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 amendments filed 6/24/26 overcome the objections and rejections set forth in the office action mailed 3/24/26 except for the rejection set forth over Nousiainen in view of Niitsuma, which is maintained below and extended to the remaining claims as necessitated by the amendments. The double patenting rejection set forth in the office action mailed 3/24/26 is overcome by the incorporation of the subject matter of previous claim 31 into independent claim 19, since claim 31 was not subject to the double patenting rejection. Claim 36 has been rewritten in independent form and is therefore allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 19-21, 24-30, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nousiainen (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2016/0130509) in view of Niitsuma.
In paragraph 6, Nousiainen discloses a process for converting feedstock comprising material of biological origin to hydrocarbons. In paragraphs 43-46 Nousiainen discloses that the process comprises a step of purification of the feedstock, meeting the limitations of step (b) of claim 19, and also implying that that a material or biological origin is provided, as recited in step (a) of claim 19. In paragraphs 27-28 Nousiainen discloses that the material or biological origin can be various organic materials. Nousiainen further discloses that the process comprises a hydroprocessing step, and in paragraphs 111 and 113-117 Nousiainen discloses that the hydroprocessing can be performed in at least two steps, where the purified feedstock is subjected to a first hydroprocessing step, meeting the limitations of step (c) of claim 19, and the product from the first hydroprocessing step can be subjected to a fractionation step corresponding to step (c) of claim 19, yielding a heavy residue that can be recycled, and a diesel range product which is subjected to the second hydroprocessing step. In paragraph 112 Nousiainen discloses that the second hydroprocessing step can comprise two or more catalyst beds comprising combinations of hydrodearomatization (HDA) and hydrodewaxing (HDW) catalysts, and in paragraphs 19 and 106 Nousiainen discloses that both the HDA and HDW catalysts are capable of acting as isomerization catalysts. The second hydrotreatment step of Nousiainen, when two or more catalyst beds are used, therefore meets the limitations of steps (e) and (f) of claim 19. In paragraphs 124 and 136 Nousiainen indicates that the fuel product is a middle distillate, as recited in the preamble to claim 19.
In paragraphs 29-34 Nousiainen discloses that the feedstock of biological origin can be crude tall oil or tall oil tall oil fatty acid, as recited in claims 20-21. In paragraphs 33 and 22 Nousiainen discloses that the crude tall oil include neutral components which can be tall oil pitch, also as recited in claims 20-21.
In paragraphs 48-60 Nousiainen discloses that the purification step can include degumming or bleaching, as recited in claims 24 and 37, as well as evaporation which involved heat treatment and evaporation of volatiles (paragraphs 57 and 60), also as recited in claims 24 and 37. In paragraph 53 Nousiainen discloses that stripping can be carried out to further remove volatiles, meeting the limitations of claim 30 where the stripping is carried out after step (b).
The differences between Nousiainen and the currently presented claims are:
i) Nousiainen discloses the distilling step produces a fraction boiling in the diesel range at 160° to 380° C which is passed to a second hydroprocessing step. Nousiainen does not specifically disclose a second distillation step after the second hydroprocessing step.
ii) Nousiainen does not disclose the specific process conditions of claims 25, 27-28, and 38, or the boiling points recited in claim 26.
With respect to i), Niitsuma, in paragraphs 67-73, discloses fractionally distilling a hydrotreated oil to obtain a middle distillate useful as a diesel fuel, where the 95% distillation point is 240° to 300° C, preferably 245° to 255° C, meeting the limitations of the second distillation step of claim 31. Performing the distillation step of Niitsuma on the product of the second hydroprocessing step of Nousiainen meets the limitations of amended claims 19-21, 24, 30, and 37.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the distillation step of Niitsuma on the product of the second hydroprocessing step of Nousiainen, in order to produce a middle distillate useful as a diesel fuel and having favorable low temperature properties, as taught in paragraphs 74-81 of Niitsuma.
With respect to ii), In paragraphs 128-129 Nousiainen discloses that the first hydroprocessing step is carried out at a temperature and pressure overlapping the ranges recited in claims 25 and 38 for step (c) of the claimed process, and the temperature and pressure in the second hydroprocessing step (which covers steps e and f of the claimed process) overlaps or encompasses the ranges recited in claims 27-28. In paragraph 130 Nousiainen discloses that the hydroprocessing is carried out at an LHSV of 0.01 to 10 h-1, and given the breadth of this range and the claimed ranges and the density of crude tall oil and catalysts, the WHSV of the process of Nousiainen will overlap or encompass the ranges recited in claims 25, 27-28, and 38. In paragraphs 98-99 and 111 Nousiainen discloses that the hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) catalyst used in the first hydroprocessing step can contain the metals and carriers (supports) recited in claims 25 and 38. In paragraphs 102-103 Nousiainen discloses that the HSW catalyst can be supported NiW catalysts meeting the limitations of the hydrotreatment catalyst of claim 27. In paragraphs 106 and 109 Nousiainen discloses that HDA catalyst can be supported Pd or Pd-Pt catalysts, meeting the limitations of the isomerization catalyst of claim 28. Since Nousiainen discloses a feedstock and catalyst meeting the limitations of the feedstock and catalyst used for the pre-hydrotreatment of the claims, and process conditions for the first hydroprocessing step overlapping the ranges recited for the pre-hydrotreatment step, the first processing step of Nousiainen will remove nitrogen and oxygen from the feedstock in amounts at least overlapping the ranges recited in claim 29.
Regarding claim 26, Nousiainen discloses in paragraph 113 that the product obtained from the first hydroprocessing step can be subjected to fractionation, such as distillation, and the fraction boiling in the diesel range from 160° to 380° C, overlapping the range recited for the middle fraction of claim 26, is sent to the second hydroprocessing step. The percentage of the diesel range boiling fraction of Nousiainen boiling within a range of 180° to 360° C therefore overlaps the range recited in claim 26, and the percentage of the heavy residue left over boiling above 360° C will also overlap the range recited in claim 26.
See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claims 25-29 and 38 are therefore additionally rendered obvious by Nousiainen in view of Niitsuma.
In light of the above, claims 19-21, 24-30, and 37-38 are rendered obvious by Nousiainen in view of Niitsuma.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nousiainen in view of Niitsuma as applied to claims 19-21, 24-30, and 37-38 above, and further in view of Nousiainen ‘810 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,023,810).
The discussion of Nousiainen and Niitsuma in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference. Nousiainen discloses a process meeting the limitations of claim 19, where the feedstock can be a crude tall oil comprising neutral components such as tall oil pitch, but does not disclose the concentration of resin acids or impurities (claim 23) in the feedstock.
In column 2 lines 13-23 Nousiainen ‘810 discloses a process for producing hydrocarbons useful as liquid fuels wherein a feedstock comprising crude tall oil and tall oil pitch is subjected to pretreatment to remove impurities. In column 6 lines 20-27 and 44-57 Nousiainen ‘810 discloses that the pretreatment can involve evaporation similar to the purification step taught by Nousiainen. In Table 1 (column 16) Nousiainen ‘810 discloses sample compositions where the feeds comprise a rosin acid content within the range recited in claim 22, and silicon, phosphorus, and metal contents within the ranges recited in claim 23, noting that the “and/or” language of claim 23 does not require the feedstock to contain all of the recited components in the claimed amounts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the feedstock of Nousiainen ‘810 as the feedstock in the process of Nousiainen, since Nousiainen ‘810 teaches that it can be purified by the evaporative treatment of Nousiainen to levels of impurities acceptable for feeding to a hydroprocessing process producing hydrocarbons useful as liquid fuels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 is allowed. The amendments filed 6/24/26, indicated as containing allowable subject matter in the office action mailed 3/24/26, in independent form. Claim 36 recites a blend fulfilling the requirements of ASTM D7566-19, which is an aviation fuel specification, and requires the blend to be obtainable by a specific method. In paragraph 124 Nousiainen discloses that the middle distillate can be used as various types of fuels, or as blending components for the fuels, but does not disclose using the middle distillate as a blending component for a blend meeting the requirement of ASTM D7566-19. While Nousiainen mentions aviation fuel meeting ASTM D1655 in paragraph 22, Nousiainen only mentions it in the context of the definition of “transportation fuels”, and does not provide any disclosure indicating that the middle distillate can be blended to form an aviation fuel meeting ASTM D7566-19, which is a different specification than ASTM D1655. While claim 36 is in product by process format, the process by which the middle distillate is made will affect the composition of the middle distillate and therefore the blend, and blends of other middle distillates that meet the ASTM D7566-19 would not necessarily be obtainable from the claimed method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the process of Nousiainen does not use or form the hydrotreated oil mixtures of Niitsuma. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to expect that performing Niitsuma’s second fractionation step on Nousiainen’s hydroprocessed materials could produce a middle distillate having a 95% distillation point between 240° to 300° C or that they could be distilled to produce a fraction boiling up to 300° C. However, as discussed in the rejection, the distilling step of Nousiainen produces a fraction boiling in the diesel range at 160° to 380° C which is passed to a second hydroprocessing step. The hydrodearomatization and hydrodewaxing carried out in the second hydroprocessing step of Nousiainen (corresponding to steps e and f of claim 19) will not increase the boiling range of the composition, so the boiling range of the product will of Nousiainen will continue to overlap the range of up to 300° C recited in amended claim 19 as well as the range disclosed by Niitsuma. Applicant argues that the feedstock used in the distillation of Niitsuma is different than that of Noisiainen, but nevertheless, Niitsuma provides motivation for distilling a feedstock such as that of Noisiainen to obtain a fraction boiling below 300° C, within the claimed range.
Applicant also argues that the claims require separate hydrotreatment and isomerization steps. However, as discussed in the rejection, Nousiainen discloses that the second hydrotreatment is carried out using two or more catalyst beds, and can therefore meet the limitations of both steps (e) and (f) where the process carried out in the first bed corresponds to step (e) and the process carried out in the second bed corresponds to step (f).
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 JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights