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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of claims 17-28 and 32-36 in the reply filed on 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Examiner will search the same classes of art for the claimed hydrocarbon composition and thus there would be no reduction in workload, no simplification of prosecution, and no serious burden if restriction were not required. This is not found persuasive because of the same reasoning set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 22 April 2026. Here, it is noted that the claimed composition is specified irrespective of the process used to produce it (see claims 29-31). Thus, a process completely different than that specified for the elected claims may be used to produce the composition, undoubtedly requiring a completely separate prior art search on the constituent components of the composition per se.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 29-31 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-19, 21-25, 28, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weiss (FR 3004722 A1).
With respect to claims 17-19, 21-25, 28, and 32-36, Weiss discloses a process for conversion of a biomass feedstock, such as residues from the paper industry (e.g., tall oil) (see Weiss, Abstract; and page 6, lines 5-16). The process comprises a first hydrotreatment, followed by a second hydrotreatment, and followed by hydroisomerization and distillation (see Weiss, claim 1; page 12, lines 33-38; and claim 2). The feed may be pre-refined (i.e. pre-treated) prior to the first hydrotreatment (see Weiss, page 6, lines 30-38; and page 7, lines 1-12). The feed may contain up to 20 ppm phosphorus and metals (see Weiss, page 7, lines 21-25). The pre-treatment may consist of degumming or heat treatment (e.g., via distillation or drying) (see Weiss, page 6, lines 30-38; and page 7, lines 1-12). Where the pre-treatment is a first hydrotreatment, such step may occur at conditions including temperature between 200°C and 450°C, pressure between 1 MPa and 15 MPa (10 bar and 150 bar), WHSV between 0.1 hr-1 and 10 hr-1, with a catalyst of nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, or tungsten (see Weiss, page 9, lines 1-14; and page 11, lines 22-31). The hydroisomerization step may occur at conditions including temperature between 150°C and 500°C, pressure between 1 MPa and 10 MPa (10 bar and 100 bar), WHSV between 0.5 hr-1 and 5 hr-1, with a platinum or palladium catalyst (see Weiss, page 21, lines 21-29; and page 18, lines 12-13). Various fractions are collected including a bottoms and a middle fraction, such as naphtha, kerosene, and diesel, all of which are fuels (see Weiss, page 27, lines 31-37).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weiss (FR 3004722 A1) as evidenced by Xie (Y. Xie et al., Diterpene Resin Acids: Major Active Principles in Tall Oil Against Variegated Cutworm, Peridroma saucia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), 19 J. Chem. Ecol. 1075-1084 (1993)).
With respect to claim 20, see discussion supra at paragraph 6. It is known that typical crude tall oils have a total resin acid constituent of about 27.0 wt% (see Xie, Table 1).
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 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (FR 3004722 A1).
With respect to claims 26 and 27, see discussion supra at paragraph 6. Weiss discloses wherein there may be more than one hydrotreatment stage, and thus accounts for a first stage and second stage hydrotreatment (see Weiss, page 12, lines 27-31). In this regard, Weiss also accounts for a reduction in nitrogen of at least 80% and a reduction of oxygen of at least 90% (see Weiss, Tables 1a and 1b). Importantly, nowhere do the claims foreclose the possibility that the “pre-hydrotreatment” is actually a first stage of a two-stage hydrotreatment process. Finally, Weiss discloses an initial boiling point of the isomerized stream of at least 100°C and a final boiling point of such stream of at most 370°C (see Weiss, page 22, lines 15-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Koivusalmi (WO 2007/068800 A2) and Markkanen (EP 2141217 A1). Koivusalmi and Markkanen generally disclose processes for the production of hydrocarbon products from a feedstock of biological origin (see respective Abstracts for each reference).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
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 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.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights