DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claims 3, 5, 7, and 9, the claims recite “the hydrogenation reaction”, “the first hydrodeoxygenation reaction”, “the polymerization reaction”, and “the second hydrodeoxygenation reaction”. However, the claims never actively recite such reactions, only reciting that a stream is added to a catalyst to obtain a product in each step. Thus, the claims lack antecedent basis and are indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the step of contacting the biomass pyrolysis oil with the first stage catalyst is a hydrogenation reaction, the second step of contacting the hydrogenation product with the second stage catalyst is a hydrodeoxygenation reaction, and so on for each step. The Examiner suggests that reciting the steps of claim 1 in active language, instead of the current passive language, would make it clear that the reactions are actually happening in each step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2015/0057475) in view of Daudin et al. (US 2015/0065764) and Baird et al. (US 2017/0022425).
With regard to claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-9, Wang teaches a process for hydrotreating bio-oils from pyrolysis of biomass (paragraph [0007]) comprising a first hydrogenation step and a second hydrodeoxygenation step (paragraphs [0011]-[0012]).
Wang teaches that the hydrogenation catalyst for the first step can be Ru/C (Example 4, paragraph [0054]). This is equivalent to the claimed first-stage catalyst comprising a transition metal which is ruthenium on a carbon support of instant claims 1 and 2. Wang teaches that the second step catalyst is a bi-functional catalyst which comprises a supported metal and a solid acid, where the solid acid is H-ZSM-5 (Example 7, paragraph [0060]). The H-ZSM-5 is equivalent to the claimed third-stage catalyst which is H-ZSM-5 zeolite of instant claims 1 and 6. Wang additionally teaches that the bi-functional catalyst comprises the metal which can be Ni and the support which can be titania (metal oxide support which is titania instant claims 1 and 4) (paragraph [0011]).
Wang does not specifically teach i) that the hydrodeoxygenation bi-functional catalyst comprising nickel on titania can also comprise iron; ii) that the bi-functional catalyst comprising the zeolite catalyzes polymerization; iii) a fourth-stage catalyst comprising metal on tungstate zirconia; or iv) that the fourth stage catalyst is for hydrodeoxygenation.
With regard to i), Wang teaches that the catalyst comprising a metal on a support which can be nickel on titania stabilizes the bio-oil (paragraph [0010]) and that the catalyst metals are not limited to the listed metals (paragraph [0010]).
Daudin teaches a process for hydrotreating bio-oils from pyrolysis of biomass (paragraph [0030]) where the first step stabilizes the bio-oil (paragraph [0042]). Daudin teaches that the first step is a hydroreforming step (paragraph [0040]) using a catalyst comprising Ni in combination with Fe on titania (metal oxide) (paragraph [0060]). This is equivalent to the claimed second stage catalyst comprising nickel and iron on a metal oxide. Daudin further teaches that the process comprising the hydroreforming step includes low rates of deactivation of the hydroreforming catalyst and improved conversion rates (paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the catalyst comprising nickel and iron on titania in the first step of Wang, because each of Wang and Daudin teaches a method for hydrotreating bio-oils form biomass comprising a step which stabilizes the bio-oil, Wang teaches the catalyst comprises at least Ni on titania and that the metals are not limited to the listed metals, and Daudin teaches that the catalyst comprising Ni and Fe on titania is suitable for stabilization of biomass in a hydroreforming step and that the process includes low rates of deactivation of the hydroreforming catalyst (paragraph [0021]).
With regard to ii), Wang teaches that the conditions for the second stage comprising the zeolite include hydrogen pressure of 3 to 12 MPa and a temperature of 200-400°C (paragraph [0016]). The instant specification recites that the conditions for the polymerization include a hydrogen pressure of 4MPa (Examples 1-2 and 2-3) or 10 MPa (Example 3) and a temperature of 160-220°C (instant claim 7). The pressure of Wang encompasses the instant pressures and the temperature of Wang overlaps the claimed temperature range, rendering the temperature range prima facie obvious. Therefore, while Wang does not specifically recite that the bi-functional catalyst catalyzes polymerization, because Wang teaches the same catalyst comprising H-ZSM-5 at similar temperatures and pressures, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the catalyst also catalyzes polymerization, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to iii), Baird teaches a process for deoxygenating a biomass-derived pyrolysis oil (Abstract). Baird teaches the process comprises a first hydrodeoxygenation step comprising nickel on titania (paragraph [0029]) and a second step comprising a noble metal on a tungstated zirconia support (paragraph [0033]). This is equivalent to the fourth-stage catalyst comprising a transition metal which is nickel supported on tungstate zirconia of instant claims 1 and 8. Baird additionally teaches that the purpose of the second step is to decrease the fouling of the catalyst compared to just hydrodeoxygenation (paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of Baird to the process of Wang, because each of Wang and Baird teaches a process comprising hydrodeoxygenation over a catalyst comprising Ni on titania, and Baird teaches that adding a further step comprising reacting over nickel on tungstated zirconia decreases the fouling of the catalyst compared to just hydrodeoxygenation (paragraph [0021]).
With regard to iv), Baird teaches that the conditions for the tungstated zirconia catalyst reaction include about 200°C to about 400°C and a pressure of about 2 to about 20 MPa (paragraph [0035]). The instant specification recites that the pressure for the second hydrodeoxygenation step is 5 MPa (Examples 1-3 and 2-4) or 10 MPa (Example 3) and the temperature is 200-300°C (instant claim 9). The pressure of Baird encompasses the instant pressures and the temperature of Baird overlaps the claimed temperature range, rendering the temperature range prima facie obvious. Therefore, while Baird recites that the catalyst performs hydrocracking, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the catalyst also performs hydrodeoxygenation, as claimed, because Baird teaches the same catalyst comprising transitional metal on tungstated zirconia at similar temperatures and pressures, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 3, Wang teaches the hydrogenation reaction is performed at a temperature below 200°C (paragraph [0044]), which overlaps the range of 150-220°C of instant claim 3, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 5, Wang teaches that the second step, which comprises the first hydrodeoxygenation catalyst, is performed at a temperature of about 200 to about 400°C (paragraph [0044]), which encompasses the claimed range of 250-300°C, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 10, Wang teaches performing the process in a continuous reactor (paragraph [0009]).
With regard to claim 11, Wang in view of Daudin and Baird does not specifically recite that the product of the process includes a polymerized, hydrogenated, and hydrodeoxygenated compound. However, Wang in view of Daudin and Baird teaches the process above comprising similar catalysts, steps, and conditions to the claimed process. Therefore, the product of the process of Wang in view of Daudin and Baird is expected to include a polymerized, hydrogenated, and hydrodeoxygenated compound, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights