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 Amendment
This is response to amendment filed 02/06/2026 for application 18/394840.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
The claim objection of claim 20 has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANTIAGO (USPGPUB 2007/0260102) in view of MAXWELL (USPGPUB 2013/0184505) and GOSSELINK (USPGPUB 2012/0289752).
Regarding claim 1, SANTIAGO teaches a process to obtain N-paraffins from vegetable oil.
SANTIAGO teaches a product flow with an elevated content of N-paraffins in the C10-C13 range.
SANTIAGO teaches in paragraphs 13-24 that hydrotreatment comprises multiple principal reactions including hydrodesulfurization and hydrodeoxygenation and hydrocracking. Hydrodesulfurization is used for the removal of undesirable components such as sulfur.
SANTIAGO teaches in paragraphs 38 and 48 hydroconversion of vegetable oils.
MAXWELL teaches a method for production products from bio-oils such as those from vegetables.
MAXWELL teaches in paragraph 15 that the methods comprise a hydroprocessing reaction to remove sulfur, followed by a cracking reaction.
MAXWELL teaches in paragraphs 121 - 123 that the process may comprises a series of hydroprocessing reactors. The first reactor may comprise a catalyst bed adapted to remove sulfur. The second or later reactors may comprise catalyst bed adapted to break up hydrocarbons by hydrocracking.
SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 60 that sulfide gas from the hydrotreatment may damage reactions in the hydrotreatment.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a separate hydrodesulfurization reaction to the other hydrotreatment steps in SANTIAGO or to perform different hydrotreatment steps in separate reactors in sequence.
GOSSELINK teaches in paragraphs 26-27 catalytic cracking of a solid biomass material with a co-feed of hydrogen followed by fractionation and hydrodeoxygenation with a catalyst.
The catalysts used in hydrodeoxygenation are taught in paragraphs 173-178 of GOSSELINK. GOSSELINK teaches that the hydrodeoxygenation catalyst comprises ruthenium, nickel, platinum, and molybdenum. The hydrodeoxygenation catalysts are also taught to comprise a support such as silica-alumina and zirconia. Specific catalyst supports of ZrO2 and Al2O3 are taught.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to perform different hydrotreatment principal reactions in separate reactors or some hydrotreatment principal steps together in a reactor in SANTIAGO with known hydrodeoxygenation catalysts such as Ru supported on ZrO2 or Ni supported on ZrO2 or Pt supported on Al2O3 or supported molybdenum catalyst with a reasonable expectation of success.
GOSSELINK further teaches in paragraph 180 that hydrodeoxygenation can be performed in a step with hydrocracking. The hydrodeoxygenation catalysts that GOSSELINK would also be expected to hydrocrack.
GOSSELINK teaches catalysts with the same chemical composition. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 19, MAXWELL teach in paragraph 94 that it is known to perform catalytic hydrodeoxygenation followed by addition desulphurization steps.
Regarding claim 18, SANTIAGO teaches hydrotreatment encompass multiple principal reactions that include hydrocracking and hydrodeoxygenation.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to perform hydrodesulfurization in one reactor but hydrocracking and hydrodeoxygenation together in a separate reactor.
Sulfur is taught to be detrimental to other hydrotreatment processes and it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to remove sulfur prior to other hydrotreatment processes.
Regarding claims 2-4, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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).
Regarding claims 5-6, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 43 that the vegetable oil may include palm kernel oil. Palm kernel oil includes C16.
Regarding claim 7, SANTIAGO teach in paragraph 38 hydroconversion of vegetable oil.
Regarding claim 8, MAXWELL teaches in paragraphs 121 - 123 that the process may comprises a series of hydroprocessing reactors. The first reactor may comprise a catalyst bed adapted to remove sulfur. The second or later reactors may comprise catalyst bed adapted to break up hydrocarbons by hydrocracking.
Regarding claims 9-11, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 65 and graph 1 that the product would be basically linear hydrocarbons with the contents of C10-C13 N-paraffins shown as more than 99%.
Regarding claim 12, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 64 processing the C10-C13 N-paraffin stream to ensure that the maximum amount of branching is under 2%.
Regarding claim 13, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 25 an adsorption step precedes hydrotreatment. SANTIAGO recognizes in paragraph 4 that adsorption with a trickle bed is known in the art for production of N-paraffins.
Given that sulfur is detrimental to the process, it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a feed to an adsorption bed to remove sulfur prior to hydrotreatment.
Regarding claims 14-15, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 41 that by products C1-C5 gases are produced, along with CO2, water, and C13+. SANTIAGO also teaches that the yield of C10-C13 paraffins in the process is 70-80%.
The amount of total byproducts would be expected to be the balance or 30-20%.
The amount of C1 gases in the byproduct would be expected to be a portion of the 30-20%.
SANTIAGO further teaches in paragraphs 73-75 a motivation to adjust the process such that of the byproducts, C13+ are favored as the C13+ stream may be used as a drilling fluid.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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).
Regarding claim 16, SANTIAGO teaches in the abstract that the C10-C13 N-paraffins may be raw materials for production of detergents such as LAB (linear alkyl benzenes)
Regarding claim 17, SANTIAGO teaches in paragraph 30 that a reduced Ni catalyst may be used.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 14-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DINDI (USPGPUB 2008/0308458) in view of MAXWELL (USPGPUB 2013/0184505)
Regarding claim 1, DINDI teaches catalytic process for converting renewable resources into paraffins for use as diesel blending stocks. The process is taught in paragraph 10 that the catalytic process is a hydrotreating process that comprises hydrodeoxygenation and one or both of hydrocracking and hydroisomerization.
DINDI teaches in paragraphs 17 that the catalyst used in the catalytic process comprises an active metal and a first oxide. The active metal is taught in paragraph 19 to include nickel or cobalt or molybdenum or mixtures thereof. The first oxide is taught to be used as support and include alumina and zirconia.
DINDI teaches in paragraph 83 an example in which linear paraffins are produced that include C10-C13 distribution.
DINDI recognizes in paragraph 5 that hydrotreating processes have become more complex and includes hydrodesulfurization.
MAXWELL is relied on to teach that it is known in the art to conduct a desulfurization step prior to a hydrocracking step.
MAXWELL teaches a method for production products from bio-oils such as those from vegetables.
MAXWELL teaches in paragraph 15 that the methods comprise a hydroprocessing reaction to remove sulfur, followed by a cracking reaction.
MAXWELL teaches in paragraphs 121 - 123 that the process may comprises a series of hydroprocessing reactors. The first reactor may comprise a catalyst bed adapted to remove sulfur. The second or later reactors may comprise catalyst bed adapted to break up hydrocarbons by hydrocracking.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct a hydrodesulphurization step followed by a hydrocracking step as sulfur is taught to be an impurity.
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 18, DINDI teaches in paragraph 10 that the catalytic process is a hydrotreating process that comprises hydrodeoxygenation and one or both of hydrocracking and hydroisomerization.
Regarding claim 19, MAXWELL teach in paragraph 94 that it is known to perform catalytic hydrodeoxygenation followed by addition desulphurization steps.
Regarding claims 3-4, DINDI teaches in paragraph 19 that the active metal may be nickel or molybdenum. The first oxide is taught in paragraph 26 to include alumina (Al2O3). DINDI teaches in paragraph 36 that the preferred amount of active metal is from about 0.1 wt % to about 90%.
The combinations would include 5-10wt% molybdenum on alumina and 0.1-0.5 wt% of nickel.
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 5-6, DINDI teaches in paragraph 16 that the feed may be renewable resources comprise aliphatic hydrocarbon chains having C12-C20 moieties. Furthermore, DINDI teaches in paragraph 3 that renewable resources include comprise C14-C22 carboxylic acids.
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 7, DINDI teaches in paragraph 16 that the feed includes plant or animal derived oils, fats, free fatty acids and the like.
Regarding claims 14-15, DINDI does not explicitly teach production of methane and absence evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect methane to be produced.
Regarding claims 17 and 20, the active metals of the catalyst are taught in paragraph 19 of DINDI may be reduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
SANTIAGO teaches in paragraphs 13-24 that hydrotreatment comprises multiple principal reactions including hydrodesulfurization and hydrodeoxygenation and hydrocracking. Hydrodesulfurization is used for the removal of undesirable components such as sulfur.
Applicant argues that claims 1, 19 and 20 have been amended.
Applicant states that claim 1 has been amended to recite cracking a sulfur-free feedstream in a cracking reactor.
Applicant states that claim 19 has been amended to recite hydrodeoxygenation of a biorenewable feedstream to produce an intermediate paraffin feed prior to treating the intermediate paraffin feed to remove sulfur.
Applicant states that claim 20 has been amended to recite a cracking reactor containing a reduced or partially reduced Ru, Pt, Ni or Mo containing catalyst.
Applicant argues that GOSSELINK teaches hydrodeoxygenation catalysts and not cracking catalysts.
This is not persuasive as GOSSELINK further teaches in paragraph 180 that hydrodeoxygenation can be performed in a step with hydrocracking. GOSSELINK teaches catalysts with the same chemical composition. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Applicant further argues that although SANTIAGO teaches reduced catalysts are known in hydrotreatment of vegetable oils, that there is no motivation to use reduced catalysts.
This is not persuasive as SANTIAGO teaches that it is known to use reduced Ni catalysts supported in Alumina for hydrogenation (hydrotreatment) of vegetable oils. SANTIAGO explicitly recognizes that hydrotreatment includes hydrogenation. Employing a known catalyst for hydrotreatment for use for hydrotreatment would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
DINDI (USPGPUB 20080308458) has been further added to teach partially reduced and reduced catalysts for hydrotreatment such as hydrodeoxygenation and hydrocracking.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ABAZAJIAN (USPGPUB 2004/0176654) teach production of linear alkyl benzenes and the process to produce them.
SCHEIBEL (USPGPUB2018/0251411) teach production of linear alkyl benzenes with renewable natural oils.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights