DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 and 11 are amended. Claims 13 and 14 are new.
The amendments to the Drawings overcome the previous objections. The amendments to claims 1, 2, and 8 overcome the claim objections and some of the 112(b) rejections, while the amendments to claims 4 and 10 create new 112(b) issues, as recited below.
The Examiner contacted Applicant’s representative on 28 April 2026 to propose an amendment to incorporate the specific Ru and ZrO2 containing catalyst of new claims 13 and 14 into the independent claims 1 and 8, with some other minor changes to dependent claims, in order to place the application in condition for allowance. However, Applicant’s representative respectfully declined the proposed amendment and requested an Office Action, which is provided herein.
Claims 1-14 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the first paragraph on page 9 of the Remarks that Fichtl does not teach or suggest linear selective hydrocracking because Fichtl teaches producing fuels, not linear alkyl benzenes, and fuels do not require linear selective cracking.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Fichtl does teach forming fuels in an embodiment including isomerization and cracking (paragraph [0027]), Fichtl also states “In another embodiment…cracking can be conducted to crack normal paraffins that have higher chain lengths into paraffins that have lower carbon chain lengths, such as C9 to C15 normal paraffins.” (paragraph [0026]). Fichtl also explicitly teaches using normal paraffins from the deoxygenation for making linear alkyl benzenes (paragraph [0029]). Thus, because Fichtl explicitly desires making normal paraffins from the cracking in a distinct embodiment from the embodiment for making fuels, and also teaches using normal paraffins to make linear alkyl benzenes, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the cracking of Fichtl is linear selective cracking, as claimed.
Applicant also argues in the first paragraph on page 9 of the Remarks that the cracking catalyst of Fichtl can contain acid functionality because the catalyst is not necessarily linear selective, whereas linear selective cracking catalysts contain minimal acid functionality.
In response, the claims do not require any limitations on the acid functionality of the claims, and Applicant has not provided any evidence that the acid functionality is critical to the linear selectivity of the catalyst. The instant specification has a few preferred catalysts which include metals on alumina supports (paragraph [0014]). The catalyst options of Fichtl include metals on alumina supports (paragraph [0027]). Thus, because Fichtl teaches cracking of heavy normal paraffins to produce lighter normal paraffins (paragraph [0026]) over similar catalysts (paragraph [0027]), the catalyst used in the cracking of Fichtl is understood to be a linear selective catalyst, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues in the second paragraph on page 9 of the Remarks that Fichtl does not specifically teach separating isoparaffins from normal paraffins in the cracking product because the product is used for fuels, which do not require separation.
In response, as noted above, Fichtl teaches fuels as a different embodiment from cracking to produce normal paraffins (paragraph [0026]), and also teaches using normal paraffins to make linear alkyl benzenes (paragraph [0029]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would continue to find it obvious to separate the normal paraffins from the isoparaffins in the cracking product in order to use the normal paraffins to make linear alkyl benzenes, as taught by Fichtl and as claimed.
Applicant argues in the third paragraph on page 9 of the Remarks that Fichtl does not teach the linear selective cracking be in a separate unit, as claimed.
In response, Fichtl states that a portion or all of the deoxygenation product can be sent to the cracking step (paragraph [0026]). The claims merely require that the unit for selective cracking be separate, which is understood as being separate from the deoxygenation step and/or the separating step, as these are the only steps required to come before the cracking step in claim 1. As Sohn teaches separation of the C14+ stream and Fichtl teaches that all or a portion of the deoxygenation effluent can be sent to the cracking, the cracking of Fichtl is understood as taking place in a separate reactor from the deoxygenation and separation, as claimed.
Applicant notes on pages 9-10 of the Remarks that Riley does not remedy the deficiencies of Sohn and Fichtl.
In response, the Examiner agrees that Riley does not address the linear selective cracking, because Riley is used for the heat exchange step only. Thus, the argument is moot.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites in line 7 “the presence”. This should be “a presence” for antecedent basis purposes.
Also with regard to claim 1, the claim recites in the line 21 “the alkylbenzene product”. This should be “the linear alkylbenzene product” for proper antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 8, the claim recites in line 9 “the presence”. This should be “a presence” for antecedent basis purposes.
Also with regard to claim 8, the claim recites in the line 27 “the alkylbenzene product”. This should be “the linear alkylbenzene product” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claims 4, 10, 13, and 14 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 claims 4 and 10, the claims each recite “wherein the linear selective cracking catalyst comprises ruthenium, platinum, nickel supported catalyst or mixtures thereof”. It is unclear which metals are supported and which parts are included in the recitation of “mixtures thereof” and the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification discloses multiple catalysts comprising a single metal and single support, including Ru/ZrO2, Pt-Al2O3, Ni-alumina, and NiOx/clay. Thus, it appears that the claim is trying to recite that the catalyst can comprise any one of the metals on a support, or a mixture of catalysts, each comprising a metal on a support. The Examiner suggests “wherein the linear selective cracking catalyst comprises a ruthenium-, platinum-, or nickel-supported catalyst, or mixtures thereof.”
With regard to claims 13 and 14, the claims recite that the linear selective catalyst comprises “Ru/ZrO2”. The use of the “/” causes a lack of clarity, because “/” is typically used to mean “and/or”, but it is clear from the instant specification that the catalyst is intended to comprise both Ru and ZrO2 (paragraph [0022]). Thus, claims 13 and 14 are indefinite.
For purposes of examination, as noted above, it is clear from the instant specification that the catalyst comprises both Ru and ZrO2 (paragraph [0022]). The Examiner suggests the wording “Ru-ZrO2” would fix the issue and match the options of Pt-Al2O3 and Ni-alumina also in paragraph [0022] of the instant specification.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn et al. (US 2015/0361012, cited on IDS of 6/18/2024) in view of Fichtl et al. (US 2014/0163278) and Riley et al. (US 2016/0009612).
With regard to claims 1, 2, and 7, Sohn teaches a method for linear alkylbenzenes (paragraph [0001]) comprising the following steps (Figures 1, 2, and 4 and corresponding paragraphs [0017]-[0039]):
a) deoxygenating a natural oil feedstream to produce paraffin stream 115b (paragraph [0039], Figure 4) where the natural oil is derived from plant oils and includes triglyceride-containing oils (instant claim 7) (paragraph [0019]).
b) combining the paraffin stream 115b with a paraffin stream from kerosene separator 118 to form a stream 116c which is passed to separator 122, which separates the stream as in Figure 1 (paragraph [0039]) and produces a heavy paraffin fraction 124 comprising C14+ paraffins and a light paraffin fraction 126 comprising “desired paraffins” (paragraph [0022]). Sohn further teaches that the heavy paraffins are removed from the system in stream 124a (paragraph [0039]).
c) removing contaminants from the light paraffin fraction 126 in a purification stage (not shown in the Figures), where the contaminants include oxygenates, nitrogen, and sulfur (instant claim 2) (paragraph [0024]).
d) dehydrogenating the purified paraffin stream 126 to produce a stream 32 comprising mono-olefins, di-olefins, and aromatics (paragraphs [0025]-[0026], Figure 2) and separating a hydrogen stream (paragraph [0026]).
e) selectively hydrogenating the stream 32 to remove diolefins and produce a stream 40 comprising additional mono-olefins, where stream 40 is then separated into an aromatic stream and a mono-olefins stream 52 (paragraph [0028], Figure 2).
f) alkylating benzene with the mono-olefins stream 52 to produce a product comprising alkylbenzenes and benzene (paragraphs [0029]-[0030], Figure 2).
g) recovering the alkylbenzenes in stream 12 (paragraph [0033], Figure 2).
Sohn fails to teach i) that the light paraffin fraction 126 comprises specifically C9-C14 paraffins; ii) linear selective cracking of the C14+ heavy paraffins stream 124; iii) recycling at least a portion of the hydrogen to the cracking step; or iv) heat exchanging the first stream with the dehydrogenated stream.
With regard to the light paraffin fraction 126 contents i), Sohn teaches above the light paraffin stream comprises “desired paraffins” and also that the paraffin stream is dehydrogenated to produce mono-olefins (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]). Sohn further teaches that a desirable olefin fraction for linear alkylbenzenes is selected to have a chain length of CL to CU, where L is an integer from 4 to 31 and U is an integer from 5 to 32 (paragraph [0035]). It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the paraffins are primarily dehydrogenated to olefins having the same carbon chain length. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a desirable chain length of the olefins of C9 to C14, such that the paraffins would also have a desired chain length of C9 to C14, as claimed, because Sohn teaches dehydrogenating paraffins to olefins having a desired chain length, Sohn teaches the desired olefin chain length is in the range of C4 to C32, and one of ordinary skill in the art is able to select any integer within the range of Sohn without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success because Sohn teaches that any length within the range is suitable (paragraph [0035]).
With regard to the linear selective cracking ii), Fichtl teaches a method for producing normal paraffins having a desired chain length of C9 to C15 (paragraphs [0001] and [0004]). Fichtl teaches the process comprises functionalization of triglycerides by adding an OH group (paragraph [0005]), deoxygenation of the functionalized triglycerides to produce normal paraffins having the desired C9 to C15 chain length as well as some higher chain lengths (paragraph [0022]), and cracking the paraffins to convert the higher chain lengths into C9 to C15 normal paraffins (selective linear cracking) (paragraph [0026]). Fichtl also teaches that the process of cracking produces some isoparaffins (paragraph [0026]), and that the desired C9-C15 normal paraffins are used to produce linear alkylbenzenes (paragraph [0029]). Fichtl does not specifically teach separating the isoparaffins from the cracked products to form a stream comprising the normal paraffins and a stream comprising the isoparaffins. However, because Fichtl teaches using the normal paraffins stream in linear alkylbenzene synthesis (paragraph [0029]), one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to separate the non-linear isoparaffins from the normal paraffins, in order to produce the desired linear alkylbenzenes from only the normal paraffins. Fichtl additionally teaches that the cracking can be done with less severe conditions which avoid the severe cracking conditions previously used to produce C9 to C15 paraffins (paragraph [0026]) where the severe conditions degrade the yield by cracking the desirable C9 to C15 paraffins (paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to crack the C14+ paraffin stream of Sohn to produce additional C9 to C14 normal paraffins, as claimed, because Sohn and Fichtl each teach deoxygenation of triglyceride based feeds to produce normal paraffins having 9 to 14 carbon atoms along with some higher chain length paraffins, Sohn teaches separating and removing the C14+ heavy paraffin stream from the system, and Fichtl teaches that linear selective cracking of normal paraffins having longer chain lengths produces additional desirable C9 to C15 normal paraffins which are used in linear alkylbenzene synthesis, and avoids severe cracking conditions which decrease the yield of the desired normal paraffins in the C9 to C15 range (paragraph [0026]).
With regard to the hydrogen recycling iii), Fichtl teaches that the cracking step comprises hydrogen (paragraph [0027]). While Sohn in view of Fichtl does not specifically teach that the hydrogen stream separated from the dehydrogenated effluent can be recycled to the cracking step, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to recycle at least a portion of the hydrogen to the cracking step, because Sohn teaches the dehydrogenation produces hydrogen, Fichtl teaches the use of hydrogen in the cracking step, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that recycling the hydrogen within the process would make the process more economic by saving on the purchase of new hydrogen.
With regard to the heat exchanging iv), Riley teaches a process for benzene alkylation to produce alkylbenzenes (paragraph [0006]). Riley teaches that the process comprises a step of dehydrogenating normal paraffins to produce mono-olefins (paragraphs [0018]-[0019]), followed by passing the dehydrogenation effluent through a heat exchanger to exchange heat with the incoming feed (paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of heat exchange of the dehydrogenated stream with the first stream, as claimed, because each of Sohn and Riley teaches dehydrogenation of a normal paraffin stream to produce mono-olefins for alkylation to linear alkylbenzenes, it is well known in the art that heat integration is desirable for a process, and Riley teaches that the heat exchange of dehydrogenation effluent with dehydrogenation feed is known and suitable for dehydrogenation of normal paraffins to mono-olefins for alkylation (paragraph [0019]).
With regard to claim 3, Sohn in view of Fichtl fails to teach removing contaminants from the product of the linear selective cracking by combining the C9 to C14 products of the cracking with the C9 to C14 products of the deoxygenation. However, Sohn in view of Fichtl teaches producing the C9 to C14 normal paraffin stream from cracking the C14+ heavy paraffin stream, and Sohn teaches that the paraffin stream should be purified before dehydrogenation to produce olefins (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the C9 to C14 paraffin stream from deoxygenation and the C9 to C15 paraffin stream from cracking and perform the purification on both streams, because Fichtl teaches producing additional C9 to C14 paraffins which are useful in the process of Sohn, and Sohn teaches that such paraffins should be purified before dehydrogenation (paragraph [0024]).
With regard to claim 4, Fichtl teaches that the cracking catalyst is platinum on a support (paragraph [0027]).
With regard to claim 5, Fichtl teaches that the cracking conditions include a temperature of 150-360°C and a pressure of 1034 kPa to 4726 kPa (1.03 MPa to 4.73 MPa) (paragraph [0028]). These overlap the ranges of 290-455°C and 2.8 to 17.5 MPa of instant claim 5, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 6, Sohn in view of Fichtl teaches that the olefins produced and used in the alkylation process can include C9 to C14 olefins (see ii) above). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the alkylbenzenes produced include C9 to C14 and C10 to C13 chains, respectively, as claimed.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, Sohn teaches a method for linear alkylbenzenes (paragraph [0001]) comprising the following steps (Figures, 1, 2, and 4 and corresponding paragraphs [0017]-[0039]):
a) deoxygenating a natural oil feedstream to produce paraffin stream 115b (paragraph [0039], Figure 4) where the natural oil is derived from plant oils and includes triglyceride-containing oils (paragraph [0019]).
b) combining the paraffin stream 115b with a paraffin stream from kerosene separator 118 to form a stream 116c which is passed to separator 122, which separates the stream as in Figure 1 (paragraph [0039]) and produces a heavy paraffin fraction 124 comprising C14+ paraffins and a light paraffin fraction 126 comprising “desired paraffins” (paragraph [0022]). Sohn further teaches that the heavy paraffins are removed from the system in stream 124a (paragraph [0039]).
c) removing contaminants from the stream 126 in a purification stage (not shown in the Figures), where the contaminants include oxygenates, nitrogen, and sulfur (paragraph [0024]).
d) dehydrogenating the purified paraffin stream 126 to produce a stream 32 comprising mono-olefins, di-olefins, and aromatics (paragraphs [0025]-[0026], Figure 2) and separating a hydrogen stream (paragraph [0026]).
e) selectively hydrogenating the stream 32 to remove diolefins and produce a stream 40 comprising additional mono-olefins, where stream 40 is then separated into an aromatic stream and a mono-olefins stream 52 (paragraph [0028], Figure 2).
f) alkylating benzene with the mono-olefins stream 52 to produce a product comprising alkylbenzenes and benzene (paragraphs [0029]-[0030], Figure 2).
g) recovering the alkylbenzenes in stream 12 (paragraph [0033], Figure 2).
Sohn fails to teach i) that the light paraffin fraction 126 comprises specifically C9-C14 paraffins; ii) linear selective cracking of the C14+ heavy paraffins stream 124; iii) removing contaminants from the product of the linear selective cracking by combining the C9 to C14 products of the cracking with the C9 to C14 products of the deoxygenation (instant claim 9); iv) recycling at least a portion of the hydrogen to the cracking step; or v) heat exchanging the first stream with the dehydrogenated stream.
With regard to the light paraffin fraction 126 contents i), Sohn teaches above the light paraffin stream comprises “desired paraffins” and also that the paraffin stream is dehydrogenated to produce mono-olefins (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]). Sohn further teaches that a desirable olefin fraction for linear alkylbenzenes is selected to have a chain length of CL to CU, where L is an integer from 4 to 31 and U is an integer from 5 to 32 (paragraph [0035]). It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the paraffins are primarily dehydrogenated to olefins having the same carbon chain length. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a desirable chain length of the olefins of C9 to C14, such that the paraffins would also have a desired chain length of C9 to C14, as claimed, because Sohn teaches dehydrogenating paraffins to olefins having a desired chain length, Sohn teaches the desired olefin chain length is in the range of C4 to C32, and one of ordinary skill in the art is able to select any integer within the range of Sohn without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success because Sohn teaches that any length within the range is suitable (paragraph [0035]).
With regard to the linear selective cracking ii), Fichtl teaches a method for producing normal paraffins having a desired chain length of C9 to C15 (paragraphs [0001] and [0004]). Fichtl teaches the process comprises functionalization of triglycerides by adding an OH group (paragraph [0005]), deoxygenation of the functionalized triglycerides to produce normal paraffins having the desired C9 to C15 chain length as well as some higher chain lengths (paragraph [0022]), and cracking the paraffins to convert the higher chain lengths into C9 to C15 normal paraffins (selective linear cracking) (paragraph [0026]). Fichtl also teaches that the process of cracking produces some isoparaffins (paragraph [0026]), and that the desired C9-C15 normal paraffins are used to produce linear alkylbenzenes (paragraph [0029]). Fichtl does not specifically teach separating the isoparaffins from the cracked products to form a stream comprising the normal paraffins and a stream comprising the isoparaffins. However, because Fichtl teaches using the normal paraffins stream in linear alkylbenzene synthesis (paragraph [0029]), one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to separate the non-linear isoparaffins from the normal paraffins, in order to produce the desired linear alkylbenzenes from only the normal paraffins. Fichtl additionally teaches that the cracking can be done with less severe conditions which avoid the severe cracking conditions previously used to produce C9 to C15 paraffins (paragraph [0026]) where the severe conditions degrade the yield by cracking the desirable C9 to C15 paraffins (paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to crack the C14+ paraffin stream of Sohn to produce additional C9 to C14 normal paraffins, as claimed, because Sohn and Fichtl each teach deoxygenation of triglyceride based feeds to produce normal paraffins having 9 to 14 carbon atoms along with some higher chain length paraffins, Sohn teaches separating and removing the C14+ heavy paraffin stream from the system, and Fichtl teaches that linear selective cracking of normal paraffins having longer chain lengths produces additional desirable C9 to C15 normal paraffins which are used in linear alkylbenzene synthesis, and avoids severe cracking conditions which decrease the yield of the desired normal paraffins in the C9 to C15 range (paragraph [0026]).
With regard to the removing contaminants iii), Sohn in view of Fichtl teaches producing the C9 to C14 normal paraffin stream from cracking the C14+ heavy paraffin stream, and Sohn teaches that the paraffin stream should be purified before dehydrogenation to produce olefins (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the C9 to C14 paraffin stream from deoxygenation and the C9 to C15 paraffin stream from cracking and perform the purification (instant claim 9), because Fichtl teaches producing additional C9 to C14 paraffins which are useful in the process of Sohn, and Sohn teaches that such paraffins should be purified before dehydrogenation (paragraph [0024]).
With regard to the hydrogen recycling iv), Fichtl teaches that the cracking step comprises hydrogen (paragraph [0027]). While Sohn in view of Fichtl does not specifically teach that the hydrogen stream separated from the dehydrogenated effluent can be recycled to the cracking step, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to recycle at least a portion of the hydrogen to the cracking step, because Sohn teaches the dehydrogenation produces hydrogen, Fichtl teaches the use of hydrogen in the cracking step, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that recycling the hydrogen within the process would make the process more economic by saving on the purchase of new hydrogen.
With regard to the heat exchange v), Riley teaches a process for benzene alkylation to produce alkylbenzenes (paragraph [0006]). Riley teaches that the process comprises a step of dehydrogenating normal paraffins to produce mono-olefins (paragraphs [0018]-[0019]), followed by passing the dehydrogenation effluent through a heat exchanger to exchange heat with the incoming feed (paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of heat exchange of the dehydrogenated stream with the first stream, as claimed, because each of Sohn and Riley teaches dehydrogenation of a normal paraffin stream to produce mono-olefins for alkylation to linear alkylbenzenes, it is well known in the art that heat integration is desirable for a process, and Riley teaches that the heat exchange of dehydrogenation effluent with dehydrogenation feed is known and suitable for dehydrogenation of normal paraffins to mono-olefins for alkylation (paragraph [0019]).
With regard to claim 10, Fichtl teaches that the cracking catalyst is platinum on a support (paragraph [0027]).
With regard to claim 11, Fichtl teaches that the cracking conditions include a temperature of 150-360°C and a pressure of 1034 kPa to 4726 kPa (1.03 MPa to 4.73 MPa) (paragraph [0028]). These overlap the ranges of 290-455°C and 2.8 to 17.5 MPa of instant claim 11, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 12, Sohn in view of Fichtl teaches that the olefins produced and used in the alkylation process can include C9 to C14 olefins (see ii) above). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the alkylbenzenes produced include C9 to C14 and C10 to C13 chains, respectively, as claimed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 12-15, 19, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/500,161 in view of Riley et al. (US 2016/0009612).
Instant claims 1 and 8 and claims 1 and 12 of Application 18/500,161 each recite a method comprising: deoxygenating a feed comprising triglycerides to form a normal paraffin stream; separating the paraffin stream into a C14+ stream and a C9-C14 stream; linear selective cracking of the C14+ stream to form a first stream comprising normal C9-C14 paraffins and a second stream comprising isoparaffins; dehydrogenating the first stream to produce a stream comprising mono-olefins and di-olefins; selectively hydrogenating the di-olefins; alkylating benzene with the mono-olefins, and isolating the alkylbenzenes produced in the alkylating step.
The differences are i) Instant claims 1 and 8 each further recite separating hydrogen from the dehydrogenation step and recycling the hydrogen to the linear cracking and ii) Instant claims 1 and 8 each further recite heat exchange.
With regard to i), Application 18/500,161 recites the same dehydrogenation step, and it is understood that dehydrogenation produces hydrogen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to separate and recycle the hydrogen to the linear cracking step, because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that recycling the hydrogen within the process would make the process more economic by saving on the purchase of new hydrogen.
With regard to ii), Riley teaches a process for benzene alkylation to produce alkylbenzenes (paragraph [0006]). Riley teaches that the process comprises a step of dehydrogenating normal paraffins to produce mono-olefins (paragraphs [0018]-[0019]), followed by passing the dehydrogenation effluent through a heat exchanger to exchange heat with the incoming feed (paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of heat exchange of the dehydrogenated stream with the first stream, as claimed, because each of Sohn and Riley teaches dehydrogenation of a normal paraffin stream to produce mono-olefins for alkylation to linear alkylbenzenes, it is well known in the art that heat integration is desirable for a process to save money on fuel, and Riley teaches that the heat exchange of dehydrogenation effluent with dehydrogenation feed is known and suitable for heating the feed to dehydrogenation of normal paraffins to mono-olefins for alkylation (paragraph [0019]).
Instant dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13 and dependent claims 1-4, 6, 13-15, 19, and 20 of Application 18/500,161 recite the limitations of: purifying the C9-C14 paraffin stream from deoxygenation, combining the first stream and C9-C14 stream before purification; a platinum, ruthenium, or nickel cracking catalyst; cracking conditions; an alkylbenzene product having C9-C14 chains; and a linear selective cracking catalyst which is Ru on ZrO2, and thus the claims of 18/500,161 render obvious and unpatentable the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Girgis et al. (US 2023/0141033) teaches selective cracking of C12+ normal paraffins to C4-C13 normal paraffins over a catalyst comprising a Group VIIIA metal on zeolite (paragraphs [0025], [0028], and [0064]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights