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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of typographical error, step f) is followed by step f) again. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuetzle et al (US 2024/0376387).
Schuetzle teaches a process for producing liquid hydrocarbons, wherein the process comprises: a. converting water into an electrolysis product stream comprising H2 using an electrolysis module powered by an amount of electricity; b. reacting CO2 with the electrolysis product stream in a reverse water gas shift module to produce a first synthesis gas mixture comprising CO and H2; c. converting the first synthesis gas mixture into a product mixture using a hydrocarbon synthesis module, wherein the product mixture comprises liquid hydrocarbons, light gases, and water, and wherein the liquid hydrocarbons comprise C5-C24 hydrocarbons, and the light gases comprise C1-C4 hydrocarbons and unreacted CO and H2; d. separating the liquid hydrocarbons from the water and the light gases; e. feeding the light gases to an electrified steam-methane-reforming reactor to produce a second synthesis gas mixture comprising CO and H2; f. feeding the second synthesis gas mixture back to the hydrocarbon synthesis module thereby producing additional liquid hydrocarbons. See claim 1.
Schuetzle teaches the catalytic hydrogenation of carbon monoxide to produce light gases, liquids, and waxes, ranging from methane to heavy hydrocarbons (C100 and higher) in addition to oxygenated hydrocarbons, is typically referred to Fischer-Tropsch (or F-T) synthesis. Traditional low temperature (<250° C.) F-T processes produce a high weight (or wt. %) F-T wax (C25 and higher) from the catalytic conversion process. These F-T waxes are then hydrocracked and/or further processed to produce diesel, naphtha, and other fractions. During this hydrocracking process, light hydrocarbons are also produced, which require additional upgrading to produce viable products and/or can be recycled to the eSMR unit for further conversion to syngas. The catalysts that are commonly used for F-T are either Cobalt (Co) based, or Iron (Fe) based catalysts are also active for the water gas shift (WGS) reaction that results in the conversion of feed carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide and conversion in the eSMR.
The primary difference is that Schuetzle does not explicitly articulate the specific mechanical sequence of dividing the initial syncrude into a plurality of fractions prior to hydrogenation, feeding a portion onto the reactor, and recovering a product matching the exact boiling point range of the initial “first fraction.” Instead, Schuetzle focuses on separating liquid hydrocarbons from gases and hydrocracking the remaining heavy wax residue.
Statement of obviousness: It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Schuetzle to include fractionating the initial syncrude into a plurality of fractions prior to hydrogenation, and subsequently recovering a product matching the boiling point of the first fraction. Fractional distillation of Fischer-Tropsch syncrude into distinct boiling point cuts prior to downstream upgrading is a standard, routine practice in chemical engineering. A skilled artisan would naturally isolate a high-value fuel cut (the first fraction) and hydrocracked the remaining heavy components to shift their boiling points downward, recovering additional product within that exact target range to routinely optimize Schuetzle’s process and maximize high-market-value synthetic fuel yields.
Regarding claim 2, Schuetzle teaches a process can include an electrolysis module that uses electrical power to convert water into an electrolysis product stream comprising H2 [0019].
Regarding claim 3, Schuetzle teaches capturing CO2 for utilization as described here often involves separating the carbon dioxide from a flue gas stream or another stream where the carbon dioxide is not the major component. Some CO2 sources are already relatively pure and can be used with only minor treatment (which may include gas compression) in the processes described herein [0054].
Regarding claim 4, Schuetzle teaches the process can include a reverse water gas shift module that reacts CO2 with the electrolysis product stream to produce a synthesis gas mixture comprising CO and water [0019].
Regarding claim 5, Schuetzle teaches the gas mixture produced by the LFP system is cooled via air coolers and sent to a three-phase separator. Condensed water is knocked out and sent to water treatment prior to reuse. The light gases produced in the LFP (tail gas) are separated in, with one stream being recycled to the LFP and the other sent to the steam-methane reformer (eSMR) for production of syngas 0082].
Regarding claim 6, Schuetzle teaches the productivity of the process can be improved by taking the tail gas 124 from the liquid fuel production module to an eSMR reforming module 126 to be optionally reacted with oxygen 108 to produce additional syngas feedstock 128 for the liquid fuel production module [0032].
Regarding claim 7, Schuetzle discloses the middle distillate products comprising diesel, kerosene and jet fuel. The higher the higher hydrocarbons and carbon oxides in the stream may require the use of a pre-reformer instead of directly being used in as eSMR hydrocarbon feed [0092].
Regarding claim 8, Schuetzle does not explicitly use the structural terminology of recovering a fraction having a lower boiling point than the first fraction from either the initial plurality of fractions [step h] or from the post-hydrogenation third product [step i]. Instead, Schuetzle describes this generally as separating and collecting light gases (C1-c4) and generating lighter hydrocarbons during the cracking of heavy wax.
Statement of obviousness: It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Schuetzle to explicitly isolate and recover fractions having a lower boiling point that the target fuel fraction (the first fraction) from either the initial syncrude separation, the downstream hydrocracked product, or combination thereof. Fractional distillation separated a complex hydrocarbon mixture (like Fischer-Tropsch syncrude or hydrocracked product)into sequential boiling point ranges. If a PHOSITA isolate a medium boiling target fuel like diesel or jet fuel (the first fraction) the physical operation of a distillation column automatically splits out and isolates lighter, lower boiling components (such as naphtha or light petroleum gases) as separate fractions.
Furthermore, Schuetzle explicitly notes that the hydrocracking reaction generates light hydrocarbons that must be managed. Isolating these lighter, lower boiling fractions-either to market them as a secondary product (like naphtha) or to recycle them to optimize system efficiency is a predictable application of routine refining principles. A skilled artisan would execute these separation steps with a reasonable expectation of success to maximize product purity and commercial flexibility.
Regarding claim 9, Schuetzle teaches F-T processes produce a high weight (or wt. %) F-T wax (C25 and higher) from the catalytic conversion process. These F-T waxes are then hydrocracked and/or further processed to produce diesel, naphtha, and other fractions. During this hydrocracking process, light hydrocarbons are also produced, which require additional upgrading to produce viable products and/or can be recycled to the eSMR unit for further conversion to syngas [0074].
Regarding claims 10-12, Schuetzle does not explicitly disclose directing the lighter “first fraction” into a hydrodewaxing (HDW) reaction and a higher boiling fraction (heavier than the first fraction) into a hydrocracking (HCK) reaction. Instead, Schuetzle describes downstream processing globally as “hydrocracking and/or processing” the wax and heavier fractions to generate targeted commercial fuel cuts.
Statement of obviousness: it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Schuetzle by separating the syncrude into fractions and routing the first fraction into an HDW reaction, while simultaneously routing the heavier, higher boiling fraction into an HCK reaction. Combining these two classic refining steps represents the logical application of known chemical engineering techniques to Schuetzle’s product stream to achieve highly predictable properties.
Regarding claim 13, Schuetzle teaches separating desired products from stream using cooling, condensation, or distillation [0080]. Applying these standard method to remove impurities from fractionated streams constitute a routine optimization of the process with predictable results, as separation techniques for removing undesired components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koyama et al (US 2011/0219676 A1).
Claims 14-15 are considered as a product-by-process claims:
PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer.
Koyama discloses an aviation fuel base oil is used alone as an aviation fuel but may be mixed with an aviation fuel base oil produced by refining crude oil in the form of an aviation fuel composition. Examples of the aviation fuel base oil produced by refining crude oil include aviation fuel fractions produced through a general petroleum refining process and a synthetic fuel base oil produced through a Fischer-Tropsch reaction or the like using synthetic gas composed of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This synthetic fuel base oil is characterized in that it does not contain almost no aromatic but contains a saturated hydrocarbon as the main component and has a high smoke point. No particular limitation is imposed on the method of producing the synthetic gas. Any conventional method may be used [0059].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAFAR F PARSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM-6:30PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/JAFAR F PARSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights