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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01 December 2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claim 8 is amended. Claim 15 is new.
Claims 1-15 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under USC 103 over Aradi in view of Magrini and Agrawal have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the argument that Aradi in view of Magrini and Agrawal does not teach the claimed catalyst comprising multiple metals used in the presence of methane gas is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 7, the claim recites “wherein the pyrolysis catalyst structure comprises a porous support structure including one or more of an aluminum oxide… an aluminosilicate material… and a silicon oxide (i.e. SiO2)…” The entire recitation from “a porous support structure” to “silicon oxide (i.e. SiO2)” is redundant and should be deleted, because claim 1 already recites the support structure is one or more of aluminum oxide, aluminosilicate, and silicon oxide.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-9 and 15 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 claim 7, the claim recites “(i.e. Al2O3)”, “(e.g. zeolite)” and “(i.e. silicon oxide)”. The inclusion of parentheses and the phrases "i.e.” and “e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) in parentheses and following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will only consider the broader recitations of aluminum oxide, aluminosilicate, and silicon oxide. As noted above in the claim objection section, these phrases are already recited in instant claim 1 and thus the inclusion in claim 7 is redundant.
With regard to claims 8 and 15, the claims each recite “(i.e. Al2O3)”, “(e.g. zeolite)” and “(i.e. silicon oxide)”. The inclusion of parentheses and the phrases "i.e.” and “e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) in parentheses and following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will only consider the broader recitations of aluminum oxide, aluminosilicate, and silicon oxide.
With regard to claim 9, the claim is rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With regard to claim 7, the claim recites “the pyrolysis catalyst structure comprises…one or more metals loaded in the porous support structure…”. However, claim 1 requires a plurality of metals. Thus, the recitation of “one or more” in instant claim 7 does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditsch (US 2012/0067773) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2018/0142159, cited on the IDS of 5/13/2024) and Kuester (US 4,678,860).
With regard to claims 1 and 14, Ditsch teaches a method for conversion of biomass to bio-oil and gases including syngas (Abstract) comprising the following steps:
a) providing biomass to a conversion reactor comprising a zeolite catalyst (aluminosilicate support) and performing pyrolysis of the biomass to produce an effluent comprising bio-oil and light gases (paragraphs [0019], [0022], and [0025]) where the light gases are separated to recover syngas (paragraph [0040]).
b) separating catalyst from the effluent, introducing the catalyst into a regenerator and subjecting to combustion (oxidation) to remove coke, and circulating the regenerated catalyst back to the conversion reactor (paragraph [0028]).
c) passing the syngas to a Fischer-Tropsch liquefaction reactor to produce a liquid product (paragraph [0042]).
Ditsch fails to teach i) the presence of methane in the pyrolysis reactor; ii) a plurality of metals on the zeolite (pyrolysis catalyst support); or iii) providing a gaseous product from the liquefaction reactor to the pyrolysis reactor.
With regard to i) and ii), Kumar teaches pyrolysis of biomass and methane (paragraph [0002]), comprising pyrolysis of biomass and methane over a bimetallic zeolite (catalyst comprising an aluminosilicate support material and a plurality of metals loaded into the single support instant claims 1 and 14) to produce a product comprising a biooil (paragraph [0019]) and gaseous products from cracking (paragraph [0060]). Kumar further teaches that the use of methane and the bimetallic catalyst reduces the cost of bio-oil production and upgrading (paragraph [0011]) and increases the conversion of methane to aromatics (paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to perform the pyrolysis of Ditsch using a bimetallic zeolite catalyst and with a methane atmosphere, because each of Ditsch and Kumar teach conversion of biomass to bio-oils and light gases over a zeolite catalyst, and Kumar teaches that the use of bimetallic zeolite and methane atmosphere reduces the cost of bio-oil production and upgrading and increases the conversion of methane to aromatics (paragraphs [0011] and [0014]).
With regard to iii), Kuester teaches a process for producing liquids from biomass, comprising pyrolyzing the biomass in a pyrolyzer (column 5, lines 39-41), and then sending syngas produced in the pyrolyzer to a Fischer-Tropsch liquefaction reactor (column 7, lines 49-54). Kuester further teaches separation and recycle of gas from the liquefaction reactor to the pyrolysis reactor (column 10, lines 17-22). Kuester additionally teaches the recycle is to the pyrolysis section when the composition is useful for the pyrolysis (column 7, lines 57-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to separate and recycle gases from the liquefaction to the pyrolysis in Ditsch as taught by Kuester, because each of Ditsch and Kuester teaches pyrolysis of biomass to produce a product including syngas, and liquefaction of the syngas in a Fischer-Tropsch reactor, and Kuester teaches that the liquefaction further produces a recycle gas which is recycled to the pyrolysis reactor when the composition is suitable for the pyrolysis reaction (column 7, lines 57-60).
With regard to claim 2, Ditsch teaches that the temperature of the pyrolysis is at least 400 to not more than 700°C (paragraph [0025]), which overlaps the range of about 400 to about 500°C of instant claim 2, rendering the range prima facie obvious. Ditsch is silent regarding the pressure of the pyrolysis reactor. However, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the pressure is a process parameter which will affect the conversion and selectivity of the process to the desired bio-oil and syngas products, and thus the pressure is a result-effective variable and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the pressure to about 1 atm to about 10 atm, as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With regard to claim 3, Ditsch teaches that the biomass includes forestry waste (paragraph [0017]).
With regard to claim 4, Kumar teaches the use of natural gas as the methane source (paragraph [0100]).
With regard to claim 5, Ditsch teaches that the pyrolysis can also be carried out in the presence of an inert gas such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or steam (water) (paragraph [0023]).
With regard to claim 7, Kumar teaches that the metals are Mo and Ag, where the Mo is present in an amount of 6 wt% and the Ag is present in an amount of 0.5 wt% (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]). The amounts are within the range of about 0.1 to about 20 wt% of each metal of instant claim 7.
Claims 6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditsch (US 2012/0067773) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2018/0142159) and Kuester (US 4,678,860) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song (CN 104096571, cited on IDS 05/13/2024, machine translation previously provided in Parent application 17/411,232).
With regard to claims 6 and 10-12, Ditsch in view of Kumar and Kuester teaches the process above. Ditsch teaches that the pyrolysis reactor is a fluidized bed reactor (paragraph [0022]) and that the catalyst is circulated, thus the reactor is a circulating fluidized bed reactor as claimed in instant claim 6. Ditsch further teaches the process comprises a Fischer-Tropsch liquefaction reactor (paragraph [0042]).
Ditsch in view of Kumar and Kuester does not specifically teach a dual fixed bed reactor for the liquefaction.
Song teaches a method for synthesis gas liquefaction comprising contacting a synthesis gas comprising H2, CO2, and CO with two catalysts to convert the gas to liquid oil product (paragraphs [0002] and [0067]). Song further teaches that the liquefaction is a dual bed reactor (Abstract), which is a dual fixed bed reactor as in instant claims 6 and 10. Song additionally teaches that the first catalyst is a mixture of Fe2O3 and MnO2 and includes 1 alkali metal in an amount of 5 wt% (paragraph [0035]), which is within the range of 0.1 to 10 wt% of instant claim 11 and the second catalyst is ZSM-5 comprising 1 wt% Ag and 3 wt% Ce (paragraph [0050]), which are each within the range of 0.1 to 20 wt% of instant claim 12. Song further teaches that the process combines the modified Fischer-Tropsch catalyst with the secondary catalyst to allow the process to be performed under mild conditions which save cost (paragraphs [0004], [0006])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the dual bed reactor and catalysts of Song as the Fischer-Tropsch (liquefaction) reaction of Ditsch, because Ditsch and Song each teach reacting syngas to produce liquid hydrocarbons, and Song teaches that the dual fixed bed reactor comprising the specifically claimed catalysts and amounts allows the process to be performed under mild conditions which save cost (paragraphs [0004], [0006]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditsch (US 2012/0067773) in view of He et al. (Catalytic Conversion of Biomass by Natural Gas for Oil Quality Upgrading, cited on IDS of 5/13/2024) and Kuester (US 4,678,860).
With regard to claim 8, Ditsch teaches a method for conversion of biomass to bio-oil and gases including syngas (Abstract) comprising the following steps:
a) providing biomass to a conversion reactor comprising a zeolite catalyst (aluminosilicate support) and performing pyrolysis of the biomass to produce an effluent comprising bio-oil and light gases (paragraphs [0019], [0022], and [0025]) where the light gases are separated to recover syngas (paragraph [0040]).
b) separating catalyst from the effluent, introducing the catalyst into a regenerator and subjecting to combustion (oxidation) to remove coke, and circulating the regenerated catalyst back to the conversion reactor (paragraph [0028]).
c) passing the syngas to a Fischer-Tropsch liquefaction reactor to produce a liquid product (paragraph [0042]).
Ditsch fails to teach i) the presence of methane in the pyrolysis reactor; ii) a combination of Ga, Ce, and Zn metals in an amount of 0.1 to 20 wt% each on the zeolite (pyrolysis catalyst support); or iii) providing a gaseous product from the liquefaction reactor to the pyrolysis reactor.
With regard to i) and ii), He teaches a process for catalytic conversion by pyrolysis of biomass in the presence of natural gas (page 15862, Abstract). He further teaches that each of Zn, Ga, and Ce have been used in the process as the metal on the zeolite support (page 15867, Table 8) and that each is useful to obtain a desired product. It is known that “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form this composition to be used for the very same purpose... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” See MPEP 2144.06(I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Ga, Ce, and Zn together as metals on the catalyst, because this is merely combining compositions useful for the same purpose of conversion of biomass under a methane atmosphere to obtain a composition useful for the same purpose is prima facie obvious, absent any evidence of synergy or unexpected results from the combination. The instant specification provides no evidence of synergy or unexpected results of using the three metals together, and thus the combination is obvious. He teaches that each metal is used in an amount of 1 wt% (page 15,863, section 2.1, first paragraph), which is within the range of 0.1 to 20 wt% of instant claim 8. He further teaches that the presence of methane in the upgrading with the metal catalysts produces additional desired products and reduces the amount of CO2 emitted (Section 1, pages 15862-15863).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the methane and catalyst of He in the process of Ditsch, because each of Ditsch and He teaches a process of conversion of biomass to products over a zeolite catalyst, He teaches the catalyst comprises metals and that the atmosphere comprises methane, and He further teaches that the use of the catalyst and methane atmosphere produces additional desired products and reduces the amount of CO2 emitted (Section 1, pages 15862-15863).
With regard to iii), Kuester teaches a process for producing liquids from biomass, comprising pyrolyzing the biomass in a pyrolyzer (column 5, lines 39-41), and then sending syngas produced in the pyrolyzer to a Fischer-Tropsch liquefaction reactor (column 7, lines 49-54). Kuester further teaches separation and recycle of gas from the liquefaction reactor to the pyrolysis reactor (column 10, lines 17-22). Kuester additionally teaches the recycle is to the pyrolysis section when the composition is useful for the pyrolysis (column 7, lines 57-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to separate and recycle gases from the liquefaction to the pyrolysis in Ditsch as taught by Kuester, because each of Ditsch and Kuester teaches pyrolysis of biomass to produce a product including syngas, and liquefaction of the syngas in a Fischer-Tropsch reactor, and Kuester teaches that the liquefaction further produces a recycle gas which is recycled to the pyrolysis reactor when the composition is suitable for the pyrolysis reaction (column 7, lines 57-60).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditsch (US 2012/0067773) in view of He et al. (Catalytic Conversion of Biomass by Natural Gas for Oil Quality Upgrading, cited on IDS of 5/13/2024) and Kuester (US 4,678,860) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shan et al. (Catalytic Biomass Pyrolysis under Methane-rich Gas for Upgraded Bio-oil Production, cited on IDS of 5/13/2024).
With regard to claim 9, Ditsch in view of He and Kuester teaches the method above, where He renders obvious the catalyst comprising Zn, Ga, and Ce (Table 8).
Ditsch in view of He and Kuester fails to teach the specific amounts for the metals.
Shan teaches conversion of biomass by pyrolysis in the presence of methane gas (Title). Shan further teaches the use of a variety of metals, including Ce and Zn for the catalyst, and additionally teaches the loading amount can significantly influence the catalytic performance (pages 25-26). Therefore, Shan teaches that the metal loading (amount) for the catalyst is a result-effective variable, and can be optimized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of 1 wt% Ga, 10 wt% Ce, and 5 wt% Zn, as claimed, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditsch (US 2012/0067773) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2018/0142159) and Kuester (US 4,678,860) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aradi et al. (US 2010/0299990).
With regard to claim 13, Ditsch in view of Kumar and Kuester teaches the process above, where the bio-oil passes to further upgrading (paragraph [0016]).
Ditsch does not specifically teach that the upgrading includes reducing the viscosity.
Aradi teaches a method for gasification/pyrolysis of biomass over a catalyst to produce a product (paragraph [0002]). Aradi further teaches that there is a hydrogenation reactor downstream of the pyrolysis/gasification system, which passivates the oil product (liquid bio-oil product) against viscosity increases and stabilizes the oil product, giving the stabilized oil (second oil product) a lower viscosity (paragraphs [0025], [0027]). Aradi further teaches that the stabilized oil product is useful as feedstock for existing refineries (paragraph [0025]).
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 hydrogenating (passivating) the liquid product of Ditsch to reduce the viscosity, because each of Ditsch and Aradi teaches conversion of biomass to liquid oil products in a pyrolysis reactor over a catalyst, and Aradi teaches that adding the stabilization step allows the liquid oil to be used as a feedstock for existing refineries (paragraph [0025]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditsch (US 2012/0067773) in view of He et al. (Catalytic Conversion of Biomass by Natural Gas for Oil Quality Upgrading, cited on the IDS of 5/13/2024).
With regard to claim 15, Ditsch teaches a method for conversion of biomass to bio-oil and gases including syngas (Abstract) comprising the following steps:
a) providing biomass to a conversion reactor comprising a zeolite catalyst (aluminosilicate support) and performing pyrolysis of the biomass to produce an effluent comprising bio-oil and light gases (paragraphs [0019], [0022], and [0025]) where the light gases are separated to recover syngas (paragraph [0040]).
c) passing the syngas to a Fischer-Tropsch liquefaction reactor to produce a liquid product (paragraph [0042]).
Ditsch fails to teach i) the presence of methane in the pyrolysis reactor or ii) a combination of Ga, Ce, and Zn metals in an amount of 0.1 to 20 wt% each on the zeolite (pyrolysis catalyst support).
With regard to i) and ii), He teaches a process for catalytic conversion by pyrolysis of biomass in the presence of natural gas (page 15862, Abstract). He further teaches that each of Zn, Ga, and Ce have been used in the process as the metal on the zeolite support (page 15867, Table 8) and that each is useful to obtain a desired product. It is known that “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form this composition to be used for the very same purpose... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” See MPEP 2144.06(I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Ga, Ce, and Zn together as metals on the catalyst, because this is merely combining compositions useful for the same purpose of conversion of biomass under a methane atmosphere to obtain a composition useful for the same purpose is prima facie obvious, absent any evidence of synergy or unexpected results from the combination. The instant specification provides no evidence of synergy or unexpected results of using the three metals together, and thus the combination is obvious. He teaches that each metal is used in an amount of 1 wt% (page 15,863, section 2.1, first paragraph), which is within the range of 0.1 to 20 wt% of instant claim 15. He further teaches that the presence of methane in the upgrading with the metal catalysts produces additional desired products and reduces the amount of CO2 emitted (Section 1, pages 15862-15863).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the methane and catalyst of He in the process of Ditsch, because each of Ditsch and He teaches a process of conversion of biomass to products over a zeolite catalyst, He teaches the catalyst comprises metals and that the atmosphere comprises methane, and He further teaches that the use of the catalyst and methane atmosphere produces additional desired products and reduces the amount of CO2 emitted (Section 1, pages 15862-15863).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,006,475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Patent render obvious the instant claims.
Independent instant claim 1 recites a method for producing liquid fuel and chemicals from a solid biomass feedstock, comprising contacting the solid biomass with a catalyst comprising a support and a plurality of metals to produce liquid bio-oil and syngas, circulating the catalyst between the reaction zone and a regeneration zone where the catalyst is regenerated, introducing the syngas into a liquefaction reaction system to produce a liquid oil product, and recycling gas from the liquefaction to the pyrolysis step.
Independent instant claim 8 recites a method for producing liquid fuel and chemicals from a solid biomass feedstock, comprising contacting the solid biomass with a catalyst comprising a support comprising Ce, Ga, and Zn in an amount of 0.1 to 20 wt% each to produce liquid bio-oil and syngas, circulating the catalyst between the reaction zone and a regeneration zone where the catalyst is regenerated, introducing the syngas into a liquefaction reaction system to produce a liquid oil product, and recycling gas from the liquefaction to the pyrolysis step.
Independent instant claim 15 recites a method for producing liquid fuel and chemicals from a solid biomass feedstock, comprising contacting the solid biomass with a catalyst comprising a support comprising Ce, Ga, and Zn in an amount of 0.1 to 20 wt% each to produce liquid bio-oil and syngas and introducing the syngas into a liquefaction reaction system to produce a liquid oil product.
Instant claims 2-7 and 9-14 specify the temperature, pressure (instant claim 2), origin of the feedstock and methane (instant claims 3-5), more specifically narrow the reactor, catalyst, and metal amounts for both the pyrolysis reaction and the liquefaction reaction (instant claims 6, 7, and 10-12), specifies the metal amount for each metal (instant claim 9) specifies an additional step to lower the viscosity (instant claim 13), and specifies that the catalyst is a single catalyst support with the plurality of metals (instant claim 14).
Patent Claim 1 recites a method for producing liquid fuel and chemicals from a solid biomass feedstock, comprising contacting the solid biomass with a catalyst comprising a support and a plurality of metals consisting of Ga, Ce, and Zn to produce liquid bio-oil and syngas, circulating the catalyst between the reaction zone and a regeneration zone where the catalyst is regenerated, introducing the syngas into a liquefaction reaction system to produce a liquid oil product, and recycling gas from the liquefaction to the pyrolysis step.
Patent claims 2-11 specify the temperature, pressure (Patent claim 2), origin of the feedstock and methane (Patent claims 3-5), more specifically narrows the metal amounts for pyrolysis reaction (Patent claims 6 and 10), type of reactor for liquefaction (Patent claim 7), specifies the catalyst and metal amounts for the liquefaction reaction (patent claims 8 and 9), and specifies an additional step to lower the viscosity (Patent claim 11).
The differences between the instant application and the Patent are i) that claim 1 of the Patent requires that the plurality of metals consist of Ga, Ce, and Zn, whereas instant claims 1 and 7 in combination only require the metals comprise a plurality of metals which can include Ga, Ce, and Zn, and independent instant claims 8 and 15 only require that the metals comprise Ga, Ce, and Zn; and ii) that claim 1 of the Patent requires additional steps not required by instant claim 15.
With regard to i), Claims 1 and 7 together, claim 8, and claim 15 in the instant application are generic to the species or sub-genus claimed in the Patent claim 1. The species or sub-genus claimed in the Patent anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP(II)(B)(2).
With regard to ii), while the steps are not identical, the steps of claim 1 of the Patent encompass the steps of instant claim 15, thus renders claim 15 unpatentable.
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
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights