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 .
The amendments filed 12/8/25 overcome the rejection set forth under 35 USC 112(b) in the office action mailed 12/8/25, but do not overcome the rejection set forth under 35 USC 102, which is maintained below. The discussion of the rejection has been updated to reflect the claim amendments.
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 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 (b) and (c) 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 (d) of amended claim 1, as well as step (e) 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 12/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Quignard does not disclose a concentrating step for the liquid. However, as discussed in the rejection, Quignard discloses separating out an aqueous phase, leaving a concentrated organic phase having a water content of less than 5%. If applicant intends for the concentrating step to be performed separately from the separation of the gas phase and liquid phase, the examiner recommends that this this be recited explicitly in the claim, for example by splitting step (b) of the claimed method into a step (b1) of separating the gas phase and liquid phase and a step (b2) of concentrating. The claim as currently recited implies that the separating and concentrating steps can be performed concurrently as both are part of step (b).
Applicant also alleges that subsequent hydrogenation steps of Quignard are performed in the absence of concentrated hydrogenated vegetable biomass. However, as discussed in the rejection, a portion of the organic phase 8 of Quignard (which is concentrated, as discussed above), is recycled and mixed with the bio-oil before passing the mixture back to the hydrotreatment reactor 2, meeting the limitations of steps (c), (d), and (e) of amended claim 1. The hydrotreatment reactors 9 and 15 of Quignard are part of the downstream processing recited in step (c) of claim 1; claim 1 does not require any specific downstream processing steps, and the open-ended “comprises” language in the preamble to claim 1 allows for the method to contain additional unrecited steps.
Conclusion
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 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