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 .
Specification / Drawings
The specification and/or drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because the instant application does not include the figures mentioned in the specification. Specifically, the specification mentions “Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4” on page 16, lines 18-19, “Figures 3 through 7” on page 25, lines 11-15, and “Figures 5, 6, or 7” on page 37, lines 10-12, and no corresponding drawings are presented.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 6 recites “the catalyst” which lacks antecedent basis. Applicant is suggested amend the limitation “wherein the catalyst for the hydrogenation in d) comprises” in claim 6 to state “is conducted in the presence of a catalyst comprising
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen (US 10,767,127 B2, cited in IDS dated 05/16/2024).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Sorensen discloses a catalytic fast pyrolysis process comprising:
a) feeding biomass, catalyst, and optionally transport fluid to a catalytic pyrolysis process fluidized bed reactor maintained at reaction conditions to manufacture a raw fluid product stream containing renewable aromatics (col. 9, lines 31-40 and 50-51);
b) feeding the raw fluid product stream of a) to a solids separation and stripping system to produce separated solids and a fluid product stream (col. 9, lines 40-43),
c) feeding the fluid product stream of b) to a fractionation system in order to recover a fraction boiling at 185°C or higher (col. 9, lines 43-61),
d) hydrogenating at least a portion of the fraction generated in c) with hydrogen at hydrogenation conditions to produce a hydrogenated fraction containing naphthenes (decalin, substituted decalin) (col. 8, line 58 - col.9, line 3; col. 9, lines 61-64), and
e) recovering a jet fuel blendstock (col. 9, lines 64 - col. 10, line 2).
Sorensen does not teach that the fraction recovered in step (c) boils at “180°C to 300°C.” However, the claimed range overlaps the boiling range of the corresponding fraction disclosed by Sorensen (185°C or higher) and is, therefore, considered prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. I.
Regarding Claim 2, Sorensen discloses that suitable materials for the biomass include wood, forestry waste, corn stover, agricultural waste, municipal solid waste, food processing waste, animal manures, and cellulosic waste (col. 11, line 29 – col 12, line 8).
Regarding claim 3, Sorensen discloses that the renewable aromatics include benzene, toluene, xylenes, phenols, naphthols, benzofuran, ethylbenzene, styrene, naphthalene, methylnaphthalene, or combinations thereof (col. 9, lines 51-55).
Regarding claim 4, while Sorensen discloses that the renewable aromatics may include naphthalene, methylnaphthalene, naphthalenols (naphthols), and phenols, the reference does not explicitly teach that the renewable aromatics comprise at least 25 volume % naphthalene, substituted naphthalenes, naphthalenols, methyl naphthalenols, and naphthalene diols, and at least 3 weight% xylenols, and less than 15 weight % the sum of phenanthrene, anthracene, and other materials. However, the instant application and the Sorensen disclose the same or substantially the same feedstocks (see rejection of claim 2) and the catalytic pyrolysis process (Sorensen, col. 15, line 39 – col. 16, line 5; Spec., pg. 17, line 12 - pg.18, line 5). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, it is reasonably expected that the pyrolysis products in the instant application and Sorensen have the same composition, including the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Sorensen discloses that a portion of the fluid product stream of (b) is hydrotreated to remove heteroatoms (col. 16, lines 27-34 and 48-56)
Regarding claim 6, Sorensen discloses that the hydrogenation is conducted in the presence of a catalyst which may comprise Ni, Co, Fe, Ag, Pt, Pd, Ru, Rh, Ir, Mo, W, or combinations thereof, deposited on oxide supports including oxides of Al or Si and zeolite (col. 17, lines 3-11).
Regarding claim 7, Sorensen discloses that the hydrogenation may be conducted at a temperature of 40-350 °C and a hydrogen pressure of from 0.1 MPa to 40 MPa (col. 16, lines 62-66). The claimed ranges of “200°C to 400°C” and “4.0 MPa to 12 MPa” overlap the temperature and pressure ranges taught by Sorensen and are, therefore, considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Sorensen discloses that the hydrogenation may be conducted at a liquid hourly space velocity of 0.1 to 19 hr-1 and a gas-to-liquid ratio of 1 to 25 m3/m3 (col. 16, line 66 – col. 17, line 2). The claimed ranges of “greater than 0.1 hr-1” and “0.1 to 20:1” overlap the liquid hourly space velocity and volumetric gas-to-liquid ratio ranges taught by Sorensen and are, therefore, considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Sorensen does not explicitly disclose that the hydrogenated fraction in (d) comprises at least 50% by weight hydrocarbons with from 10 to 16 carbon atoms. However, Sorensen suggests that the hydrogenated fraction can be used as jet fuel blendstock (col. 9, 63-66), which implicitly suggests that the fractionation step can be optimized to produce a fraction having a boiling point range suitable for jet fuel. Furthermore, Sorensen discloses that the fuel blendstock may comprise at least 90 wt% hydrocarbons with 9-16 carbon atoms (col. 9, lines 3-6; col. 10, lines 7-10 and 18-21). Therefore, the reference is interpreted to suggest embodiments where a fraction primarily containing 10-16 carbons is produced in case jet fuel is the desired product.
Regarding claim 10, Sorensen discloses that the hydrogenated fraction may comprise decalin, substituted decalins, tetralin, and substituted tetralins (col. 8, line 58 – col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Sorensen does not explicitly teach that the hydrogenated fraction comprises 30 to 98 wt% naphthenes, from 3 to 50 wt% tetralins, no more than 30 wt% naphthalenes and alkyl naphthalenes, no more than 0.1 wt% sum of acenaphthenes, acenaphthylenes, fluorenes, phenanthrenes, and anthracenes. However, the instant application and the Sorensen disclose the same or substantially the same feedstocks (see rejection of claim 2), the catalytic pyrolysis process (Sorensen, col. 15, line 39 – col. 16, line 5; Spec., pg. 17, line 12 - pg.18, line 5), fractionation (Sorensen, col. 9, lines 58-63; Spec., pg. 21, line 14 – pg. 22, line 2), and hydrogenation process (Sorensen, col. 16, line 54 – col. 17, line 36; Spec., pg. 25, line 18 – pg. 26, line 7). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, it is reasonably expected that the hydrogenated fraction in the instant application and Sorensen have the same composition, including the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Sorensen discloses feeding the fluid product stream of (b) to a quench vapor/liquid separation system utilizing hydrocarbon quench or cooling to produce a liquid phase stream comprising oxygenates, and C9+ aromatics, and entrained char, coke, ash, catalyst fines, and a vapor phase stream comprising carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, olefins, and aromatics, said aromatics of the vapor phase stream comprising benzene, toluene, xylenes, phenols, naphthols, benzofuran, ethylbenzene, styrene, naphthalene, methylnaphthalene, or combinations thereof, prior to fractionating in (c) (col. 9, lines 43-55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. No prior art of record, individually or in combination, teaches or suggests a process for preparing renewable jet fuel blendstock, as required by claim 1, in conjunction with the recycling feature of claim 13 or the hydrogenation configuration of claim 14. Sorensen (US 10,767,127 B2), applied in the rejection above, fails to provide guidance on recycling 3-ring species to the pyrolysis step. The reference also fails to teach or reasonably suggest operating the hydrogenation in two stages such that (i) a first hydrogenation is operated at 2-7 MPa with a CoMo catalyst, producing a partially hydrogenated stream of partially hydrogenated aromatic rings, reducing xylenols to benzene, toluene, and xylenes, and reducing naphthalenes to naphthenes, and (ii) a second hydrogenation of aromatics to alkanes is operated at 2-8 MPa that is higher than the pressure of the first hydrogenation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772