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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/18/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quignard (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2013/0324775).
In paragraph 1 Quignard discloses a process for the production of aromatic compounds starting from liquids obtained from biomass, in particular bio-oil obtained from the pyrolysis of biomass. In paragraph 28 Quignard discloses that the biomass can be obtained from various plants, meeting the limitations of the vegetable biomass of claim 1. In paragraph 141 and Figure 1, Quignard discloses that the method comprises combining bio-oil (pyrolysis oil) obtained from the biomass with an organic phase obtained from the hydroforming stage, meeting the limitations of the non-hydrotreated vegetable biomass and the concentrated hydrotreated vegetable biomass of claim 1, with hydrogen in a hydroreforming zone. In paragraph 69 Quignard discloses that the first hydroreforming stage is carried out at a temperature of 250 to 450° C and a pressure of 3400 to 27600 kPa (3.4 to 27.6 MPa), within the ranges recited in claim 1. Quignard therefore meets the limitations of step (a) of claim 1.
In paragraphs 46-48 and 141 and Figure 1 Quignard further discloses that the hydrogenated mixture obtained from the hydroreforming step is separated into a gas phase and a liquid phase where the liquid phase is separated into an aqueous phase and an organic phase (see 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Figure 1). In paragraphs 147-148 Quignard indicates that the hydrogenated mixture is cooled (“The reactor is then quickly cooled and brought to ambient temperature”) prior to separation, meeting the limitations of step (b) of amended claim 1. In paragraph 53 Quignard discloses that the organic phase preferably contains less than 2% by weight of water. Some of the organic phase is recycled and mixed with the bio-oil, as discussed above, and some is used in downstream processing. The separation step therefore meets the limitations of steps (c) and (d) of amended claim 1, and recycling the organic phase, mixing it with the bio-oil, and performing the hydroreforming step on the mixture meets the limitations of step (e) of amended claim 1, as well as step (f) when the process is run continuously. The limitations of amended claim 1 are therefore met by Quignard.
The aromatic compounds of Quignard are chemicals, meeting the limitations of claim 3. In example 2 (paragraphs 145-156) Quignard discloses that the mass ratio of the concentrated hydrotreated vegetable biomass (organic phase) to non-hydrotreated vegetable biomass (bio-oil) is 1:3, within the range recited in claim 4, and the hydroreforming can be varied out at a starting pressure of 4830 kPa (4.83 MPa) to 13900 kPa (13.9 MPa), within the range recited in claim 5. As the starting bio-oil is a pyrolysis oil, it meets the limitations of claim 7, while the recycled organic phase meets the limitations of claim 6. As discussed above, the organic phase preferably contains less than 2% by weight of water, within the range recited in claim 8. In paragraph 28 Quignard discloses that the bio-oils can be obtained from lignocellulosic materials, which contain the materials recited in claim 9. The concentrated organic phase discussed above is obtained by separation of an aqueous phase, meeting the limitations of the separation of claim 10.
In light of the above, amended claims 1 and 3-10 are anticipated by Quignard.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Quignard does not teach or render obvious the cooling step (b) of amended claim 1 since the separated liquid is allegedly obtained between the third and fourth hydrotreatment steps of claim 1, which are both performed at high temperature. However, as discussed in the rejection, the step corresponding to the separation of step (c) of claim 1 is performed after the hydroreforming step in the separator 5 of Figure 1 of Quignard, while the separation applicant is referring to is performed in the pipe 19 of Figure 1 of Quignard. See paragraph 141 of Quignard for a discussion of the elements of Figure 1. As stated in the rejection, Quignard discloses in paragraphs 147-148 that the reactor in which the hydroreforming step is performed is cooled and brought to ambient temperature, indicating that the product of the hydroreforming step is cooled before it is passed to the separator, as recited in amended claim 1. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
Applicant also argues that subjecting a feedstock comprising already hydrotreated vegetable mass provides “several advantages” to the final product, pointing to pages 4-5 of the specification. In order to successfully rebut a prima facie case of obviousness, applicant must demonstrate unexpected results commensurate in scope by providing data containing a comparison with the closest prior art. See MPEP 716.02 for a discussion of the requirements involved in a showing of unexpected results. In this case, applicant has not provided the necessary data and comparison with the closest prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
