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 .
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.
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 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez et al. (EP 2633006 B1)
In regards to claim 1, Ramirez teaches production of renewable distillate comprising separating a bio-distillate fraction from bio-oil [0001]. The oil is prepared by converting lignocellulosic biomass in a pyrolysis reaction in the presence of a catalyst at temperature of from 200 to 1000℃ at a reaction residence time of less than 10 seconds (i.e., fast pyrolysis), separating the solids from the vapor products wherein the solids include char, spent catalyst etc., condensing the vapor products to provide the bio-oil, separating a bio-distillate using fractional distillation, membrane separation etc. [0008].
The biomass lignocellulosic material can be wood chips, saw dust, pulping waste etc. [0013]. The biomass can be pretreated with steam explosion, i.e., which is known to comprise a steam cooking phase that would be expected to saturate the wood [0014]. The process can be fast pyrolysis, slow pyrolysis etc. [0017]. Fast pyrolysis can be less than 10 seconds [0019]. The renewable distillate product can comprise petroleum derived distillate such as middle distillates, gas oil etc. [0031, 0033]. Saw dust and wood biomass are typically dry and would have the water content of the claim. The slow pyrolysis process would be expected to take much more than 10 seconds residence time.
In regards to claims 2 – 4, Ramirez teaches the process comprising woody biomass such as saw dust which having the dimensions in microns.
In regards to claims 5 – 8, Ramirez teaches the process comprising addition of steam and reacting at the claimed temperatures and reaction times. While the system pressure is not particularly recited, reaction conditions such as reaction pressure, reaction rate, residence time, reaction temperatures etc., are conditions that would be routinely optimized by persons of ordinary skill in the art, thus making the claimed limitations obvious.
In regards to claim 9, Ramirez teaches the process comprising a pre-treatment of the biomass with steam explosion (i.e., steam saturation) prior to pyrolysis.
In regards to claim 10, Ramirez teaches the process having the claimed limitations as previously discussed.
In regards to claim 11, Ramirez teaches the process of preparing middle distillates such as gas oil and thus other middle distillates such as kerosene are obvious.
In regards to claim 12, Ramirez teaches the process. The type of reactor used in the process does not carry patentable weight so long as the claimed process is taught.
In regards to claims 13 – 16, Ramirez teaches the process having the claimed limitations as previously discussed.
In regards to claim 17, Ramirez teaches the process which provides gaseous hydrocarbon products such as gasoline but does not particularly recite the step of cooling them after pyrolysis as claimed. Freel et al. (WO 91/11499) similarly teaches pyrolysis oil from wood wherein the gaseous product is quenched and cooled to provide the hydrocarbon liquid products by using recycled products previously cooled and thus provides the counter-current flow as claimed (page 23 lines 23 – 25). Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claim was filed would have found it obvious to have used the cooling means of Freel in the process of Ramirez, as Freel provides suitable method of cooling the gaseous products after pyrolysis.
In regards to claims 18 – 23, Ramirez teaches the process of preparing pyrolysis oils such as the middle distillates of the claims and having similar process conditions as claimed. The devices used for performing the process do not carry patentable weight so long as the process of the claims are taught.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771