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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, but a modification of the previous prior art rejection using the same prior art references reads upon the claims.
On page 9 of the Remarks section, as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant discusses the amendments made to the Specification and the claims to overcome the previous objections and 112 rejections made. In response, the Examiner has withdrawn these objections and rejections.
On pages 9-11, Applicant begins arguments against the previous prior art rejection of independent Claim 1 and summarizes the claimed subject matter of independent Claim 1. Next, on pages 11-13, Applicant describes the various features disclosed in current primary reference Roberts et al., (“Roberts”, US 2014/0142356). Applicant argues that Roberts does not disclose ‘a removal of triacylglycerols’, but rather converts them in the feedstock “without separation” to form ‘isomerized lubricant and diesel boiling range products without an intermediate separation’. Applicant asserts that the various passages pointed to in Roberts demonstrates that triglycerides in the feed are not removed. However, the Examiner notes that the passages in Roberts as highlighted by Applicant demonstrate that the triglycerides are exposed to catalysts under effective conversion conditions that form ketones from the triglycerides. The Examiner takes the position that converting triglycerides to a different compound would reduce or remove said triglycerides from such a solution. Furthermore, as described in cited paragraph [0023] of Roberts, the feed takes the fatty acids, catalyzes them into ketones, in which additional byproducts are produced in which “such small molecules can be separated from the effluent of the conversion reaction” which “can also have the advantage of removing nitrogen and carbon monoxide contaminants from the effluent of the conversion reaction”, (See paragraph [0023], Roberts). Thus, the Examiner finds Applicant’s argument here unpersuasive since the fatty acids are converted into a different compound, and any byproduct is also removed.
On pages 13-14, Applicant argues that Roberts also does not disclose analyzing a sample of the purified feed. Applicant highlights various paragraphs from Roberts, arguing this point, such as paragraph [0093]. Applicant argues that this paragraph does not demonstrate any evaluation done of the feed purified after removal of triacylglycerols. Applicant asserts that the paragraph shows that the feed is desired to include these materials. Here, the Examiner notes that the paragraph shows analysis done to detect the presence of these constituents in the feed, not that the constituents are desired or required. Additionally, the Examiner highlights two other passages in Roberts using the same type of GC analysis that is performed on the feed after catalysis, measuring the reaction products, such as paragraphs [0045] & [0157], Roberts). Thus, the Examiner finds this remark unpersuasive.
Applicant continues on arguing against paragraphs [0097], [0098] or [0108], stating that they do not discuss selection of a suitable pretreatment method for removal of an organic nitrogen compound from the feed. The Examiner notes that the passages in combination suggest that the feed is treated, then analyzed, and recycled, such that it is treated again via a process such as deoxygenation or isomerization, in which these processes could be considered “pretreatment” since it is treated, then recycled, and treated again. The Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments here unpersuasive for these reasons. The same reasoning applies to paragraphs [0156] & [0157].
On pages 15-16, Applicant argues against the prior art rejection of independent Claim 24 and its dependent claims. Here, Applicant repeats the arguments made against Roberts, to which the Examiner reiterates the same responses made above.
Applicant argues that secondary reference Wang does not disclose any use of GC analysis for pretreatment selection, as argued regarding Roberts. Here, the Examiner notes that paragraph [0093] of Roberts shows analysis done to detect the presence of these constituents in the feed, not that the constituents are desired or required. Additionally, the Examiner highlights two other passages in Roberts using the same type of GC analysis that is performed on the feed after catalysis, measuring the reaction products, such as paragraphs [0045] & [0157], Roberts). Thus, Wang is not needed to disclose this particular feature. Such an argument is considered piecemeal analysis as a result. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The arguments made toward dependent Claim 25 are moot since they do not provide any specific arguments against the claim rejection.
On pages 15-17, Applicant argues that the other cited secondary references do not make up for the alleged deficiencies of Roberts regarding independent Claims 1 & 24. The Examiner notes that Roberts still discloses the features in question for the reasons stated above. Applicant also argues that there is no ‘rational underpinning for reliance on these other references’, but no specific arguments are made against the motivations provided for each reference in the previous or current rejection. The Examiner notes that these other references were used to disclose other claim features not discussed in the arguments and the motivations are directed toward the incorporation of those features, not the ones argued. Thus, these arguments are moot and piecemeal analysis. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Finally, Applicant argues that modifying Roberts to purify the sample using pretreatment as argued would be ‘non-sensical’ and would render the prior art invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. In response, the Examiner notes that Roberts is not modified for the feature or reasons argued by Applicant. Additionally, Roberts uses recycling of the feed after treatment and conducts further treatment based on the analysis of the first treatment. Thus, the feed is pretreated and then further treated, when it is recycled as demonstrated in the passages discussed above. The Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks here unpersuasive for these reasons.
The Examiner also notes that determination of patent eligibility varies by patent office based on different criteria. The observation about foreign related applications is considered unpersuasive.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, & 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al., (“Roberts”, US 2014/0142356), in view of Reaney et al., (Reaney”, US 2007/0124991).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, & 6-13, Roberts discloses a process for pretreating renewable feedstock, (See Abstract and See paragraph [0003], Roberts), comprising triacylglycerols and one or more organic nitrogen compounds, (See Abstract, See paragraph [0019], [0020] & [0024], Roberts), wherein said process comprises the steps, (i) collecting at least one sample of said renewable feedstock and purifying said sample by removal of triacylglycerols, to obtain a purified sample, (See paragraph [0023], [0024], Roberts); (ii) conducting an analysis of said purified sample to provide data on at least one organic nitrogen compound in said renewable feedstock, (See paragraphs [0093], [0045] & [0157], Roberts); (iii) identifying at least one organic nitrogen compound(s) using said data, (See paragraph [0093], Roberts); (iv) selecting based on the identified organic nitrogen compound(s) at least one pretreatment step capable of reducing or removing from the renewable feedstock said identified organic nitrogen compound, (See paragraphs [0097], [0098], then [0108], Roberts); (v) subjecting the renewable feedstock to at least one pretreatment(s) selected in step (iv) to obtain a pretreated renewable feedstock suitable for hydrotreatment into branched paraffinic hydrocarbons, (See paragraph [0108] and/or [0156], Roberts), said pretreated renewable feedstock having a content of the organic nitrogen compound(s) lower than that in the sample collected in step (i), (See paragraph [0157], Roberts).
Roberts does not disclose wherein the at least one pretreatment step including at least one of degumming, heat treatment, acid treatment, such as strong acid treatment, filtration, and/or bleaching with adsorbent.
Reaney discloses wherein the at least one pretreatment step including at least one of degumming, heat treatment, acid treatment, such as strong acid treatment, filtration, and/or bleaching with adsorbent, (See paragraph [0055], [0056], Reaney; “degumming”, “bleaching”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of Roberts by incorporating wherein the at least one pretreatment step including at least one of degumming, heat treatment, acid treatment, such as strong acid treatment, filtration, and/or bleaching with adsorbent as in Reaney so that “the method of processing the oil may also act to concentrate the oil soluble components that impart lubricity” and “enhance the extraction of high lubricity minor components of oilseed”, (See paragraph [0017], Reaney).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The process according to claim 1, wherein the removal of the triacylglycerols from the sample in step (i) is conducted as solid phase extraction or as flash chromatography providing fractions of the purified sample, (See paragraph [0047], Roberts).
Claim 6: The process according to claim 1, wherein the at least one organic nitrogen compound of the one or more organic nitrogen compounds identified in step (iii) is identified as a primary fatty acid amide, a secondary fatty acid amide, a tertiary fatty acid amide, a N-alkenyl amide, an imide, a diketopiperazine, a nitrile or a sulfur-containing fatty acid amide, (See paragraph [0052], Roberts).
Claim 7: The process according to claim 1, wherein the at least one pretreatment step includes two or more feedstock pretreatments that are conducted in sequence in step (v), (See paragraph [0055], [0056], Reaney; “degumming”, “bleaching”).
Claim 8: The process according to claim 1, wherein the at least one pretreatment step is selected from at least one of degumming, heat treatment, acid treatment, such as strong acid treatment, filtration, and/or bleaching with adsorbent, (See paragraph [0055], [0056], Reaney; “degumming”, “bleaching”).
Claim 9: The process according to claim 1, wherein the pretreated renewable feedstock is subjected to hydrotreating in the presence of a catalyst selected from Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Mo, Ru, Rh, W, or any combination of these on a support, to obtain and recover a liquid product, (See paragraph [0048], [0117] or [0118], Roberts).
Claim 10: The process according to claim 1, wherein the pretreated renewable feedstock undergoes the hydrotreatment and the hydrotreatment comprises hydrodeoxygenation at reaction conditions comprising a temperature in the range from 100oC to 500oC, (See paragraph [0064], Roberts; anticipates the range from 270 to 400 oC; or See paragraph [0116], Roberts), and/or a pressure in the range from 0.1 MPa to 20 MPa, (See paragraph [0064], Roberts; anticipates the range from 4.92 to 20 MPa, converting from cited psig; or See paragraph [0116], Roberts), to obtain a hydrodeoxygenation product, (See paragraph [0065], Roberts).
Claim 11: The process according to claim 10, wherein the hydrodeoxygenation product contains more than 99 wt% hydrocarbons and less than 0.3 ppm nitrogen, measured as elemental nitrogen.
Claim 12: The process according to claim 1, also comprising hydrotreating the pretreated renewable feedstock, wherein the hydrotreating comprises hydrodeoxygenation at reaction conditions comprising a temperature in the range from 100 °C to 500 °C, (See paragraph [0064], Roberts; anticipates the range from 270 to 400 oC; or See paragraph [0116], Roberts), and/or a pressure in the range from 0.1 MPa to 20 MPa, (See paragraph [0064], Roberts; anticipates the range from 4.92 to 20 MPa, converting from cited psig; or See paragraph [0116], Roberts), to obtain a hydrodeoxygenation product and wherein a liquid product from hydrotreating is subjected to hydroisomerisation, (See paragraph [0060], [0074], Roberts), in the presence of an hydroisomerisation catalyst containing a support, a metal and a further catalyst material, said support selected from Al2O3 and SiO2, (See paragraph [0055], [0066], Roberts), and said metal selected from Pt and Pd and Ni, (See paragraph [0056], Roberts), and said further catalyst material selected from SAPO-11, SAPO-41, ZSM-22 and/or ZSM-23, (See paragraph [0055], Roberts), to produce the branched paraffinic hydrocarbons, (See paragraph [0074], Roberts).
Claim 13: The process according to claim 12, the hydroisomerisation is performed at a temperature from 250oC to 400oC, (See paragraph [0064], Roberts; anticipates the range from 270 to 400 oC; or See paragraph [0116], Roberts), and/or at a pressure from 1 MPa to 6 MPa, (See paragraph [0064], Roberts; anticipates the range from 4.92 to 20 MPa, converting from cited psig; or See paragraph [0116], Roberts).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al., (“Roberts”, US 2014/0142356), in view of Reaney et al., (Reaney”, US 2007/0124991), in further view of Narine et al., (“Narine”, US 2007/0175793), in further view of Zelisko et al., (“Zelisko”, US 2015/0259478).
Regarding Claim 3, Roberts discloses the process according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the flash chromatography comprises a column, and increasing polarity of solvents during the extraction.
Narine discloses wherein the flash chromatography comprises a column,, (See paragraph [0183], Narine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of Roberts by incorporating wherein the flash chromatography comprises a column as in Narine “to further confirm the expected reaction products”, (See paragraph [0183], Narine).
Modified Roberts does not disclose increasing polarity of solvents during the extraction.
Zelisko discloses increasing polarity of solvents during the extraction, (See paragraph [0155], Zelisko).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of Roberts by incorporating increasing polarity of solvents during the extraction as in Zelisko to “optimize the yield of the desired product”, (See paragraph [0048], Zelisko).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al., (“Roberts”, US 2014/0142356), in view of Reaney et al., (Reaney”, US 2007/0124991), in further view of Wang, (US 2013/0125619).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Roberts discloses the process according to claim 1, wherein the analysis conducted in step (ii) comprises use of gas chromatography (GC) for detection of the one or more organic nitrogen compounds from the purified sample or a fraction thereof, (See paragraph [0093], Roberts).
Modified Roberts does not disclose the GC analysis being a gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS) analysis.
Wang discloses an application involving renewable/biological feedstocks, (See paragraph [0001], Wang), the GC analysis being a gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS) analysis, (See paragraph [0032] & [0052, Wang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of modified Roberts by incorporating the GC analysis being a gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS) analysis as in Wang so it “allows for greater control in determining how to process…feeds”, (See paragraph [0052], Wang).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al., (“Roberts”, US 2014/0142356), in view of Reaney et al., (Reaney”, US 2007/0124991), in further view of Wang, (US 2013/0125619), in further view of Kwiecien et al., (“Kwiecien”, US 2015/0340216).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Roberts discloses he process according to claim 4, but does not disclose wherein identification in step (iii) comprises using an automated target screening master method including a library database with compound-specific identifiers.
Kwiecien discloses wherein identification in step (iii) comprises using an automated target screening master method including a library database with compound-specific identifiers, (See paragraph [0107], Kwiecien).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of Roberts by incorporating he GC analysis being a gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS) analysis as in Kwiecien so that “additional filtering can now be employed to increase identification rate”, (See paragraph [0107], Kwiecien).
Claim(s) 24, 25, 27 & 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al., (“Roberts”, US 2014/0142356), in view of Wang, (US 2013/0125619).
Regarding Claims 24, 25, 27 & 28, Roberts discloses a process for identifying an organic nitrogen compound present in a sample of a renewable feedstock comprising triacylglycerols, (See Abstract and See paragraphs [0003], [0019], [0020] & [0024], Roberts), the process comprising: performing a gas chromatography GC analysis, (See paragraph [0093], Roberts), on the sample of the renewable feedstock to identify and/or select at least one pretreatment, (See paragraph [0093], or See paragraphs [0097], [0098], then [0108], Roberts), to reduce an organic nitrogen compound content of said renewable feedstock, (See paragraph [0157], Roberts).
Roberts does not disclose the GC analysis being a gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS) analysis.
Wang discloses an application involving renewable/biological feedstocks, (See paragraph [0001], Wang), the GC analysis being a gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS) analysis, (See paragraph [0032] & [0052, Wang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of Roberts by incorporating he GC analysis being a gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS) analysis as in Wang so it “allows for greater control in determining how to process…feeds”, (See paragraph [0052], Wang).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 25: The process of claim 24, comprising: purifying said sample prior to said GC-HRMS analysis by removal of the triacylglycerols, (See paragraphs [0045] or [0157], Roberts).
Claim 27: The process of claim 24, comprising selecting the at least one pretreatment to treat the renewable feedstock to obtain a pretreated renewable feedstock based on the GC-HRMS analysis that is performed, (See paragraphs [0097], [0098], then [0108], Roberts).
Claim 28: The process of claim 27, comprising: providing the pretreated renewable feedstock by treating said renewable feedstock with the at least one pretreatment that is selected based on the GC- HRMS analysis, (See paragraphs [0097], [0098], then [0108], Roberts).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al., (“Roberts”, US 2014/0142356), in view of Wang, (US 2013/0125619), in further view of Narine et al., (“Narine”, US 2007/0175793).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Roberts discloses the process of claim 25, but does not disclose wherein the purifying includes flash chromatography.
Narine discloses wherein the purifying includes flash chromatography, (See paragraph [0183], Narine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of modified Roberts by incorporating wherein the purifying includes flash chromatography as in Narine “to further confirm the expected reaction products”, (See paragraph [0183], Narine).
Claim(s) 29 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al., (“Roberts”, US 2014/0142356), in view of Wang, (US 2013/0125619), in further view of Reaney et al., (Reaney”, US 2007/0124991).
Regarding Claims 29 & 30, modified Roberts discloses the process according to claim 27, but does not disclose wherein the feedstock pretreatment is selected from a degumming, heat treatment, acid treatment, such as strong acid treatment, filtration, bleaching with adsorbent1 or any combination thereof.
Reaney discloses wherein the feedstock pretreatment is selected from a degumming, heat treatment, acid treatment, such as strong acid treatment, filtration, bleaching with adsorbent1 or any combination thereof, (See paragraph [0055], [0056], Reaney; “degumming”, “bleaching”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the process of modified Roberts by incorporating wherein the feedstock pretreatment is selected from a degumming, heat treatment, acid treatment, such as strong acid treatment, filtration, bleaching with adsorbent1 or any combination thereof as in Reaney so that “the method of processing the oil may also act to concentrate the oil soluble components that impart lubricity” and “enhance the extraction of high lubricity minor components of oilseed”, (See paragraph [0017], Reaney).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 30: The process according to claim 1, wherein two or more feedstock pretreatments are conducted in sequence in step (v), (See paragraph [0055], [0056], Reaney; “degumming”, “bleaching”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights