 where condensable products are recovered, and is not contacted with the lipid before that point. There is no other discussion of passing the vapor stream from the liquefaction to a contactor. Thus, the claims include new matter.
With regard to claim 11, the claim recites “fractionating a crude bio-oil to produce the bio-oil vapor stream prior to contacting” with the lipid. However, there is no support in the instant specification for fractionation of a crude bio-oil to produce a bio-oil vapor stream. In the embodiment which contacts the vapor stream with the lipid as claimed in amended claim 1, the biomass is fed into a converter 110 which directly produces a vapor 102 which is contacted with the lipid 104 in contactor 120 (page 17, lines 12-15 and Figure 2). There is no support for fractionation of any previous stream to get the bio-oil vapor 102. Thus, the limitation is new matter.
With regard to claims 12-14, the claims recite fractionating the bio-oil vapor stream at a boiling point greater than 200°F, 250°F, and 300°F, respectively. However, there is no support in the instant application as filed for fractionation of the bio-oil vapor stream. The bio-oil vapor stream 102 goes straight to contactor 120 to contact with the lipid 104 (page 17, lines 12-15 and Figure 2). Thus, the limitation of fractionation of the bio-oil vapor stream is new matter.
With regard to claim 15, the claim recites fractionating the bio-oil vapor stream to remove water soluble compounds. However, there is no support in the instant application as filed for fractionation of the bio-oil vapor stream, as explained above for claims 12-14. Thus, the limitation is new matter.
With regard to claim 18, the claim is dependent on the new matter in claim 17.
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 1-18 and 21-23 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.
With regard to claim 1, the preamble recites “converting a bio-oil derived from lignocellulose biomass” and step a recites “combining a bio-oil vapor stream with a lipid…” There is no explicit nexus between the “bio-oil” derived from lignocellulose recited in the specification and the “bio-oil vapor” in step a. It is not clear whether the bio-oil vapor is also derived from lignocellulose biomass, or if it is a different source. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the bio-oil vapor is intended to also be derived from lignocellulose biomass, as recited in independent claim 19. Appropriate correction and clarification are respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 11, the claim recites “crude bio-oil”. It is unclear what is meant by “crude” bio-oil, whether this is the entire product directly from the conversion of biomass, or if it is the bio-oil after separation of water and/or solids and/or other components, or if it means something else entirely. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the term “crude bio-oil” was present in the claims as originally filed, and thus has support. However, this term is not used anywhere else in the instant application as filed. Thus, the Examiner has looked to related art to find the broadest reasonable interpretation. US 2015/0329789 defines crude bio-oil as bio-oil derived from bio-mass before refining (paragraph [0006]), which will be used as the broadest reasonable definition herein. Appropriate correction to the specification and clarification is respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 12-14, the claims recite “wherein the bio-oil vapor stream has been fractionated according to a boiling point greater than” 200°F, 250°F, and 300°F, respectively. However, it is unclear whether this boiling point is the lower or upper bound of the bio-oil vapor stream. Thus, the claim is indefinite as it is unclear how to determine the boiling point of the claimed bio-oil vapor fraction.
For purposes of examination, the original claims filed with the application recited fractionation of the crude bio-oil to get bio-oil streams having the boiling points claimed. It is understood that originally this referred to liquid bio-oil streams. However, there are no further details in the specification as to the fractionation of crude bio-oil or whether the claimed boiling points are the initial or final boiling point of the bio-oil. Thus, appropriate clarification and amendment of the claims and specification to include the subject matter of the original claims is respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 2-18 and 21-23, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-9, 16, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asikkala et al. (WO 2015/101713) in view of Belanger et al. (US 2015/0107150).
With regard to claims 1 and 4, Asikkala teaches a method for producing hydrocarbons from biomass (page 1, lines 10-14) comprising the following steps:
a) providing vapor phase pyrolysis products from biomass to a condenser (contactor) to produce a liquid phase pyrolysis oil;
b) passing the liquid phase pyrolysis oil to a hydroprocessing system to produce a hydroprocessing product;
c) separating the hydroprocessing product into an aqueous stream, a liquid hydrocarbon component, and a gaseous component;
and d) fractionating the liquid hydrocarbon component to obtain fractions (page 4, lines 10-27), where the fractions include diesel and gasoline (page 10, lines 8-11).
Asikkala is silent regarding adding a lipid to the condenser to condense the pyrolysis oil vapor stream.
Belanger teaches a process for obtaining bio-oil comprising passing a bio-oil vapor to a condenser along with a condensing liquid to produce a bio-oil component product (paragraph [0009]). Belanger further teaches that the condensing liquid can be vegetable oil (lipid as in instant claim 4) (paragraph [0024]). Belanger further teaches that the condensing takes place by adding the condensing liquid at a temperature of about 125°C (paragraph [0040]), which allows for condensing the desired bio-oil product but not condensing other light chemical species having lower boiling points (paragraph [0029]). This is equivalent to feeding the lipid to the contactor at a temperature below the boiling point temperature of the bio-oil vapor to condense the bio-oil into the liquid phase of instant claim 1. Belanger additionally teaches that using the condensing liquid allows for obtaining bio-oil components which are stable and able to be further processed while maintaining chemical properties (paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the lipid to the condenser of Asikkala as taught by Belanger, because Asikkala and Belanger each teach pyrolysis of biomass to produce a bio-oil vapor and condensing the bio-oil vapor in a condenser, and Belanger teaches that adding the condensing liquid which is a lipid to the condenser provides the benefits of obtaining stable bio-oil components which are able to be further processed while maintaining chemical properties (paragraph [0030]).
With regard to claims 3 and 16, Asikkala teaches that the pyrolysis is suitably fast pyrolysis in a fluidized bed (page 14, lines 7-9). When just the fluidized bed is selected, the pyrolysis is exclusively fluidized bed fast pyrolysis, as in claim 16.
With regard to claim 5, Belanger teaches the vegetable oils for the contacting liquid (lipid) (paragraph [0024]). Belanger does not specifically teach the amount of free fatty acids in the lipid. However, the instant specification recites a large list of suitable lipids for the contacting, which includes vegetable oils (page 12, line 21-page 13, line 15). The instant specification also recites that the lipid includes at least about 5 wt% free fatty acid (page 13, lines 19-20). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the vegetable oil of Belanger also contains at least 5 wt% free fatty acids, because Belanger teaches the same vegetable oils, absent any evidence to the contrary. This amount of at least 5 wt% overlaps the range of 5 to 95 wt% free fatty acids of instant claim 5, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 6, Asikkala teaches that the hydroprocessing includes hydrotreating, hydrodeoxygenation, and hydroisomerization (page 18, lines 13-16).
With regard to claim 7, Asikkala teaches that the reactor has a temperature of 300-390°C (572-734°F) (page 20, line 23), which overlaps the range of 550-690°F of instant claim 7, rendering the range prima facie obvious. The reactor has a pressure of 50-150 barg (725 to 2176 psig) (page 20, line 17), which overlaps the range of 1000-3000 psig, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 8, Asikkala teaches that the catalyst comprises sulfided NiMo or CoMo (page 18, lines 25 and 30).
With regard to claim 9, Asikkala teaches that the diesel meets the characteristics of EN590 diesel (page 22, line 34), which requires a cetane index of at least 51. This is within the range of greater than or equal to 40 of instant claim 9.
With regard to claim 19, Asikkala teaches a method for producing hydrocarbons from biomass (page 1, lines 10-14) comprising the following steps:
a) pyrolyzing a lignocellulosic (page 16, line 10) biomass feedstock to produce a vapor phase pyrolysis products stream and char;
b) separating the char from the vapor phase pyrolysis products and providing the vapor phase pyrolysis products from biomass to a condenser (contactor) to condense the vapor and produce a liquid phase pyrolysis oil (organic liquid phase) (page 4, lines 10-13) comprising water (aqueous phase) (page 7, line 11);
c) separating the water (aqueous phase) from the pyrolysis oil (organic liquid phase) (page 7, lines 11-12);
d) passing the liquid phase pyrolysis oil (organic liquid phase) to a hydroprocessing system which comprises hydrodeoxygenation and hydrogenation (page 18, lines 13-16) to produce a hydroprocessing product (page 4, lines 14-16) and separating the hydroprocessing product into an aqueous stream, a liquid hydrocarbon component, and a gaseous component;
and e) fractionating the liquid hydrocarbon component to obtain fractions (page 4, lines 10-27), where the fractions include diesel and gasoline (page 10, lines 8-11).
Asikkala is silent regarding i) the liquid phase containing phenolic compounds or ii) adding a lipid to the condenser to condense the pyrolysis oil vapor stream.
With regard to i), while Asikkala does not specifically recite the presence of phenolic compounds, the instant specification background section recites that pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass typically produces a bio-oil comprising phenols (page 1, line 34-page 2, line 7). Asikkala also teaches the pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass (page 16, line 10), and thus the condensed pyrolysis oil of Asikkala would also be expected to contain the typical phenolic compounds, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to ii), Belanger teaches a process for obtaining bio-oil comprising passing a bio-oil vapor to a condenser along with a condensing liquid to produce a bio-oil component product (paragraph [0009]). Belanger further teaches that the condensing liquid can be vegetable oil (lipid as defined in claim 4) (paragraph [0024]). Belanger further teaches that the condensing takes place by passing the vapor stream at a temperature of 500°C (932°F) to the condenser and adding the condensing liquid at a temperature of about 125°C (257°F) (paragraph [0040]), which allows for condensing the desired bio-oil product but not condensing other light chemical species having lower boiling points (paragraph [0029]). These are within the ranges of greater than 300°F and about 60-300°F, respectively, of instant claim 19. Belanger additionally teaches that using the condensing liquid allows for obtaining bio-oil components which are stable and able to be further processed while maintaining chemical properties (paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the lipid to the condenser of Asikkala as taught by Belanger, because Asikkala and Belanger each teach pyrolysis of biomass to produce a bio-oil vapor and condensing the bio-oil vapor in a condenser, and Belanger teaches that adding the condensing liquid which is a lipid to the condenser provides the benefits of obtaining stable bio-oil components which are able to be further processed while maintaining chemical properties (paragraph [0030]).
With regard to claim 21, Belanger further teaches that the condensing takes place at a temperature of about 125°C (257°F) (paragraph [0040]), which is within the range of 100-300°F of instant claim 21. Belanger does not specifically teach the pressure of the contactor. However, one of ordinary skill in the art is aware that there must be a pressure in the contactor for the contactor to function. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art is aware that the pressure and temperature both affect the boiling point of the condensed liquid. Thus, the pressure is a result-effective variable, and can be optimized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine the optimal pressure in the range of atmospheric to approximately 600 psig, as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With regard to claim 22, Belanger teaches the contacting can take place by forcing the gases through a packed bed which is wetted with the condensing liquid (paragraph [0026]). This is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a counter-current absorption column, as it is known this is how a counter-current absorption column functions (instant specification, page 18, lines 11-12).
Claims 2 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asikkala et al. (WO 2015/101713) in view of Belanger et al. (US 2015/0107150) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brandvold et al. (US 8,471,079).
With regard to claims 2 and 23, Asikkala in view of Belanger teaches the process above, where the condensing liquid (lipid) is added to the bio-oil vapors to produce the bio-oil (organic liquid phase).
Asikkala in view of Belanger is silent regarding the effective H/C ratio of the bio-oil (organic liquid phase) (instant claim 2) and the mass ratio of lipid to bio-oil vapor stream (instant claim 23).
With regard to the H/C ratio, the instant specification teaches that lipid feedstocks have H/C ratios within the claimed range, but many pyrolysis oil components do not have H/C ratios within the claimed range. Thus, in order to obtain an organic liquid phase with the claimed H/C ratio, one must adjust the amounts of component added to the condenser.
Brandvold teaches a process for hydroconversion of a feed comprising biomass pyrolysis oil and lipid (column 2, lines 49-53). Brandvold further teaches that the amount of each feed can be controlled so that the resulting effluent of the hydroconversion meets specific requirements of a target fuel (column 3, lines 2-5). Thus, the amount of each feed and, as such, the mass ratio of the lipid to bio-oil vapor and the effective H/C ratio of the organic liquid phase, are result-effective variables and can be optimized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select an amount of each of the condensing liquid (lipid) and vapor pyrolysis product (bio-oil) such that the mass ratio of lipid to bio-oil vapor stream is 0.5:1 to 20:1 and the effective H/C ratio of the feed is between 1.4 and 1.8, as claimed in instant claims 23 and 2, respectively, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asikkala et al. (WO 2015/101713) in view of Belanger et al. (US 2015/0107150) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herskowitz et al. (US 8,142,527).
With regard to claim 10, Asikkala teaches producing a diesel product which can be blended with other diesel fuels (page 22, lines 33-38).
Asikkala does not explicitly teach that the diesel product can be blended with biodiesel.
Herskowitz teaches a method for producing diesel fuel from renewable fuels including vegetable oils (column 1, lines 15-17). Herskowitz teaches blending a hydrodeoxygenation product of the vegetable oils with biodiesel to produce a blended fuel composition (column 7, lines 1-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to blend the diesel product of Asikkala with biodiesel, because Asikkala teaches producing a diesel product which can be blended with other diesel fuels and Herskowitz teaches that similar fuels from conversion of renewable feeds are known to be blended with biodiesel (column 7, lines 1-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, 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, 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772