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
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 05 January 2026 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-17, 21, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker (US 2020/0392416) in view of Foody (US 2013/0225885) and Yao (US 2015/0175908).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7-17, 21, 29, Marker teaches a process for providing renewable hydrogen 97 sourced from renewable methane produced from a hydro pyrolysis conversion process unit, wherein the feed to the conversion process is a biomass feedstock, wherein the light hydrocarbons are separated from liquid fuel range 61 and 63 (higher carbon number products) and using the renewable hydrogen as a feedstocks to produce fuel [00118-119].
Examiner further considers the Marker process to meet the limitations regarding “renewable hydrogen” and fuel having “renewable content”, as the hydrogen is produced from biomass feedstock.
In this regard, Foody teaches a similar process in which when renewable hydrogen is used to treat a hydrocarbon, the fuel product obtained contains renewable content [0115].
Therefore, it would be expected and alternatively obvious that Marker would produce the claimed fuel having renewable content, since it is produced by the same or similar hydrotreatment with renewable hydrogen.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose that the conversion process converts to liquid hydrocarbons and a low carbon number fraction comprising methane.
However, Yao teaches a process for conversion of bio ethanol by oligomerization, followed by separation to recover a light gas fraction (comprising methane) and a gasoline pool fraction [0047-0049].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Yao conversion process, in order to produce gasoline and light fractions, as a source of bio renewable methane.
Claims 4-5 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker (US 2020/0392416) in view of Foody (US 2013/0225885) and Yao (US 2015/0175908) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urade (US 2017/0009143).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 34, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Marker teaches producing deoxygenated liquid products from the biomass pyrolysis products [0118].
Marker does not explicitly disclose that the high carbon number fraction is the feed to the step the renewable hydrogen is fed to.
However, Urade teaches a similar process for pyrolysis of biomass, followed by deoxygenation [0008-0013]. The deoxygenated products are further sent to hydroprocessing to obtain an upgraded hydrocarbon product stream [0014].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Urade step to the Marker liquid hydrocarbon products, to obtain a further upgraded product. Further, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the renewable hydrogen produced by Marker/Foody, for the benefit of increasing the renewable content of the fuel produced.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marker (US 2020/0392416) in view of Foody (US 2013/0225885) and Yao (US 2015/0175908) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo (US 2011/0229404)
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose the carbon dioxide sequestration step.
However, Guo teaches a similar process for producing hydrogen from refinery gases. Guo teaches carbon dioxide sequestration is incorporated into the hydrogen production steps in order to avoid emissions into the environment [0061].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Guo carbon dioxide sequestration step, in order to reduce emissions into the environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 January 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed by the updated rejections as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
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 MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 571-272-6381. 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771