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 has been considered but was not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained. The amendment of claim 17 necessitates new grounds of rejection based on new matter.
The drawing dated 0702/2026 has been accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites ratio of recycled feedstock to fresh feedstock of from 1:1 to 15:1 which is not supported by applicant’s disclosure as originally filed. Rather, the disclosure recites a ratio of partly hydrotreated feed to fresh purified feedstock in the pre-hydrotreatment step of from 1:1 to 15:1. Thus the ratios are for a recycled hydrotreated feed and a fresh purified feed unlike the fresh (unpurified) feedstock of the claim (see page 9 of the specification as originally filed).
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 9 – 16, 18 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toukoniitty et al. (WO 2020/016410A1)
In regards to claims 9 – 15, 18 – 21, Toukoniitty teaches purification of recycled and renewable organic material comprising the steps of providing a feed of lipid material, pre heat treating the recycled or renewable organic material at 180 to 325℃, optionally adding an acid and filtering the pre heat treated material (which provides the pretreatment step), heat treating the material in the presence of an adsorbent at 180 to 325℃ and filtering (i.e., removing the adsorbent) (abstract). The adsorbent includes alumina silicate, silica gel and mixtures (page 6 lines 25 – 29).
The process purifies the feedstock by removing phosphorus and sulfur, heat treating the feed in the presence of an adsorbent at 180 to 325℃ and filtering the material, followed by hydrotreating the material in the presence of hydrotreating catalyst at a temperature of from 270 to 380℃ (page 1 line 28 – page 2 line 5).
Hydrotreating can be performed in one or several steps (page 9 lines 31 – 32). The first hydrotreating step provides the partly hydrotreated feed/pre-hydrotreating step, and the subsequent hydrotreating steps provides the hydrotreating steps of the claims. Hydrotreatment includes hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) to remove oxygen, hydrodesulfurization (HDS), hydrodenitrification (HDN), hydrodearomatisation (HAD) (page 10 lines 31 – page 11 lines 21). Further treatment of the purified material can include hydrocracking, isomerization, etc. and combinations (page 12 lines 12 – 31). The organic material obtaining in step c) (i.e., after heat treatment with adsorbent and filtering) may be recycled in step f) (page 10 lines 21 – 25). The process yields a recycled or renewable hydrocarbon.
The claims are drawn to a process of purification such as to produce hydrocarbon which Toukoniitty teaches. The limitations drawn to devices used in the process having shapes such as cone shapes, or location within the device for adding or withdrawing feeds or products do not carry patentable weight.
In regards to claim 16, 22, Toukoniitty teaches the feed such as plant-based fats and oils can include tall oil by-products which are generally obtained after distillation and which provides a bottoms fraction, and inherently, other distillation fraction (i.e., middle fraction of the claim), and wherein the fraction(s) undergo the purifying process (page 3 lines 32 – page 4 lines 30). Thus, considering the feed as one stream of the process, the materials used prior to the process which undergoes distillation provides the claimed limitation.
Alternatively, at least in view of Markkanen et al. (EP 2 141 217 A1) the claimed limitation is taught. Markkanen similarly teaches conversion of biological oils to hydrocarbons by similarly requires hydrotreating and isomerization to prepare end products such as jet fuels, gasoline etc., and wherein the products are separated into various boiling fractions (i.e., jet fuel, gasoline, diesel) using distillation which provides a heavy (bottoms) fraction, and fuel ranges (i.e., middle fractions) as claimed [0041 – 0049].
Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims were filed would have found it obvious to have subjected the hydrocarbon product of Toukoniitty to further processing such as distillation as discussed by Markkanen, in order to separate the hydrocarbons into various fuel products such as jet fuel, gasoline, diesel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the shape of the cone provides various benefits such as facilitating and providing improved mixing contact during the process. The argument is not persuasive.
There is no evidence of the alleged improvement. Also, the rate of mixing are parameters that can be routinely optimized by persons of ordinary skill in the art.
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