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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18709879 filed 5/14/24.
Claims 1-11 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 5/23/25 and 6/25/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 5/14/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
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, 8 and all dependent claims 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1, 8 and all dependent claims recite the broad recitation (see respective claims), and the claim also recites the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The Examiner has taken the position that only one is present.
The terms “sufficient” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “sufficient” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant is required to further bring clarification and/or correction to claims.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ABHARI ET AL. (US PG PUB 20080244962) in view of NOUSIAINEN ET AL. (US PG PUB 20160130509) and as evidence by KIESSLICH ET AL. (20110060176) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as ABHARI, NOUSIAINEN and KIESSLICH.
Regarding claims 1, and 3-11:
ABHARI teaches abstract - a method for producing an isoparaffinic product useful as jet fuel from a renewable feedstock. The method may also include co-producing a jet fuel and a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) fraction from a renewable feedstock. The method includes hydrotreating the renewable feedstock to produce a hydrotreating unit heavy fraction that includes n-paraffins and hydroisomerizing the hydrotreating unit heavy fraction to produce a hydroizomerizing unit heavy fraction that includes isoparaffins. The method also includes recycling the hydroisomerizing unit heavy fraction through the hydroisomerization unit to produce an isoparaffinic product that may be fractionated into a jet fuel and an LPG fraction. The present invention also relates to a jet fuel produced from a renewable feedstock having improved cold flow properties.
ABHARI also teachers the density of hydrocarbon liquid between 0.775 – 0.840 g/ml (e.g. 775 – 840 kg/m3).
ABHARI teaches in para [0022] The heavy paraffins 143 are pumped to hydroisomerizer reactor pressure, preferably about 1,000 to about 2,000 psig, and combined with hydrogen 146. The hydrogen containing heavies recycle stream is then heated in heater 139 to the desired hydroisomerizer inlet temperature of about 580 F. to about 680 F. Suitable catalysts for the hydroisomerizer reactor 148 are bifunctional catalysts with hydrogenation and acidic functionalities. Such catalysts include Group VIII metals on amorphous (e.g. silica-alumina) or crystalline (e.g. zeolite) supports. One preferred hydroisomerization catalyst is platinum, palladium or combinations of same on an amorphous silica-alumina support. However, it should be understood that any catalyst may be used in accordance with the present invention so long as it functions as described herein. Preferred gas to liquid ratios are in the about 1,000 to about 10,000 scf/bbl range, and liquid hourly space velocity in the about 0.2 to about 5 h-1 range. The product of the mainly C15-C18 feed, stream 106, is a C3-C18 isoparaffinic composition. This isoparaffinic product stream acts as a solvent/diluent for the hydrotreater feed.
ABHARI teaches in para [0017] In one embodiment, the present method for co-producing an isoparaffinic product useful as a jet fuel and an LPG fraction includes a hydrotreating step, a hydroisomerization step, and a fractionation step having recycle of the heavy hydroisomerization products. As shown on FIG. 1, a renewable feedstock is initially fed to the processing system. The renewable feedstock can include animal fats, animal oils, vegetable fats, vegetable oils, plant fats, plant oils, rendered fats, restaurant grease, waste industrial frying oils, fish oil, and combinations thereof. It should be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that other oils can be used so long as they are of a sufficient structure to be ultimately converted into the isoparaffinic product. In particular, the renewable feedstock includes triglycerides and free fatty acids. Triglycerides are esters of fatty acids and have a formula of CH2 (OOCR1) CH (OOCR2) CH2 (OO CR3), where R1, R2, and R3 are typically of a different chain length. Fatty acids have a formula of CH3 (CH2)x COOH and contains 4 to 22 carbon atoms.
ABHARI teaches in para [0018] Referring now to the process embodiment of FIG. 1, renewable feedstock 101 is pressurized using pump 102 to a hydrotreater 109 operating pressure of about 1,000 to about 2,000 psig (with pressures as low as about 250 psig and as high as about 3,000 psig also within the embodiment operating range). The renewable feedstock liquid hourly space velocity through the hydrotreater 109 is preferably in the about 0.5 to about 5 h-1 range. The hydrotreater 109 catalyst is preferably a sulfided bimetallic catalyst such as NiW (nickel-tungsten), NiMo (nickel-molybdenum), and CoMo (cobalt-molybdenum) on alumina support. One suitable catalyst is sulfided NiMo on alumina. However, it should be understood that any catalyst may be used so long as the catalyst functions in accordance with the present invention as described herein. The catalyst may be in the oxide form and sulfided during startup, or pre-sulfided and active when loaded into the hydrotreater 109. The liquid feedstock is then heated through a hydrotreater feed-effluent exchanger 104. The heated feed is combined with hot product 106 from hydroisomerizer reactor 148. The diluted renewable feedstock is then combined with hydrogen 108 before entering the hydrotreater 109. Due to the high oxygen content and unsaturation level of the renewable feedstock, the exothermic hydrodeoxygenation and olefin hydrogenation reactions may result in a higher than desired adiabatic temperature rise. Quench hydrogen 110 may thus be used to maintain the hydrotreater temperature between about 500 F. to about 700 F., with temperatures as low as about 300 F. and as high as about 850 F. The gas to liquid ratio (renewable feed basis) for the hydrotreating reaction is about 2,000 to about 14,000 scf/bbl range.
NOUSIAINEN further teaches hydrotreating catalyst and the important effects of them in para [0025] It was surprisingly found that a feedstock comprising material of biological origin, containing even high amounts of aromatic compounds and/or cyclic structures containing unsaturated bonds can be converted in an efficient manner to hydrocarbons comprising low amounts of aromatics, with a process where said feedstock is subjected to purification followed by hydroprocessing under conditions suitable for hydrodexygation, hydrodewaxing and dearomatization.
NOUSIAINEN teaches in para [0026] – [0027] Materials of biological origin refer here to renewable materials.
NOUSIAINEN teaches in para [0045] the purified feedstock is subjected to hydroprocessing in the presence of at least one hydrodeoxygantion (HDO) catalyst, at least one hydrodewaxing (HDW) catalyst and at least one hydrodearomatization (HDA) catalyst to obtain a hydroprocessing product. Also see para [0079] – [0080].
NOUSIAINEN teaches in para [0106] In the present invention, the HDA catalyst is selected from sulphur tolerant dearomatization catalysts and sulphur tolerant isomerization catalysts and their combinations.
NOUSIAINEN teaches in para [0107] The HDA catalyst is selected from catalysts containing metals of the Group VIII of the Periodic table of Elements, Group VIB and the rare earth metals, which catalyst is capable of dearomatizing the feed material. Suitably the metal is selected from Pt, Pd, Ir, Ru, Rh, Re, Ni, Co, Mo, W, CoMo, NiMo or NiW, in elemental, oxide or sulphide form, and mixtures and combinations thereof.
NOUSIAINEN teaches in para [0108] Suitably said catalyst comprises a support selected from oxide supports, such as alumina, titania, silica, magnesia, zirconia, and B2O3, and other supports, such as carbon, charcoal, zeolites, and combinations thereof, suitably Al2O3, Al2O3—SiO2, zeolite Y, Al2O3—B2O3, or SiO2 and combination thereof. The catalyst may be promoted (or acid promoted) by for example fluorine, fluoro-sulfonic acid, trifluorimethanesulfonic acid or hydrogen fluoride as a Bronsted acid, or Friedel-Crafts catalyst selected from the group consisting of boron fluorides, tantalum fluorides and niobium fluorides, for increasing the acidity of the support whereby sulphur tolerance of the catalyst is improved.
NOUSIAINEN teaches in para [0109] Examples of suitable sulphur tolerant catalysts, in addition to all metal sulphides are Pd and/or Pt on zeolite Y/AI2O3 , optionally with added Na; Pd and/or Pt on zirconia/silica, optionally with added alumina or alumina-silica; Pd and/or Pt on alumina/alumina-silica, optionally with one or more of titania, silica, magnesia, zirconia; Pd or Pt or Ir on carbon, or charcoal, suitably Pd promoted with tantalum perfluoride and hydrogen fluoride; Pd, Pt, Ir, Ru, Rh and/or Re on silca/alumina, sulphidized CoMo and NiMo catalysts on alumina/alumina-silica; and Pd-Pt on AI2O3—B2O3. By using suitable modified supports the HDA catalyst containing noble metals, such as Pd, Pt, Ir, Ru, Rh and/or Re, can maintain their activity even in sulphur containing process conditions. The hydrotreating catalyst is further evident by KIESSLICH in para [0029] Typically, the aforementioned zeolites are prepared by direct synthesis from alkali metal aluminate, alkali metal silicate and amorphous SiO2 under hydrothermal conditions.
It would have been obvious to the skilled oil formulator to combine the catalyst of ABHARI and NOUSIAINEN as they both teach overlapping catalyst components for the processes; in addition the motivation is taught in NOUSIAINEN para [0025] stated above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ABHARI ET AL. (US PG PUB 20080244962) in view of NOUSIAINEN ET AL. (US PG PUB 20160130509) and as evidence by KIESSLICH ET AL. (20110060176), as disclosed above in claims 1 and 3-11 is hereby incorporated, and further in view of COKER ET AL. (US PG PUB 20030106839) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as ABHARI, NOUSIAINEN, COKER and KIESSLICH.
Regarding claim 2:
Modified ABHARI teaches the above disclosure; however they do not explicitly disclose wherein the hydrogenation catalyst is in a stacked bed above the hydroisomerization catalyst, but it is within the scope of the modified ABHARI.
COKER teaches in para [0025] a catalytically effective amount of one or more hydrotreating catalysts are employed in the first sulfur removal stage. Suitable hydrotreating catalysts may be conventional and include those which are comprised of at least one Group VIII metal, preferably Fe, Co and Ni, more preferably Co and/or Ni, and most preferably Co; and at least one Group VI metal, preferably Mo and/or W, more preferably Mo, on a high surface area support material, preferably alumina. Other suitable hydrotreating catalysts include zeolitic catalysts, as well as noble metal containing catalysts where the noble metal is selected from Pd and Pt. It is within the scope of the present invention that more than one type of hydrotreating catalyst be used in the same bed or in a stacked bed arrangement. The Group VIII metal is typically present in an amount ranging from about 0.1 to 10 wt. %, preferably from about 1 to 5 wt. %. The Group VI metal will typically be present in an amount ranging from about 1 to 20 wt. %, preferably from about 2 to 10 wt. %, and more preferably from about 2 to 5 wt. %. All metals weight percents are on catalyst. By "on catalyst" we mean that the percents are based on the total weight of the catalyst. For example, if the catalyst were to weigh 100 g. then 20 wt. % Group VIII metal would mean that 20 g. of Group VIII metal was on the support.
Therefore one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that ABHARI and COKER teaches overlapping catalyst components for the hydrotreating process, as well as COKER disclosing that hydrotreating catalyst be used in the same bed or in a stacked bed arrangement.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ABHARI ET AL. (US PG PUB 20080244962) in view of NOUSIAINEN ET AL. (US PG PUB 20160130509) and as evidence by KIESSLICH ET AL. (20110060176), as disclosed above in claims 1 and 3-11 is hereby incorporated, and further in view of MALATAK (US PG PUB 20230019086) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as ABHARI, NOUSIAINEN, MALATAK and KIESSLICH.
Regarding claim 11:
Modified ABHARI teaches the above disclosure, in addition MALATAK teaches wherein the combining step is conducted by mixing, blending, co-feeding, feeding independently to the same reactor, and combinations thereof.
MALATAK teaches in para [0013] The present disclosure provides a method for producing a renewable crude oil from a renewable feed stock that comprises a renewable feed stock component. Generally, renewable feed stock components are renewable fats and renewable oils that are predominantly non-petroleum fats and oils. In some aspects, renewable feed stock components include triglycerides, fats, fatty acids, fatty esters, and/or fat-derived materials. The renewable fats and renewable oils may originate from plant and animal sources. The renewable fats and renewable oils may include used cooking oil (UCO), recycled cooking oil, waste cooking oil, used vegetable oil, recycled vegetable oil, waste vegetable oil, rendered oils, animal fats, tallow, pork fat, chicken fat, fish oils, yellow grease, poultry fat, algal oils, algae-derived oils, soy oil, palm oil, palm fatty acids, plant-derived oils such as corn oil, rapeseed oil, canola oil, jatropha oil, olive oil, fatty acids, and seed oils, and the like. In one embodiment, the renewable feed stock includes at least 10% UCO. In some embodiments, the renewable feed stock includes at least 10% corn oil. In further embodiments, the renewable feed stock includes at least 10% UCO and at least 10% corn oil. The renewable fats and oils may be used alone, or may be used in combination with petroleum-based feed stocks. In some embodiments, the renewable feed stock components do not include biomass-based components. Biomass-based components include wood or forest residues, yard waste, food processing waste, e.g., corn cobs, manure, and human waste from sewage plants.
MALATAK teaches in para [0027] The hydrotreating and optional isomerization, de-waxing, and/or hydrocracking may be performed in the same reactor or in different reactors. The optional isomerization, de-waxing, and/or hydrocracking of the renewable crude oil may be performed in the same reactor or in different reactors.
From the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
In addition, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize additional analysis would not have been expected to confer any particular desirable property on the final product. Rather, the final product obtained according to the claim limitations would merely have been expected to have the same functional properties as the prior art product.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
Finally, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Thereby meeting the claim limitations.
Again, KIESSLICH is considered a teaching reference, not a modifying reference. See MPEP 2112
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771