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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully responds below. All 112 rejections are dropped.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the required hydrocracking of an oligomerized stream as required in the independent claims. This is not persuasive.
The secondary reference, Miller is used to reject this part of the claim limitations.
P 30 was cited in the first office action as teaching the hydrocracking. P 30 is reproduced below. Bold face is used to indicate where the claim limitation is taught.
"Hydroprocessing" or "hydrotreating" refers to processes or treatments that react a hydrocarbon-based material with hydrogen, typically under pressure and with a catalyst (hydroprocessing can be non-catalytic). Such processes include, but are not limited to, hydrodeoxygenation (of oxygenated species), hydrotreating, hydrocracking, hydroisomerization, and hydrodewaxing. For examples of such processes, see Cash et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,630,066; and Elomari, U.S. Pat. No. 6,841,063. Embodiments of the present invention utilize such hydroprocessing to convert triglycerides to paraffins. The terms "hydroprocessing" and "hydrotreating" are used interchangeably herein.
As the limitation is taught in the correct order of operations required in the claim limitations the rejection stands as stated below.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga et al (US 2016/0194572 A1) and Miller (US 2011/0107656 A1).
With respect to claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17 and 19-20, Lilga teaches a process for oligomerization of an olefin stream.
The examiner notes Fig. 1 lays out the basic process and can be referred to for all points of the process below.
There is a first stage oligomerization. This includes dimerization. See p 48-52.
There is a second stage oligomerization, see p 53 to 54.
These two stages may be followed by hydrogenation and other forms of processing such as cracking in any order. Other forms of processing known in the art may also be used. See p 64.
Fractionating the effluent from the 2nd stage oligomerization is specifically taught. See p 65-68. Light and heavy fraction may be obtained, as well as other cuts if desired.
Hydrogenating of the fractioned stream is specifically taught, see p 82-84.
A recycling stream may be used from any point in the process to any other point as needed or desired, see p 69. This includes the back to the dimerization step as found in claims 8 and 16.
This process is done to make a variety of fuels or cuts to be added to fuels.
Lilga does not specifically state the process further including hydroisomerization/cracking
Miller teaches a process for making different fuel cuts, see abstract.
The process includes (see fig. 1) an oligomerization process followed by a hydroisomerization/cracking process. This is followed by stripping the effluent from this. See p 11. For hydroisomerization see p 30 and fig. 1.
After stripping the effluent is distilled or separated to form streams of the desired fuel components. See p 11, claim 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hydroisomerization/cracking process of Miller in the invention of Lilga. Lilga already calls for use of known processes to produce whatever particular cut/type of hydrocarbons are wanted to produce the fuel desired. In addition to this hydroisomerization and stripping are effective methods for producing a selected desired form of hydrocarbon fuel.
Regarding claims 6 and 10 and 14 and 18, separation steps are taught in both references to produce a desired hydrocarbon cut. The primary reference uses a two- stage oligomerization process. The first stage uses very short chains olefins and dimerizes them. Separating the effluent into a gas portion (the gases being the short chain olefins used in aforesaid process) and another portion for use as fuel and recycling the gas portion would be an obvious variant of the recycling at any point taught in the Lilga references. This would simply recycle the short chain olefins which are already used as a feedstock for the oligomerization process.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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 571-272-6381. 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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights