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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is based on the 18/695428 application originally filed March 26, 2024.
Amended claims 1-10 and 14-17, filed May 05, 2026, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 11-13 have been canceled. Claims 8-10 and 14-17 are withdrawn from consideration due to being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginestra et al. (US 2017/0175019) in view of Fortin et al. “Viscosity Measurements of Aviation Turbine Fuels” September 2015 hereinafter “Fortin” and Bauldreay et al. (US 2005/0109672) hereinafter “Bauldreay”.
THE FOLLOWING CLAIM INTERPRETATION IS HEREBY INCORPORATED INTO EACH AND EVERY REJECTION BELOW SET FORTH AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH THEREIN:
The examiner notes the claims are set forth as product by process claims. The product will determine patentability. The references as more fully below cited disclose the claimed product. The examiner notes that hydroconversion and hydropyrolysis of biomass is known in the art and typically results in a mixture of paraffins.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). [Emphasis added by examiner]
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2
Ginestra discloses in paragraph 0002, methods of providing higher quality kerosene-based propulsion (aviation/jet) fuels. More specifically, the invention relates to methods of upgrading kerosene-based propulsion fuels to fuels having enhanced properties using synthetic fuel blending components.
Ginestra discloses in paragraph 0010-0012, a method for upgrading a kerosene fuel to meet Jet A-1 specification or JP-8 specification: a. providing a quantity of kerosene base fuel having a boiling point in the range of 130° C. to 300° C., at atmospheric pressure, flash point of 38° C. or above measured by ASTM D56, a density at 15° C. of at least 775 kg/m3 and freezing point of above −47° C; b. providing a quantity of synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component comprising at least 99.5 mass % of carbon and hydrogen content and at least 50 mass % of cyclo-paraffin, said cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component having a boiling point of at most 300° C, at atmospheric pressure, flash point of 38° C, or above, a density at 15° C of at least 800 kg/m3, and freezing point of −60° C or lower; and c. blending a quantity of the bio-based cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component and the kerosene base fuel in amount sufficient to lower the freezing point of the blended fuel to −47° C or lower.
Ginestra further discloses in paragraph 0038, typically, jet fuel is a product boiling for more than 90 vol. % at from 130° C to 300° C (ASTM D86), having a density in the range from 775 to 840 kg/m3, preferably from 780 to 830 kg/m3, at 15° C (e.g. ASTM D4052), an initial boiling point in the range 130° C to 190° C and a final boiling point in the range 220° C to 300° C, at atmospheric pressure, a flash point of 38° C or above (ASTM D56), a kinematic viscosity at −20° C (ASTM D445) suitably from 1.2 to 8.0 mm2/s and a freeze point of −40° C or below for Jet A specification, preferably −47° C or below for Jet A-1 and JP-8 specifications, and preferably −58° C or below for AN-8 specification.
It is to be noted, Ginestra discloses a low kinematic viscosity at -20℃ but fails to provide further disclosure of testing the viscosity under predicted model (i.e. linear interpolation).
However, it is known in the art to test various properties of fuels, including viscosities, under linear interpolation, as taught by Fortin.
Fortin discloses in the abstract, measuring the viscosity of various types of jet fuels. Fortin further discloses on page 5501, in the absence of software with statistical analysis capabilities, the corresponding value of t95(dfν) can be determined from Table G.2 of the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement by linear interpolation (estimating values within the range of known data points).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to complete a linear interpolation estimation on the data points of Ginestra, as taught by Fortin in order to determine the trend of known points in the range.
Synthetic Cyclo-paraffinic Kerosene Fuel Blending Component
Ginestra discloses in paragraph 0049, the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component is generally characterized as a liquid composed of individual hydrocarbons useable as a jet fuel blending component and having at least the following properties: comprising at least 99.5 mass % of carbon and hydrogen content and at least 50 mass % of cyclo-paraffin.
Ginestra discloses in paragraph 0052, the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component preferably has a maximum iso-paraffin and n-paraffin content of less than 50 mass % (ASTM D2425 or optionally can be measured by GC×GC). The synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component preferably has at least 60 mass % of cyclo-paraffinic content (ASTM D2425 or optionally can be measured by GC×GC). The aromatic content of the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component is preferably at most 1.5 mass %, at most 1 mass %, or at most 0.5 mass %. (ASTM D2425 or optionally can be measured by GC×GC).
Ginestra discloses in paragraph 0053 and 0054, the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component is derived from biomass (bio-derived cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component). As used herein, the term “biomass” refers to, without limitation, organic materials produced by plants (such as leaves, roots, seeds and stalks), and microbial and animal metabolic wastes. The term also refers to the primary building blocks of the above, namely, lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose and carbohydrates, such as saccharides, sugars and starches, among others. Common biomass-derived feedstocks include lignin and lignocellulosic derivatives, cellulose and cellulosic derivatives, hemicellulose and hemicellulosic derivatives, carbohydrates, starches, monosaccharides, disaccharides, polysaccharides, sugars, sugar alcohols, alditols, polyols, and mixtures thereof.
Kerosene Base Fuel or Kerosene Range Hydrocarbon Component
Ginestra discloses in paragraph 0043, a kerosene base fuel or kerosene range hydrocarbon component is any kerosene that may be useful as a jet fuel, or a jet fuel blending component (other than the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component described herein) having a boiling point in the range of 130° C to 300° C, at atmospheric pressure (as measured by ASTM D86). For a jet fuel blending component, the kerosene base fuel (whether single stream or a mixture) can have a flash point of 38° C. or above (measured by ASTM D56), and a density at 15° C. of at least 760 kg/m3 (as measured by D4052). The kerosene base fuel or kerosene range hydrocarbon component may originate from petroleum or be synthetically derived from biomass, or other non-biomass resources. In certain embodiments, the kerosene base fuel may be any petroleum-derived jet fuel known to skilled artisans, including kerosene fuels meeting at least one of Jet A, Jet A-1, F-24, JP-8, Jet B or AN-8 specification.
It is to be noted, Ginestra discloses in the background (see paragraph 0007) conventional jet fuels are blended with known paraffinic kerosene (“SPK”) from Fischer-Tropsch or hydrogenated vegetable oil but fails to specifically teach the blended kerosene based fuel comprise a paraffinic kerosene blending component.
However, it is known in the art to combine a Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel with a petroleum derived kerosene fuel, as taught by Bauldreay.
Bauldreay discloses in the abstract, a fuel composition useful for operating a jet engine or a diesel engine containing a petroleum derived kerosene fuel and a Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel is provided.
Bauldreay discloses in paragraph 0014, a fuel composition comprising a petroleum derived kerosene fuel and a Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel wherein the freeze point of the composition is lower than the freeze points of both of said petroleum derived kerosene fuel and said Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel. Bauldreay discloses in paragraph 0016, said Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel is present in the fuel composition in the amount of 0.1 to 99.9% v. Bauldreay discloses in paragraph 0036, the Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel will consist of at least 90% w, of paraffinic components, preferably normal and iso-paraffins. The weight ratio of normal to iso-paraffins will preferably be in the ranges indicated above. Some cyclic paraffins may also be present.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine a Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel with the petroleum derived kerosene fuel of Ginestra, as taught by Bauldreay. The motivation to do so is to blend kerosene based components that will produce a jet/aviation fuel that supports the fuel composition to not freeze or cause flow to be restricted during operation due to the fuel being operational under low temperature conditions at high altitudes, as taught by Ginestra and Bauldreay.
Regarding Claim 3
Ginestra discloses in paragraph 0053 and 0054, the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component is derived from biomass (bio-derived cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component). As used herein, the term “biomass” refers to, without limitation, organic materials produced by plants (such as leaves, roots, seeds and stalks), and microbial and animal metabolic wastes. The term also refers to the primary building blocks of the above, namely, lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose and carbohydrates, such as saccharides, sugars and starches, among others. Common biomass-derived feedstocks include lignin and lignocellulosic derivatives, cellulose and cellulosic derivatives, hemicellulose and hemicellulosic derivatives, carbohydrates, starches, monosaccharides, disaccharides, polysaccharides, sugars, sugar alcohols, alditols, polyols, and mixtures thereof.
Ginestra discloses in paragraph 0056, the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component is derived from the conversion of a biomass-derived feedstock containing one or more carbohydrates, such as starch, monosaccharides, disaccharides, polysaccharides, sugars, and sugar alcohols, or derivatives from lignin, hemicellulose and cellulose using a bioreforming processes. As used herein, the term “bioreforming” refers to, without limitation, processes for catalytically converting biomass-derived oxygenated hydrocarbons to lower molecular weight hydrocarbons and oxygenated compounds using aqueous phase reforming, hydrogenation, hydrogenolysis, hydrodeoxygenation and/or other conversion processes involving the use of heterogeneous catalysts.
Ginestra discloses in paragraph 0059, the oxygenated hydrocarbons are reacted in an aqueous solution with hydrogen over a deoxygenation catalyst to produce a stream of mixed oxygenates. The oxygenates will generally include, without limitation, oxygenated hydrocarbons having 1 to 4 oxygen atoms (e.g., mono-, di-, tri- and tetra-oxygenated hydrocarbons). The mono-oxygenated hydrocarbons typically include alcohols, ketones, aldehydes, cyclic ethers, furans, and pyrans, while the di-oxygenated hydrocarbons typically include diols, hydroxy ketones, lactones, furfuryl alcohols, pyranyl alcohols, and carboxylic acids.
Ginestra further discloses in paragraph 0060, the deoxygenation catalyst is a heterogeneous catalyst having one or more active materials capable of catalyzing a reaction between hydrogen and the oxygenated hydrocarbons to remove one or more of the oxygen atoms from the oxygenated hydrocarbon to produce the oxygenates described above. The active materials may include, without limitation, Cu, Re, Fe, Ru, Ir, Co, Rh, Pt, Pd, Ni, W, Os, Mo, Ag, Au, alloys and combinations thereof, adhered to a support. The deoxygenation catalyst may include these elements alone or in combination with one or more Mn, Cr, Mo, W, V, Nb, Ta, Ti, Zr, Y, La, Sc, Zn, Cd, Ag, Au, Sn, Ge, P, Al, Ga, In, Tl, Ce and combinations thereof. The support may be any one of a number of supports, including a support having carbon, silica, alumina, zirconia, titania, tungsten, vanadia, chromia, zeolites, heteropolyacids, kieselguhr, hydroxyapatite, and mixtures thereof. The deoxygenation catalyst may also include an acidic support modified or constructed to provide a desired functionality.
Ginestra further discloses in paragraph 0062, the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component is subsequently produced using an acid condensation catalyst and a reactant stream that includes the mixed oxygenate stream above as a first reactant and a second reactant having an average oxygen to carbon ratio of 0.2 or less, in the presence of water. Alternatively, the first reactant may have an average oxygen content per molecule of about 1 to 4, calculated as the total number of oxygen atoms (z) in the oxygenates of the first reactant divided by the total number of molecules of oxygenates in the first reactant. The total number of carbon atoms per molecule, oxygen atoms per molecule and total molecules in the first reactant may be measured using any number of commonly known methods, including (1) speciation by gas chromatography (GC), high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and other methods known to the art and (2) determination of total oxygen, carbon, and water content by elemental analysis. Oxygen present in water, carbon dioxide, or carbon monoxide is excluded from the determination of reactant oxygen to carbon ratio.
Ginestra further discloses in paragraph 0067, the condensation reaction is performed using catalytic materials that exhibit acidic activity. These materials may be augmented through the addition of a metal to allow activation of molecular hydrogen for hydrogenation/dehydrogenation reactions.
Ginestra further discloses in paragraph 0073, separation processes are well known in the art and generally involve one or more distillation columns designed to facilitate the separation of desired compounds from a product stream. The distillation will be generally operated at a temperature, pressure, reflux ratio, and with an appropriate equipment design, to recover the portion of the C8+ compounds which conform to the boiling point characteristics of the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component.
Regarding Claims 4 and 6
Blending and Using
Ginestra discloses in paragraph 0088, the amount of the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component may suitably be in an amount of 1 to 97 vol. %, provided that the amount is sufficient to increase volumetric energy content at least 0.1%. The amount may vary depending on the kerosene base fuel and/or the desired specification to upgrade to and/or amount of desired volumetric energy content increase desired. The amount of the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component will vary depending on the kerosene base fuel used.
It is to be noted, Ginestra discloses in the background (see paragraph 0007) conventional jet fuels are blended with known paraffinic kerosene (“SPK”) from Fischer-Tropsch or hydrogenated vegetable oil but fails to specifically teach the blended kerosene based fuel comprise a paraffinic kerosene blending component in the claimed range amount.
However, it is known in the art to combine a Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel with a petroleum derived kerosene fuel, as taught by Bauldreay.
Bauldreay discloses in the abstract, a fuel composition useful for operating a jet engine or a diesel engine containing a petroleum derived kerosene fuel and a Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel is provided.
Bauldreay discloses in paragraph 0014, a fuel composition comprising a petroleum derived kerosene fuel and a Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel wherein the freeze point of the composition is lower than the freeze points of both of said petroleum derived kerosene fuel and said Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel. Bauldreay discloses in paragraph 0016, said Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel is present in the fuel composition in the amount of 0.1 to 99.9% v. Bauldreay discloses in paragraph 0036, the Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel will consist of at least 90% w, of paraffinic components, preferably normal and iso-paraffins. The weight ratio of normal to iso-paraffins will preferably be in the ranges indicated above. Some cyclic paraffins may also be present.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine a Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene fuel in the range amount of 0.1 to 99.9% v with the petroleum derived kerosene fuel of Ginestra, as taught by Bauldreay. The motivation to do so is to blend kerosene based components in effective amounts that will produce a jet/aviation fuel that supports the fuel composition to not freeze or cause flow to be restricted during operation due to the fuel being operational under low temperature conditions at high altitudes, as taught by Ginestra and Bauldreay.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claims 5 and 7
Blending and Using
Ginestra discloses in paragraph 0088, the amount of the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component may suitably be in an amount of 1 to 97 vol. %, provided that the amount is sufficient to increase volumetric energy content at least 0.1%. The amount may vary depending on the kerosene base fuel and/or the desired specification to upgrade to and/or amount of desired volumetric energy content increase desired. The amount of the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component will vary depending on the kerosene base fuel used.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments directed to the newly submitted claim amendments, filed May 05, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under Ginestra et al. (US 2017/0175019) in view of Bauldreay et al. (US 2005/0109672) hereinafter “Bauldreay” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ginestra et al. (US 2017/0175019) in view of Fortin et al. “Viscosity Measurements of Aviation Turbine Fuels” September 2015 hereinafter “Fortin” and Bauldreay et al. (US 2005/0109672) hereinafter “Bauldreay”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aulich et al. (US 2009/0000185) discloses in the abstract, aviation-grade kerosene comprising a first blendstock derived from non-petroleum feedstock and comprising primarily hydrocarbons selected from the group consisting of isoparaffins and normal paraffins, and a second blendstock comprising primarily hydrocarbons selected from the group consisting of cycloalkanes and aromatics. A method for the production of aviation-grade kerosene comprising producing a first blendstock from at least one non-petroleum feedstock, the first blendstock comprising primarily hydrocarbons selected from the group consisting of isoparaffins and normal paraffins; producing a second blendstock comprising primarily hydrocarbons selected from the group consisting of cycloalkanes and aromatics; and blending at least a portion of the first blendstock with at least a portion of the second blendstock to produce aviation-grade kerosene.
Baualdreay et al. (US 2016/0326448) discloses in the abstract, reduced emissions in a jet fuel having aromatics content can be achieved by incorporating a quantity of an aromatic kerosene fuel blending component, preferably a bio-derived synthetic aromatic kerosene, comprising at least 90 wt. % of aromatics, less than 10 wt. % of indanes and tetralins and less than 1 wt. % of naphthalene into a jet fuel in a manner to meet the aromatic content specification for jet fuels. A jet fuel having aromatics content having reduced number-based nvPM emissions compared to equivalent total aromatics content petroleum-derived kerosene jet fuel is obtained.
Baualdreay et al. (US 2018/0230393) discloses in the abstract, by blending a quantity of synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component comprising at least 99.5 mass % of carbon and hydrogen content and at least 50 mass % of cyclo-paraffin into kerosene base fuel, kerosene based-propulsion fuels can be upgraded to higher quality kerosene based-propulsion fuels such as jet fuel or rocket fuel to meet certain specification and/or increase volumetric energy content of the propulsion fuel.
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 LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 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 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights