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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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 15-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US 2011/0288352) in view of Hyman (US 2015/0148573).
Regarding claims 15-34, Peters teaches sending bio ethanol to dehydration to produce olefins, followed by oligomerization and hydrogenation to produce fuel products [0020-0026], [0084], [0091], [01000]. Peters teaches hydrogenation at temperatures of 25-350˚C and pressures of 0.1-20 MPa [0112]. Peters teaches recycle of unconverted hydrogenated material [0113]. Examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected hydrogen ratio, as such is a well-known variable, in order to achieve the desired hydrogenation. Peters teaches distillation can occur before or after hydrogenation depending on the products desired [0114].
Examiner notes that it is expected that the bio ethanol dehydration and oligomerization would result in the same properties as claimed, since they are the same steps applied to the same feeds as described in claim 29 and instant specification (See examples).
Peters teaches the products are useful as fuels, which is one of the same purposes as identified in Applicant’s instant sped (see page 1). Peters does not explicitly disclose the boiling ranges as specified in the claims.
However, Hyman teaches a similar process for bio ethanol dehydration to produce olefins followed by oligomerization, hydrogenation, and fractionation [0046-0048]. Hyman teaches that while the products can be used for fuel [0051] (similarly to Peters), Hyman teaches that the products may also be used in other applications such as for drilling fluids, industrial fluids, inks, solvents, etc [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected the cut points in the distillation step, depending on whether fuel products or desired, or products for the other applications as specified by Hyman. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results, since Peters/Hyman teaches that the products are useful in these applications, and the person having ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with selection of the boiling range so that the product can be used for the desired products.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cao (US 2020/0062674) – teaches ethanol dehydration, oligomerization and hydrogenation
Luebke (US 9,957,449) – teaches production of jet fuel from bio renewable alcohols (column 7, lines 15-50)
Wright (US 2012/0238788) – teaches bio alcohol dehydration and oligomerization to produce fuels and lubricants (see figures)
Harandi (US 5,177,279) – teaches methanol to gasoline conversion process
El Halwagi (US 2012/0095272) – teaches biomass to produce alcohol to send to dehydration and oligomerization to produce fuel
WO 03/074634 – cited in ISR, teaches producing hydrocarbon fluids for inks, drilling fluids, working fluids, and silicone extenders by hydrogenation of vgo feeds (see example 1)
WO 2011/061575 – cited in ISR, teaches hydrogenation of VGO to produce hydrocarbon fluids having low aromatic content
Coupard (US 2007/0287873) – teaches conversion of ethanol to basestock
Gruber (US 2012/0238787) – teaches production of jet fuel from biomass
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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 C 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights