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 .
Office Action Summary
This is the initial office action for application 18/640458 filed 04/19/2024.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSSON et al. (USPGPUB 2021/0395621) as evidenced by HAYASAKA et al. (USPGPUB 2012/0216449A1).
ANDERSSON et al. teach a method for producing aviation fuel. The method produces jet fuel from a renewable feedstock.
Regarding claim 1, the process is taught in paragraph 13 in which a feedstock to contact a material catalytically active in hydrodeoxygenation under hydrotreating conditions under hydrotreating conditions to provide a hydrodeoxygenated intermediate product.
An amount of the hydrodeoxygenated intermediate product is directed to contact a material catalytically active in hydrocracking conditions to provide a hydrocracked intermediate product. The hydrocracked intermediate product is separated into a vapor fraction and a liquid fraction.
At least a portion of the liquid fraction of the hydrocracked intermediate product is directed to contact a material catalytically active in isomerization to provide an isomerized intermediate product. The isomerized intermediate product is fractionated with one fraction being suitable for use as a jet fuel. (preparing renewable feedstocks and introducing the renewable feedstocks as a reactant into a hydroprocessing reaction in the presence of a catalyst)
The renewable feedstock may be considered the initial feedstock or the hydrocracked intermediate product.
The isomerization step is taught in paragraph 38 to be in the presence of hydrogen and consumes hydrogen.
The method catalytically active in isomerization is taught in paragraph 37 to comprise an active metal. Preferred isomerization catalysts include ZSM-48.
ZSM-48 inherently is a one-dimensional ten-ring zeolite.
HAYASAKA et al., for example recognizes in paragraph 18 that ZSM-48 is a 1-dimensional, 10-member ring aluminosilicate (zeolte).
ANDERSSON et al. teach in paragraph 14 that the jet fuel has a final boiling point of less than 300°C.
ANDERSSON et al. teach in Table 1 with an example 2 with fractions boiling under 300°C to be 48%.
Given that the amount of fractions boiling under 300°C is under 48%, the conversion of fractions having boiling points greater than 300°C to fractions boiling under 300°C would have to be 50% or less.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the liquid fraction of the hydrocracked intermediate product may be considered the renewable feedstock as defined by the current specification.
The liquid fraction of the hydrocracked intermediate product is taught in paragraph 35 to comprise n-paraffins. ANDERSSON et al. further teach in paragraph 60 that the intermediate product after hydrotreatment is dominated by C16 and C18 alkanes.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust conditions to produce greater than 50% paraffins given that ANDERSSON et al. teach producing a product that is dominated with alkanes.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, ANDERSSON et al. teach both hydrocracking and isomerization with hydrogen. (hydrocracking and hydroisomerization)
Additionally, the isomerization step with hydrogen may be considered the hydroprocessing reaction.
Given that the isomerization step with hydrogen is performed with the catalyst taught in the present specification and under conditions that are taught in the present specification, some amount of hydrocracking would also be expected to occur in the hydroisomerization step.
Regarding claim 4, ANDERSSON et al. teach in paragraph 37 that the material catalytically active in isomerization is taught to comprise one or more metals such as noble metals like platinum.
Regarding claim 5, ANDERSSON et al. teach in paragraph 37 that the material may be on an acidic support with topology such as AEL and TON.
Regarding claim 7, ANDERSSON et al. teach in paragraphs 56, 59-61 and Table 1 in which the product is fractionated into a naphtha fraction, a jet fuel fraction and a diesel fuel fraction. The jet fuel fraction has a boiling point range in between the naphtha fraction and the diesel fuel fraction.
Regarding claim 8, ANDERSSON et al. teach in paragraphs 69-62 and Table 1 examples in which the boiling point of the hydrodeoxygenated intermediate product comprises 17 wt% of native jet and the final product comprises 52 wt% jet yield and 8 wt% naphtha. The ratio of the change in jet to the change in naphtha would be greater than 100%. 35/8 is greater than 4. As % would be greater than 400%.
Regarding claim 9, ANDERSSON et al. teach isomerization. Feeding the isomerization products back into isomerization would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to try to get a higher yield of conversion.
Regarding claim 10, ANDERSSON et al. teach in paragraph 42 recycle may be used for efficient use of hydrogen, and to maximize the yield of the kerosene fraction.
ANDERSSON et al. teach in paragraph 57 that it is known in the art to take a portion of the diesel fraction and use it as a recycle diluent stream.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to use a portion of the diesel fraction in the process taught by ANDERSSON et al. and recycle it as a recycle diluent stream in order to maximize the desired products.
Regarding claim 11, ANDERSSON et al. teach in Table 1 that the freezing point of the jet fuel is at -40°C.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSSON et al. (USPGPUB 2021/0395621) in view of HAYASAKA et al. (USPGPUB 2012/0216449A1).
The above discussion of ANDERSSON et al. as evidenced by HAYASAKA et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 6, ANDERSSON et al. teach in paragraph 38 the conditions for isomerization are taught to include a temperature in the interval of 250-400°C., a pressure in the interval 30-150 Bar, and a liquid hourly space velocity (LHSV) in the interval 0.5-8.
ANDERSSON et al. teach ranges that overlap those that are claimed.
HAYASAKA et al. teach in Table 3 hydrogen to oil ratio of greater than 506.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use enough hydrogen in the isomerization step in ANDERSSON et al.
Given that HAYASAKA et al. are also directed toward the formation of aviation fuels from hydroisomerization of a renewable feedstock, and comprise overlapping conditions for the hydrosiomerization step, one of ordinary skill in the art would employ a hydrogen to feed ratio of greater than 506 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WANG (USPGPUB 20170056867) teaches catalyst for preparing aviation fuel from Fischer Tropsch products.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771