DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for application SN 18/704,141 having an effective date of 24 April 2024 and a Foreign priority date of 03 November 2021. A preliminary amendment was filed on 24 April 2024. Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 § 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, 7 and 11 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.
In Claim 1, part c) there is no proper antecedent basis for “the liquid phase” (emphasis added) since “liquid phase” is not cited in the claim.
In Claim 7, there is no proper antecedent basis for “the total weight ratio” (emphasis added) since “total weight ratio” is not cited in Claim 1.
In Claim 11, there is no proper antecedent basis for “the further hydrotreated composition stream” (emphasis added) since “further hydrotreated composition stream” is not cited in Claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandvold et al (US 2019/0093021) which is the US equivalent to WO 2017/218577.
Brandvold et al [“Brandvold”] disclose processes for partially deoxygenating a biomass-derived pyrolysis oil to produce a fuel for a burner.
Regarding Claim 1, Brandvold discloses that a biomass-derived pyrolysis oil stream (applicant’s reactive liquid feedstock stream) is combined with a low recycle stream (applicant’s diluent stream) that is a portion of a deoxygenated effluent to form a heated diluted py-oil feed stream, which is then contacted with a first deoxygenating catalyst in the presence of hydrogen at first hydroprocessing conditions effective to form the effluent stream. The effluent may be separated and used to provide a product fuel stream for a burner. See claim 1.
As set forth in Figure 1, a diluent stream (14) and a reactive liquid feedstock stream (12) form a combined stream having a first hydrogen consumption potential (16) in a reactor (18) with added hydrogen wherein the hydroprocessing conditions effective to form an effluent stream (20) are from about 150 to 275°C [0037]. As set forth in Figure 1, stream (20) is withdrawn which is a stabilized composition stream having a second combined hydrogen consumption potential which is less than 80% and more than 10% of the first hydrogen consumption potential. See [0035], [0036], [0039], [0042] and [0053]. The process provides an amount of liquid phase of said stabilized composition stream as said diluent stream [0043].
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, Brandvold discloses that the biomass-derived pyrolysis oil is a complex, highly oxygenated organic liquid. Such oxygenated compounds include carboxylic acids, phenols, cresols, alcohols, aldehydes, etc. Brandvold teaches that conventional biomass-derived pyrolysis oil may comprise about 30% or greater by weight oxygen from these oxygenated compounds [0003]-[0004].
Regarding dependent claim 7, Brandvold discloses that a weight ratio of the recycle stream to biomass-derived pyrolysis oil is between about 3:1 and 16:1 [0010].
Regarding dependent claims 5-6 and 8-11, the examiner is of the position that such features are straightforward possibilities obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 is drawn to a process plant configured for receiving a reactive liquid feedstock, an amount of dihydrogen and for providing a stabilized composition. Claim 12 is an apparatus which Brandvold discloses as Figure 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN M MCAVOY whose telephone number is (571)272-1451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am - 7:00 pm EST.
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.
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
EMcAvoy
January 20, 2026