DETAILED ACTION
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 1-14 in the reply filed on 26 May 2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected claims 15-21 are cancelled.
Claims 1-14 are pending for examination below.
Claim Interpretation
The term “reforming treatment” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean reacting by decarbonation, hydrogenation, isomerization, and decomposition, which is considered to be Applicant acting as their own Lexicographer. While reforming has a different conventional meaning in the art (converting naphtha to aromatics and olefins in gasoline), Applicant has fully defined in the specification that the term “reforming” refers to the claimed reactions (see claim 1 and paragraph [0015]), and thus has explicitly redefined the term. See MPEP 2111.01(IV)A for more information about Applicant acting as their own lexicographer. As such, the Examiner will consider that “reforming” in this application always means the claimed decarbonation, hydrogenation, isomerization, and decomposition reactions.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 9-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites “decarbonation” and “decomposition” as two of the reactions. This appears to be a use of less typical terms for the reactions “decarboxylation” and “cracking”, respectively, as explained below. Paragraph [0015] of the instant specification as filed recites “decarbonation, hydrogenation, isomerization, and decomposition” as the reactions, whereas paragraph [0041] recites decarboxylation, isomerization, and decomposition. Thus, it appears clear that decarboxylation and decarbonation are the same reaction, and decarboxylation is the more common term. Also, paragraph [0010] states that the Patent literature describes a two stage process including “isomerization decomposition” reaction, but paragraph [0006] clearly describes a second reaction which is isomerization and cracking. Thus, decomposition and cracking are the same in the specification, and cracking is the more common term. For clarity, the Examiner suggests amending to use the more typical language of “decarboxylation” and “cracking”.
With regard to claims 9-11 and 13, the claims recite “the solid acid catalyst of the catalyst is” or “the solid base catalyst of the catalyst is”. In each case, the second recitation of “of the catalyst” is redundant, and should be removed so that the claims recite only “the solid acid catalyst is” or “the solid base catalyst is”.
With regard to claim 12, the claim recites “wherein the Group 2 metal oxide serving as the solid base catalyst of the catalyst is one kind or two or more kinds selected from…” This phrasing is unnecessarily lengthy and could be shortened to “wherein the Group 2 metal oxide is one or more selected from…” for clarity.
With regard to claim 13, the claim recites “wherein the solid acid catalyst of the catalyst is caused to support…” a Group 8-10 metal. However, in claim 1 the solid acid catalyst already supports the solid base catalyst. Thus, claim 13 should recite “the solid acid catalyst further supports one or a plurality of metals…
With regard to claim 14, the claim recites “the one or the plurality of metals…to be supported on the solid acid catalyst of the catalyst are platinum”. This phrasing is redundant and the phrase “are platinum” is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner suggests “the one or the plurality of metals…comprises platinum”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-14 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.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites in the preamble “A method of producing a bio-jet fuel…” However, no bio-jet fuel is described as being obtained within the steps of the claim. Thus, it is unclear at what point within the process the bio-jet fuel is obtained, and the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification describes that the product of the reaction step includes bio-jet fuel (paragraph [0036]) and as such the claim will be interpreted as producing a product including the bio-jet fuel from the reaction step. Appropriate amendment is respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 2-5, the claims each recite “cooling the generated pyrolysis gas”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the process including heating and cooling is a pyrolysis step, which generates a pyrolysis gas, which is then cooled. Appropriate amendment to include the step of generation of the pyrolysis gas is respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 6-14, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linck et al. (US 2016/0312125) in view of Saiga et al. (JP 2021-070022, machine translation provided herein).
With regard to claims 1 and 9-14, Linck teaches a process for conversion of biorenewable feedstocks to fuel products (Abstract) comprising the following steps:
a) providing a mixture comprising a hydropyrolysis bio-oil and a cofeed to a hydroconversion zone (paragraph [0070]). The bio-oil comprises the hydrocarbons (paragraph [0068]) and the co-feed comprises the free fatty acids and triglycerides (claimed triacylglycerol) (paragraph [0032]), thus the mixture is the claimed biomass-derived oil.
b) contacting the mixture of bio-oil and co-feed with a catalyst in the hydroconversion zone to convert the feedstock (paragraph [0078]) at a temperature of about 315°C to about 430° (paragraph [0077]) and produce a jet fuel (claimed bio-jet fuel) (paragraph [0027]). The temperature of Linck is within the range of 200-450°C of instant claim 1. Linck further teaches the hydroconversion zone includes a variety of reactions including hydrocracking (claimed decomposition), hydroisomerization (paragraph [0078]), and decarboxylation (claimed decarbonation) (paragraph [0085]). While hydrogenation is not explicitly recited as a reaction taking place in the hydroconversion zone, Linck does teach that normal paraffin and isoparaffin hydrocarbons are produced in the hydroconversion zone (paragraph [0060]), thus implying at least some hydrogenation is taking place.
Linck additionally teaches that the catalyst in the hydroconversion zone can be a mixture of different catalysts tailored to the different reactions (paragraph [0079]).
Linck fails to teach that the hydroconversion catalyst comprises a solid base catalyst supported on a solid acid catalyst, as claimed.
Saiga teaches a process for producing jet fuel using biomass (paragraph [0003]). Saiga further teaches reacting with an isomerization catalyst comprising an alkaline earth metal oxide and platinum (claimed Group 8-10 metal which is platinum instant claims 13 and 14) supported on an MFI-type zeolite (paragraph [0009]), wherein the MFI-type zeolite is ZSM-5 (claimed solid acid catalyst ZSM-5 instant claims 1, 9, and 10) (paragraph [0017]) and the alkaline earth metal oxide is magnesium, calcium, or barium oxide (claimed solid base catalyst which is magnesium, calcium, or barium oxide instant claims 1, 11, and 12) (paragraph [0025]). Saiga further teaches that the catalyst comprising the alkaline earth metal oxide supported on the zeolite has a reduced acid content and intensity, thus suppressing excessive hydrogenolysis reactions which would reduce the amount of the desired jet fuel product obtained (paragraph [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the catalyst of Saiga in the process of Linck, because Linck and Saiga each teach isomerization of bioderived mixtures to form jet fuel paraffinic hydrocarbons, Linck teaches that the catalyst in the hydroconversion zone can be tailored to a particular reaction, wherein the reactions include isomerization, and Saiga teaches that the base catalyst supported on the acid catalyst is a good isomerization catalyst which suppresses excessive hydrogenolysis reactions which would reduce the amount of desired jet fuel product obtained (paragraph [0025]).
With regard to claims 2 and 3, Linck teaches that the bio-oil is produced by heating biomass in a hydropyrolysis reactor to produce pyrolysis gas (paragraph [0026]) at a temperature of about 300°C to about 600°C (paragraph [0077]), then cooling and condensing the pyrolysis to obtain the bio-oil which is mixed with the co-feed (paragraph [0070]). The temperature of Linck overlaps the temperature of 200-450°C of instant claim 3, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 5, Linck teaches the feed to the hydropyrolysis reactor comprises an aliphatic hydrocarbon precursor (paragraph [0053]) which is coconut oil (claimed coconut fruit) (paragraph [0033]).
With regard to claim 7, Linck teaches that the reaction vessel comprises hydrogen (paragraph [0078]) and that the pressure in the reaction vessel is less than about 55 bar (less than about 5.5 MPa) (paragraph [0088]), which overlaps the range of 0 to 2 MPa of instant claim 7, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linck et al. (US 2016/0312125) in view of Saiga et al. (JP 2021-070022, machine translation provided herein) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Medoff (US 2012/0309060).
With regard to claim 4, Linck teaches the process above comprising hydropyrolysis (paragraph [0026]) and wherein the bio-oil is obtained by cooling and condensing the pyrolysis to obtain the bio-oil which is mixed with the co-feed (paragraph [0070]).
Linck is silent regarding adding superheated steam by jetting during the pyrolysis reaction.
Medoff teaches conversion of biomass to products (Abstract) where the conversion produces liquid pyrolysis oils (paragraph [0369]). Medoff further teaches that injecting (jetting) superheated steam to the pyrolysis chamber produces process heat which facilitates the reaction (paragraph [0367]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add superheated steam to the pyrolysis of Linck, because each of Linck and Medoff teaches pyrolysis of biomass to produce liquid bio-oils, and Medoff teaches that adding superheated steam facilitates the pyrolysis reactions by adding process heat (paragraph [0367]).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linck et al. (US 2016/0312125) in view of Saiga et al. (JP 2021-070022, machine translation provided herein) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2014/0171699).
With regard to claims 6 and 8, Linck in view of Saiga teaches the process above comprising the hydroconversion catalyst in the hydroconversion reactor.
Linck in view of Saiga is silent regarding i) the amount of hydroconversion catalyst in the hydroconversion reactor and ii) the residence time in the reactor.
Wang teaches a process for making fuels from renewable feed sources (Abstract). Wang further teaches that the process comprises contacting feeds of biological origin in a single reactor with a catalyst comprising an acidic and basic component and a hydrogenation component (Abstract). Wang additionally teaches that the reaction time depends on the amount of catalyst in the reactor, the types of catalyst used, and the reaction temperature, and that the reaction time should be optimized (paragraph [0113]). Thus, Wang teaches that the amount of the catalyst and the reaction time are result-effective variables which can be optimized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the amount of catalyst to 5 to 15 wt% and the reaction time to 3 to 6 hours, as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights