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 .
The amendment dated 07/02/2026 has been considered and entered. The response persuasively argues that Choi et al. (US 2007/0083071) does not particularly recite the IQR of the claim, and thus the previous rejections in view of Choi are withdrawn. The response is not persuasive over the rejections in view of Vapola et al. (WO 2019/197720A1) because Vapola recites light naphtha having boiling point range of 30℃ to 180℃, which according to Table 1 of the instant specification have IQR of about 0.7. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejections.
The amendment removes the broader and narrower range limitations which overcomes the rejections based on indefiniteness.
Rejections based on obviousness double patenting in view of US 10,844,288 and US 10,793,781 are withdrawn for not particularly providing the IQR of the naphtha composition.
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 27 – 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vapola et al. (WO 2019/197720A1)
In regard to claim 27, Vapola teaches method for producing a mixture of biohydrocarbons containing propene and ethene and the use of the mixture of biohydrocarbons for producing chemicals and/or polymer (abstract). The biohydrocarbons are produced by thermally cracking a hydrocarbon composition derived from a renewable feedstock (page 1 lines 4 – 7). Thermal cracking of the composition is conducted at a coil outlet temperature of from 780℃ to 890℃ (page 4 lines 23 – 26).
The feed is renewable isomeric paraffinic composition that may comprises at least one of vegetable or animal oil or fat, or may comprise at least one of diesel and/or naphtha having a boiling point of from 30 to 180℃ which comprises light naphtha (i.e., as co-feedstock) which are subjected to thermal cracking to provide propene and ethene (page 5 lines 6 – 21). Light naphtha has an IQR of about 0.7 and isomerized diesel range hydrocarbons have IQR of 2 according to Table 1 of applicant’s specification (see compositions C1 and C3 of pages 55 – 56 of the specification).
The composition can comprise fractions having at least 50%, or at least 90% of C10 to C20 hydrocarbons and at most 1% or at most 0.2% aromatics etc. (page 5 lines 26 – 31). Thermal cracking yields more than 50% of ethylene and propylene followed by separation and/or purification of the cracking products (i.e., effluent) (page 26 lines 1 – 26). The feed is the same as the claimed and thus provides the limitation of stabilized feed as claimed.
Cracking products include hydrogen, methane, ethane, ethene, propane, propene, butane, butylene, isobutene, butadiene, C5+ hydrocarbons such as aromatics, benzene, toluene, xylene and C5 to C18 paraffins and olefins and derivatives (page 28 lines 8 – 11, page 42 & Table 9).
In regard to claim 28, Vapola teaches the process wherein cracking occurs in a steam cracker (page 23 lines 19 – 20).
In regard to claim 29, Vapola teaches the process and process and the reaction temperatures as previously discussed.
In regard to claim 30, Vapola teaches the process wherein the feed may comprise naphtha alone (100%) or in combination with diesel as previously stated.
In regard to claim 31, Vapola teaches the process wherein the product separated include ethylene and propylene and paraffins such as propane, butane etc., butadiene, aromatics, benzene (page 28 lines 1 – 11). Vapola teaches recycling unconverted reactants (i.e., paraffins) to thermal cracking allows a very high overall yield of the process (page 24 lines 10 – 11).
In regard to claim 32, Vapola teaches the process wherein the bio-hydrocarbon products (i.e., bio-monomers) are used for producing other chemicals and/or polymer thus providing the derivatization or polymerization as claimed.
In regard to claim 33, Vapola teaches the biopolymer composition as previously stated.
In regard to claim 34, Vapola teaches the naphtha range and isomerized diesel feed having the IQR as claimed.
In regard to claim 35, Vapola teaches the composition wherein the feed is preferably 90% or high of C10 to C20 hydrocarbons and which does not require the presence C4 and lower carbon numbers.
In regard to claim 36, Vapola teaches the feed which comprise at most 2% or at most 0.5% olefins, and at most 5% or at most 2% naphthenes in one fraction (page 6 lines 1 – 8).
In regard to claim 37, Vapola teaches the feed having the claimed amount of aromatics as previously stated.
In regard to claim 38, Vapola teaches the feed having the carbon range that overlaps the claimed limitation (i.e., fraction A) as previously stated. Fraction B can comprise C5 to C10 hydrocarbon at 90% or more (page 15 lines 13 – 30).
In regard to claim 39, Vapola teaches the naphtha-range feed having similar IQR values as previously discussed.
In regard to claims 40, 41, Vapola teaches the feed (fraction B) which does not require the presence of C11 and higher carbon numbers as previously discussed.
In regard to claim 42, Vapola teaches the feed having the isomeric feed comprising at least 90% or at least 99% paraffins (page 10 lines 14 – 22).
In regard to claims 43, 44, Vapola teaches the feed having at least 10% and at most 89% of n-paraffin in the isoparaffin composition, and thus overlaps the claimed ranges (page 4 lines 6 – 12).
In regard to claim 45, Vapola teaches the feed having the claimed limitations as previously stated.
In regard to claim 46, Vapola teaches the composition having the benzene, ethylene and propylene content as previously stated, and which does not require the presence of carbon monoxide in the product (Table 9). For instance, the feedstock undergoes hydrotreatment and isomerization which removes light gases such as carbon monoxide (page 22 lines 11 – 15).
In regard to claim 47, Vapola teaches the composition which may optionally comprise benzene in the effluent and provides the claimed amount (i.e., 0%).
In regard to claim 48, Vapola teaches the composition having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regard to claims 49, 50, Vapola teaches the composition having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regard to claim 51, Vapola teaches the composition having the butadiene in the claimed amount (Table 9).
In regards to claim 52, Vapola teaches the composition which does not comprise pyrolysis oil (Table 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Vapola does not recite the IQR of the composition and merely reciting naphtha having boiling point of 30℃ does not guarantee that the composition would have the IQR of the claim. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant provides no evidence for the assertion. Vapola teaches naphtha (i.e., in the light naphtha boiling point range) which is understood as having similar or identical composition as those of the instant claims and would be expected to have similar properties. Since IQR is calculated based on the ingredients present in the naphtha, it is unclear why the IQR would not be similar or identical.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights