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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 14-18 in the reply filed on 4/23/2026 is acknowledged.
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 7, 10, 15, and 17 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 10 and 15 recite: “the amount of water added in step c) is less than 5 vol./vol. of the Oleum treated first composition” and “less than 5 vol./vol. % of the Oleum treated first composition,” respectively.
The terminology “vol./vol.” and “vol./vol.%” renders the scope of the claims unclear because it is uncertain whether the limitation refers to:
volume percent relative to the oleum treated first composition,
a volume ratio,
or another undefined volumetric relationship.
Accordingly, claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Claim 7 recites both:
“less than 200 ppm hydrocarbons comprising heteroatoms,” and
“no more than 1% hydrocarbons comprising heteroatoms.”
These limitations appear inconsistent because a composition containing less than 200 ppm hydrocarbons comprising heteroatoms would inherently satisfy the much broader limitation of “no more than 1%.” Accordingly, it is unclear whether applicant intended different species of heteroatom-containing compounds or whether one limitation is erroneous.
Claim 17 recites: “drying the non-aqueous phase containing the renewable isododecane after the removing of the aqueous phase comprising the renewable isododecane.” However, claim 1 previously states that the aqueous phase comprises oxidized and/or sulfonized compounds while the non-aqueous phase comprises the renewable isododecane. Thus, claim 17 introduces uncertainty as to whether the aqueous phase or non-aqueous phase contains the renewable isododecane.
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 1-10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 815,193 in view of Peters et al. (WO 2011/140560 A1).
GB 815,193 teaches a process for removing sulfur compounds from hydrocarbon mixtures by stirring the hydrocarbon mixture with an acid phase containing sulfuric acid and thereafter separating the hydrocarbon phase from the acid phase (page 2, column 1, lines 25-50). GB 815,193 further teaches washing the treated hydrocarbon phase with caustic alkali solution and water and thereafter distilling the hydrocarbon phase (page 2, column 1, lines 50-60). GB 815,193 additionally teaches that oleum may be used as the sulfuric acid treatment agent (page 4, column 1, lines 1-15). GB 815,193 further teaches that sulfur-, oxygen-, and nitrogen-containing impurities are selectively removed and that the treatment improves product stability and color characteristics (page 2, column 1, lines 55-65; page 4, column 1, lines 20-35).
Regarding claim 1, GB 815,193 teaches:
treating a hydrocarbon composition with sulfuric acid/oleum (step b) (page 2, column 1, lines 25-50; page 4, column 1, lines 1-15); - stirring/agitating the hydrocarbon and acid phases together (step c) (page 3, column 1, lines 55-75);
separating the hydrocarbon and acid phases (steps d-e) (page 3, column 1, lines 60-70);
washing the treated hydrocarbon phase with caustic alkali solution and water (step f) (page 2, column 1, lines 50-60); and
recovering a purified hydrocarbon composition (step g) (page 2, column 1, lines 50-60).
However, GB 815,193 does not expressly teach that the hydrocarbon composition comprises renewable isododecane.
Peters et al. teach renewable jet fuel blendstocks derived from biomass-derived alcohols and comprising renewable C12 and C16 isoparaffins including renewable isododecane-containing compositions (see pages 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the oleum purification, aqueous separation, and alkaline washing process of GB 815,193 to the renewable isododecane-containing compositions of Peters et al. in order to remove sulfur-, oxygen-, and nitrogen-containing impurities and improve color, odor, purity, and stability characteristics of the renewable isododecane composition.
Regarding claim 2, GB 815,193 and Peters et al. do not expressly teach allowing phase separation for at least 5 hours. However, settling/separation time is a result-effective variable affecting phase separation efficiency and impurity removal. Optimization of settling time through routine experimentation would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 3, GB 815,193 teaches sulfuric acid treatment using relatively small quantities of sulfuric acid relative to the hydrocarbon stream, including quantities as low as about 1-2 wt.% acid based on the hydrocarbon mixture (page 6, Table I; page 11, Table V). Selection of 0.1-5 wt.% oleum represents routine optimization of a known acid-treatment amount.
Regarding claim 4, GB 815,193 expressly teaches use of oleum as the acid treatment agent (page 4, column 1, lines 1-15). Oleum containing at least 5 wt.% free SO3 constitutes a conventional oleum composition.
Regarding claim 5, Peters et al. teach renewable C12/C16 isoparaffin blendstocks produced from biomass-derived alcohol feedstocks. The recited hydrocarbon compositional ranges represent optimization of known renewable isoparaffin blendstock compositions.
Regarding claim 6, Peters et al. teach renewable C12 isoparaffin compositions including isododecane-containing compositions. Optimization of the amount of 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethylheptane within the isododecane composition would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 7, GB 815,193 teaches substantial removal of sulfur-, oxygen-, and nitrogen-containing impurities and improved product quality following acid treatment and alkaline washing (page 4, column 1, lines 20-35). The claimed low sulfur, aromatic, and unsaturation levels represent inherent or result-effective properties expected from the known purification operations.
Regarding claim 8, GB 815,193 expressly teaches distillation/fractionation of treated hydrocarbon compositions following purification operations (page 2, column 1, lines 50-60; page 5, column 1, lines 1-25). Adjustment of distillation cut points and fractionation conditions to enrich isododecane and reduce lighter/heavier paraffins would have been obvious routine optimization.
Regarding claim 9, Peters et al. expressly teach renewable jet fuel blendstocks comprising renewable C12 isoparaffins.
Regarding claim 10, GB 815,193 and Peters et al. do not expressly disclose the recited water amount. Optimization of water amount during aqueous washing and phase separation constitutes routine optimization of a known process variable.
Regarding claim 14, GB 815,193 expressly teaches agitation during sulfuric acid/oleum treatment and subsequent separation of the acid phase from the hydrocarbon phase (page 3, column 1, lines 55-75).
Regarding claim 15, GB 815,193 and Peters et al. do not expressly disclose the recited water amount limitation. Selection of water amount represents routine process optimization.
Regarding claim 16, Peters et al. teach adjusting and enriching C12 isoparaffin fractions using conventional distillation/fractionation methods (pages 7-10).
Regarding claim 17, GB 815,193 teaches washing the treated hydrocarbon composition with caustic alkali solution and water followed by recovery/distillation of the purified hydrocarbon composition (page 2, column 1, lines 50-60). Drying following aqueous washing constitutes an obvious conventional dehydration step.
Regarding claim 18, GB 815,193 teaches recycling acid-treatment operations and repeated contacting/purification of hydrocarbon streams (page 3, column 1, lines 35-50). Repeating purification operations using previously treated hydrocarbon compositions represents an obvious iterative purification technique for improving purity and odor characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights