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 Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 13 November 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkilde (EP 3,696,250) in view of Vaidyanathan (US 2014/0048446).
Regarding claim 1, Alkilde teaches hydroprocessing renewable feed with a hydrogenation catalyst to produce a hydrotreated effluent [0006] followed by fractionation of the hydrotreated effluent [0006]. Alkilde teaches a cold separator D to recover gas and liquid, and sending liquid to stripper E, to separate a light fraction from a heavy fraction [0030], light fraction is sent to condenser (see figure 1), followed by further stabilization G and rectification F ( see figure 1) and [0030]. The bottoms from lead stripper E are sent to fractionation column L to recover diesel products [0032].
Alkilde does not explicitly disclose the fractionator is a vacuum column.
However, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected a known distillation column, such as vacuum distillation, for the benefit of obtaining the desired product fractions. It is not seen where such a modification would result in any new or unexpected results.
Alkilde does not explicitly disclose separation of water in the condensation step.
However, Examiner notes Vaidyanathan teaching well known condensation and water separation steps in naphtha recovery separations [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have separated water from the products, as is conventional in the art, in order to obtain a purified product.
Regarding claim 5, Alkilde teaches hydrotreatment/hydrogenation [0013].
Regarding claim 6, Alkilde teaches cold separator and stripper [0030]. Examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected the separation equipment in order to obtain the desired fractionation.
Regarding claim 7, Alkilde teaches bio renewable fat feeds [0003].
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkilde (EP 3,696,250) in view of Vaidyanathan (US 2014/0048446) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Houghland (US 2,348,681).
Regarding claims 2-4, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose recirculation of rectification bottoms or naphtha produce.
However, Houghland teaches a process for stabilizing gasoline/naphtha range material. Houghland recirculates rectification bottoms to the fractionation column, and naphtha to the condensation step (see figure, and page 1, columns 1-2 description of the figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Houghland recirculation steps, in order to achieve more purified products.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkilde (EP 3,696,250) in view of Vaidyanathan (US 2014/0048446) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pupat (US 2018/0171246).
Regarding claims 8-9, the previous combination does not teach co processing with petroleum feedstocks.
However, Pupat teaches that veggie feeds may be co processed with petroleum feeds in hydrotreatment units [0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected an appropriate mixture of feedstocks, based off of availability, and for the benefit of producing the desired products.
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 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18685286 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to overlapping subject matter regarding hydrotreatment of renewable feedstocks and separation of naphtha boiling range products.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments to be:
The prior art does not disclose the claimed water separation and vacuum fractionation. Such elements decrease the energy usage, by eliminating the need for Alkilde sidestripper.
In response, Examiner notes that the rejections rely on Vaidyanathan for claim limitations drawn to the water separation. Vaidyanathan teaches separation of water vapor from the naphtha stream and fractionation of the heavier components [0001-0019], see figure. Vaidyanathan teaches that the water removal step improves the process by eliminating the need for downstream stripping devices [0011]. In this regard, the prior art teaches the same improvements regarding the and the same water separation step as claimed.
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 MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 C 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights