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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-25 are pending. This is the first Office Action on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 25: please add – or – between “5 seconds to 5 minutes,” and “1 to 3 minutes.”
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 1-25 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.
Claims 1 and 11 each recite “injecting steam directly into a feedstock [or the feedstock], forming a heated feedstock and water stream, wherein the mass ratio of steam to the heated feedstock and water stream is between about 0.1:10 and 10:0.1.” The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether “steam” in the “mass ratio” refers only to the steam being directly injected into the feedstock or also includes any steam previously present in the feedstock.” It is noted that the instant specification discloses embodiments where the feedstock contains water prior to the steam injection ([00061]-[00062]; Fig. 1). For the purpose of examination, the claimed “mass ratio” is construed to be “mass ratio of the injected steam to the heated feedstock and water stream” (see Spec., [00063], [00072]).
Claims 2-10 and 12-25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 1 or 11.
Claim 1 is indefinite for reciting “immediately cooling the heated feedstock and water stream,” because the term “immediately” is a relatively term. The instant specification discloses:
Following steam and injection and reaching laminar flow, the heated feedstock, optionally combined with a heated water stream, are immediately cooled, such that cooling occurs immediately after heating without any intervening steps.
Para. [00038].
For the purpose of examination, claim 1 is interpreted such that “intermediately cooling the heated feedstock and water stream” is conducted following the steam injection and reaching a laminar flow (see rejection of claim 11 the interpretation of “laminar flow”) without any intervening steps.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 1.
Claim 11 is indefinite for reciting “laminar flow,” which is a relative term. It is generally known in the art that the Reynolds number is used to determine whether a fluid flow is laminar or turbulent, and the instant specification discloses that “[t]he laminar flow within the pipe may be characterized by a Reynolds number of less than about 2300, 2000, 1750, or 1500.” For the purpose of examination, the limitation “laminar flow” is construed to mean a fluid having a Reynolds number of less than about 2300.
Claims 12-25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 11.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola et al. (US 2016/0214028 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Coppola discloses a process for reducing contaminants in a feedstock ([0020]), the process comprising:
injecting steam (Fig. 1, 144) directly into a feedstock (124) ([0022]-[0024]);
forming a heated mixture (160) having a Reynold number of at least 2000 in a hydrothermal reactor (158) ([0025]); and
cooling the heated mixture in a heat exchanger (154) without any intervening steps ([0028]); and
producing a cooled product stream (162) ([0028]).
Coppola discloses that the water-to-oil weight ratio may be between 1:100 and 3:1, such as between 1:10 and 1:1 ([0025]), which lies within the claimed range of “about 0.1:10 and 10:0.1.”
Coppola does not teach that the mixture is at a laminar flow, which is interpreted as having a Reynold number of less than 2,300.
However, Coppola discloses that the hydrothermal reactor may exhibit a Reynold number of at least 2,000 ([0025]). The required limitation “laminar flow” (Reynold number of of <2300) overlaps the Reynold number range taught by Coppola and is considered prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. I.
Regarding claim 2, Coppola further discloses: depressurizing the cooled product stream to obtain a depressurized product stream (Fig. 1, 166); and separating the depressurized product stream in a separator (172) to produce a treated feedstock (174) and a separated water stream (176) ([0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Coppola discloses that the feedstock is pre-heated via a heat exchanger (Fig. 1, 122) prior to the steam injection ([0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Coppola discloses an example demonstrating the treatment of a feedstock containing partially refined microbial oils ([0052]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that refining of microbial oils generally involves degumming as an essential step. Therefore, Coppola is interpreted to suggest that suitable feedstocks for its process include those oils that have been at least partially degummed in a conventional method, including water degumming.
Regarding claim 5, Coppola discloses that suitable processes for separating the depressurized product include flash drum, condensing, and phase separation ([0012]; cl. 18). It is noted that these separation techniques involve gravimetric separation.
Regarding claim 6, Coppola discloses that the feedstock comprises a renewable feedstock or a petroleum-based feedstock and a contaminant ([0020]).
Regarding claim 7, Coppola discloses that suitable feedstocks comprise vegetable oils which contain a glyceride-based lipid ([0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Coppola does not explicitly disclose that the feedstock has a pressure of from 3 to 10 MPa and the steam has a pressure of from 3 to 10 MPa. However, Coppola does disclose that these feedstock are pressurized in pumps (Fig. 1, 118, 138) to provide a pressurized feedstock (124) and a pressurized water stream (140), which are subsequently combined and fed to a reactor operating at a pressure of 500-6000 psig, i.e., 3.4-41.4 MPa ([0022]-[0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the operating conditions of the pumps and arrive at the claimed pressure range of “3 to 10 MPa” for the feedstock and the steam by routine experimentation. It has been held that, where 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.
Regarding claim 9, Coppola does not explicitly teach that the steam injection heats the feedstock to a temperature above 200°C. However, Coppola does disclose that the feedstock-water mixture, after further heating in a heat exchanger (154), is introduced to the hydrothermal reactor operating at a temperature of 300-500°C ([0024]-[0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the operating conditions of the steam injection (mixing) step and arrive at the claimed temperature of “above 200° by routine experimentation. It has been held that, where 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.
Regarding claim 10, Coppola does not explicitly teach reducing the temperature of the heated mixture to 90°C or less over a period of 30 seconds to 15 minutes, 30 seconds to 10 minutes, 30 seconds to 5 minutes, or 30 seconds to 1 minute, inclusive. However, Coppola does disclose that the product is cooled as necessary and subsequently subjected to oil-water separation to obtain a clean oil and a process water ([0028]). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the cooling step to obtain a product stream at optimal temperature conditions for oil-water separation while simultaneously optimizing the duration of cooling for process efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the cooling step and arrive at the claimed limitation of reducing the temperature of the heated mixture to 90°C over a period of 30-15 minutes by routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Coppola discloses a process for reducing contaminants in a feedstock ([0020]), the process comprising:
injecting steam (Fig. 1, 144) directly into a feedstock (124), forming a heated feedstock and water stream (152) ([0022]-[0024])
maintaining the mixture in a hydrothermal reactor (158) under operating conditions for a time ([0025]); and
producing a cooled product stream (162) ([0028]).
Coppola discloses that the water-to-oil weight ratio may be between 1:100 and 3:1, such as between 1:10 and 1:1 ([0025]), which lies within the claimed range of “about 0.1:10 and 10:0.1.”
Coppola does not teach that the mixture is at a laminar flow, which is interpreted as having a Reynold number of less than 2,300.
However, Coppola discloses that the hydrothermal reactor may exhibit a Reynold number of at least 2,000 ([0025]). The claimed limitation “laminar flow” (Re of <2300) overlaps the Reynold number range taught by Coppola and is considered prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. I.
Regarding claim 12, Coppola further discloses: depressurizing the cooled product stream to obtain a depressurized product stream (Fig. 1, 166); and separating the depressurized product stream in a separator (172) to produce a treated feedstock (174) and a separated water stream (176) ([0028]).
Regarding claim 13, Coppola discloses that the feedstock is pre-heated via a heat exchanger (Fig. 1, 122) prior to the steam injection ([0022]). Coppola does not explicitly teach that the feedstock is pre-heated to a temperature of from 150°C to 300°C. However, Coppola does disclose that the feedstock-water mixture can be further heated in a heat exchanger (154) and that hydrothermal treatment is conducted at a temperature of 300-500°C ([0024]-[0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the operating conditions of the pre-heating step and arrive at the claimed pre-heating temperature of “150°C to 300° by routine experimentation. It has been held that, where 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. MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 14, Coppola discloses an example demonstrating the treatment of a feedstock containing partially refined microbial oils ([0052]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that refining of microbial oils generally involves degumming as an essential step. Therefore, Coppola is interpreted to suggest that suitable feedstocks for its process include those oils that have been at least partially degummed in a conventional method, including water degumming.
Regarding claim 15, Coppola discloses that suitable processes for separating the depressurized product include flash drum, condensing, and phase separation ([0012]; cl. 18). It is noted that these separation techniques involve gravimetric separation.
Regarding claim 17, Coppola discloses the effluent from the hydrothermal reactor (Fig. 1, 160) is passed to a heat exchanger (154) ([0028]). It can be said that the effluent is maintained in a pipe for a time, having the same properties as the process fluid within the hydrothermal reactor.
Regarding claim 18, Coppola discloses that the feedstock comprises a renewable feedstock or a petroleum-based feedstock and a contaminant ([0020]).
Regarding claim 19, Coppola discloses that suitable feedstocks comprise vegetable oils which contain a glyceride-based lipid ([0021]).
Regarding claim 20, Coppola discloses an example demonstrating the reduction of various contaminant metals in a feedstock to <0.1 ppm ([0051]; Table 4).
Regarding claim 21, Coppola does not explicitly disclose a treated feedstock having a chlorophyll concentration of about 30 to 50 ppb, or 15-30 ppb. It is noted that the claimed limitation is directed to an intended result from the instant invention. Here, Coppola teaches using the same type of feed (plant oils that expected to contain chlorophyll, such as soybean oil, canola oil, pal oil, and algal oil) and overlapping reaction condition (temperature and pressure) ([0021], [0025]; see Spec., [00061]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the process of Coppola to have the same or substantially the same result as the process of the instant invention, absence evidence to the contrary. Thus, it is reasonably expected that Coppola would result in a treated plant oil containing less than about 50 ppb chlorophyll.
Additionally, claim 21 does not specify the type of feedstock to be treated. Coppola discloses that suitable feedstock include petroleum-based oils ([0020]), which may inherently not contain any chlorophyll.
Regarding claim 22, Coppola does not explicitly disclose that the feedstock has a pressure of from 3 to 10 MPa and the steam has a pressure of from 3 to 10 MPa. However, Coppola does disclose that these feedstock are pressurized in pumps (Fig. 1, 118, 138) to provide a pressurized feedstock (124) and a pressurized water stream (140), which are subsequently combined and fed to a reactor operating at a pressure of 500-6000 psig, i.e., 3.4-41.4 MPa ([0022]-[0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the operating conditions of the pumps and arrive at the claimed pressure range of “3 to 10 MPa” for the feedstock and the steam by routine experimentation. It has been held that, where 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.
Regarding claim 23, Coppola does not explicitly teach that the steam injection heats the feedstock to a temperature above 200°C. However, Coppola does disclose that the feedstock-water mixture, after further heating in a heat exchanger (154), is introduced to the hydrothermal reactor operating at a temperature of 300-500°C ([0024]-[0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the operating conditions of the steam injection (mixing) step and arrive at the claimed temperature of “above 200° by routine experimentation. It has been held that, where 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.
Regarding claim 24, Coppola does not teach a Reynold number of 1000 to 1999 or 500 to1000. However, Coppola does teach a Reynold number of at least 2000 ([0025]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP 2144.05. Specifically, the lower limit of the Reynold number range taught by Coppola (2000) and the upper limit of the claimed range (1999) are considered so close that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same or substantially the same result.
Regarding claim 25, Coppola teaches a residence time of from less than 10 second to 15 minutes ([0025]). The claimed range of “30 to 60 seconds, 5 seconds to 5 minutes, or 1 to 3 minutes” overlaps with or falls within the time range taught by Coppola and is considered prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights