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 .
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 USC § 112 is withdrawn by the examiner in view of the amendment filed on 11/10/2025.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall et al. (US 2009/0283442 A1) in view of Li (CN103801295A).
McCall discloses a two-zone process for producing sustainable aviation fuel from a feedstock comprising an oil via sequential a hydrogenation/deoxygenation step utilizing a first catalyst and an isomerization/hydrocracking steps utilizing a second catalyst comprising SAPO-11 and Ni. The first catalyst comprises Ni on γ-alumina, with a Ni loading of 10 wt.% (example 1). McCall also discloses that the HDO product comprises paraffins (linear and branched), naphthenes (cycloalkanes), and aromatics as intermediates or final products that distributions spanning from C5 to C20+ hydrocarbons, depending on feedstock and reaction conditions (see Tables 1–2 wherein temperature of 398o C). The isomerized product contains a mixture of linear and branched paraffins and other non-linear hydrocarbons such as cycloalkanes. The isomerization zone is optimized to increase branching, and provides GC-MS product distributions showing that branched isomers are dominant. See paragraphs [0010]-[0046].
McCall does not teach that the second catalyst comprises SAPO-11 loaded with 12-30 wt.% Ni and does not explicitly teach that the ratio of the non-linear hydrocarbon to the linear hydrocarbon is from 2 to 3.
Li an isomerization catalyst teaches an SAPO-11 catalyst pretreated with citric acid and loaded with 20–30 wt. % Ni. Li discloses using 10 wt. % citric acid solution to pretreat SAPO-11 before nickel nitrate impregnation (Example 1), where the total catalyst contains 20–30 wt. % nickel. Based on standard catalyst preparation practice, this would correspond to a Ni:citric acid molar ratio in the range of 14:1 to 12:1. (See claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of McCall by utilizing the isomerization catalyst as suggested by Li to enhance catalytic performance.
McCall in view of Li, teaches a process for producing aviation-range fuels using renewable oil feedstocks and hydroisomerization catalysts, including SAPO-11-based catalysts, wherein the degree of hydrocarbon branching is controlled by known reaction parameters such as catalyst composition, metal loading, temperature, hydrogen partial pressure, and residence time. The claimed process employs similar reaction steps, catalysts, and objectives as those taught by McCall and Li. Given these similarities, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that routine adjustment of known process parameters would result in a hydrocarbon product having a non-linear to linear hydrocarbon ratio within the claimed range of 2 to 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claimed weight ratio of non-linear hydrocarbons to linear hydrocarbons ranging from 2 to 3 distinguishes the claimed invention from the cited prior art. This argument is not persuasive. McCall in view of Li, teaches a process for producing aviation-range fuels using renewable oil feedstocks and hydroisomerization catalysts, including SAPO-11-based catalysts, wherein the degree of hydrocarbon branching is controlled by known reaction parameters such as catalyst composition, metal loading, temperature, hydrogen partial pressure, and residence time. The claimed process employs similar reaction steps, catalysts, and objectives as those taught by McCall and Li. Given these similarities, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that routine adjustment of known process parameters would result in a hydrocarbon product having a non-linear to linear hydrocarbon ratio within the claimed range of 2 to 3. Absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed ratio, selection of such a ratio represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
Applicant’s argument that McCall teaches only ≤10 wt.% metal loading is moot, because:
the nickel loading limitation is supplied by Li, not McCall; and
Li’s 10–25 wt. % Ni range overlaps the claimed 12–30 wt.% range.
Thus, the claimed nickel loading does not constitute a distinguishing feature.
Applicant argues that limiting the first reaction temperature to 385–415 °C constitutes a distinguishing technical feature that leads to the claimed hydrocarbon composition and properties. This argument is not persuasive. McCall Teaches Overlapping and Encompassing Temperatures. McCall teaches hydrotreating, deoxygenation, and hydrocracking of renewable oil feeds at elevated temperatures sufficient to accomplish hydrogenation, deoxygenation, and cracking (see McCall ¶¶[0026]–[0035]). The temperatures disclosed by McCall encompass the claimed range, or at minimum render it an obvious optimization.
Conclusion
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 TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771