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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response filed 5/26/2026 amended claims 12, 20-22 and 24-28, and canceled claims 14, 19 and 23. Neither applicants’ amendments nor arguments addressed below overcome the 35 USC 103 rejection over Weiss in view of Markkanen from the office action mailed 2/25/2026; therefore, this rejection is maintained below. Also, applicants did not address the double patenting rejections from the office action mailed 2/25/2026; therefore, these rejections are maintained below.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 24 is dependent from a claim that is cancelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 12-13, 15-18, 20-22 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss, French Publication No. FR3004722 (hereinafter referred to as Weiss) in view of Markkanen et al., EP Publication No. EP 2141217A1 (hereinafter referred to as Markkanen).
Regarding claims 12-28, Weiss discloses a process for converting a feedstock from renewable sources, such as residues from the paper industry, for example tall oil, which is known to contain substantial amounts of resid acids. The feedstock is used to produce middle distillates comprising a step of hydrotreating said feedstock in the presence of hydrogen, in at least one triphasic reactor operating as a bubbling bed, at least one step of separating at least a portion of the hydrotreated effluent obtained at the end of step a) to produce at least one gaseous fraction, at least one liquid fraction comprising paraffins and at least one fraction comprising solid impurities a hydroisomerization step operating in a fixed bed of at least a portion of the liquid fraction obtained at the end of step b) in the presence of a hydroisomerization catalyst, said catalyst comprising a hydro-dehydrogenating function and at least one molecular sieve or an amorphous mineral support, at least one step of separating the effluent from step c) into at least one gaseous fraction and at least one fraction middle distillates. Said method makes it possible to eliminate at least partly solid impurities during the separation step, so as to send in the fixed-bed hydroisomerization step a liquid fraction with a reduced content of solid impurities and to operate the step hydroisomerization without risk of premature closure and with an improved cycle time.
Weiss further discloses the petroleum fractions are chosen from the group formed by atmospheric distillates or by direct distillation vacuum, the atmospheric or vacuum type distillates resulting from conversion processes such as, for example, those resulting from the visbreaking of residues, from the coking of residues, hydrotreatment of fixed bed residues (such as those from HYVAHLO processes) or ebullated bed hydroconversion processes (such as those from H-OILO processes), or solvent deasphalted oils (eg, propane, butane, or pentane) from the deasphalting of direct distillation vacuum residue, or residues from heavy charge conversion processes. The fillers can also advantageously be formed by mixing these various fractions. They may also advantageously contain aromatic extracts and paraffins obtained in the context of the manufacture of lubricating oils.
Hydrotreatment of the load from a renewable source. In accordance with step a) of hydrotreatment, said feedstock is introduced in the presence of hydrogen, in at least one three-phase reactor operating as a bubbling bed, with an upward flow of liquid and of gas, the reactor or reactors each containing at least one supported catalyst, said hydrotreating step operating at a temperature between 200 and 450°C, at a pressure of between 1 MPa and 15 MPa, at a space velocity of between 0.1 hr-1 and 10 h-1, and in the presence of a total amount of hydrogen mixed with the feed such that the hydrogen/feed ratio is between 70 and 1000 Nm3 of hydrogen/m3 of feedstock. The hourly space velocity or hourly speed velocity (VVH) or also Liquid Hourly Space Velocity (LHSV) corresponds to the ratio between the volume flow rate of charge and the volume of catalyst. This concept is generally used for fixed beds.
The ebullated bed technology is widely known. The bubbling bed technologies use supported catalysts in the form of extrudates whose diameter is advantageously between 0.8 and 1.2 mm, generally equal to 0.9 mm or 1.1 mm. The catalysts remain inside the reactors, except during the makeup and catalyst withdrawal phases necessary to maintain the catalytic activity, and are not removed with the products. The temperature levels are sufficient to obtain high conversions while minimizing the amounts of catalysts used. The ebullated bed operation in the hydrotreatment stage has the advantage over a fixed-bed operation of avoiding the clogging which would occur in a fixed bed, particularly because of the precipitation of calcium phosphates and magnesium contained in the feed from renewable sources.
The support of said catalyst is chosen from the group formed by alumina, silica, silica-aluminas, magnesia, clays and mixtures of at least two of these minerals. Said support may also contain other compounds and for example oxides chosen from the group formed by boron oxide, zirconia, titanium oxide and phosphoric anhydride. Preferably, said support is an alumina support and very preferably an alumina support. Also advantageously comprises a hydrogenating function comprising at least one Group VIII and/or Group VI metal (see Abstract and Page 6/L. 30-31; Page 7/L. 21-25; Page.9/L.16-35; Page 11/L. 4-12 and 25-31; Page 18/L. 1-5; Page 21-22/L. 1-9).
Weiss discloses all the limitations discussed above but does not explicitly disclose the step of subjecting the feedstock to pre-hydrotreatment carried out in an embullated bed reactor as recited in claim 12.
Markkanen discloses in paragraph 0069 and see Example 1, a prehydrotreatment of biomass followed by hydrotreatment on a fixed bed and followed by isomerization as recited in claim 12. Markkanen explicitly discloses:
In the first stage hydrodeoxygenation of palm oil was carried out in a fixed bed tube reactor. The reaction was carried out in the presence of NiMo catalyst under a pressure of 47 bar, with WHSV of 0.5 1/h and at a reaction temperature of 330 °C. Hydrogen to oil ratio was around 1000 normal liters H2 per liter oil feed. The product oil (n-paraffins) contained no oxygen compounds.
In the second stage the product oil obtained above was subjected to isomerisation in a fixed bed tube reactor in the presence of Pt-SAPO-catalyst under a pressure of 37 bar, with WHSV of 1.3 1/h and at a reaction temperature of 313°C. Hydrogen to oil ratio was around 300 normal liters H.sub.2 per liter oil feed.
The product obtained from the isomerisation stage was fractionated and the heavy recycle stream (fraction boiling at and above 290°C) was fed to the third stage (second isomerisation) where the reisomerisation was carried out in a fixed bed tube reactor in the presence of Pt-SAPO-catalyst under a pressure of 40 bar, with WHSV of 1.5 1/h and hydrogen to oil ratio of 300 normal liters H2 per liter oil fed. The reaction temperature of 315°C was used in the case the product was fractionated to diesel fuel EN590, 322°C for aviation fuels, jet fuel 1 and 340°C for jet fuel 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the process steps of Markkanen in the process of Weiss combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 12-13, 15-18, 20-22 and 24-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-36 of co-pending application No. 18/725,329. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '329 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosure above which is incorporated herein by reference.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting II
Claims 12-13, 15-18, 20-22 and 24-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-38 of co-pending application No. 18/725,175. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '175 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosure above which is incorporated herein by reference.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting III
Claims 12-13, 15-18, 20-22 and 24-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-36 of co-pending application No. 18/725,341. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '341 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosure above which is incorporated herein by reference.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 5/26/2026 regarding claims 12-13, 15-18, 20-22 and 24-28 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the combination of references do not explicitly disclose the pre-treatment being carried out in an ebullated bed reactor as recited in claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. Although the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose the pre-treatment step taking place in an ebullated bed reactor as recited in claim 1, Markkanen does disclose the reaction conditions recited in amended claim 1, and Weiss does disclose the general knowledge of ebullated bed reactors in processes similar to those taught by Markkanen. Weiss further discloses an ebullated bed operation in the hydrotreatment stage has the advantage over a fixed-bed operation of avoiding the clogging which would occur in a fixed bed, particularly because of the precipitation of calcium phosphates and magnesium contained in the feed from renewable sources. The use of an ebullated bed also makes it possible to overcome or greatly reduce the need for liquid or gaseous quenching, or else to eliminate liquid recycles which are generally used during the hydrotreatment steps with implementation. in a fixed bed because of the strong release of heat associated with deoxygenation reactions. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims would have reasonable expected to use the ebullated bed reactor of Weiss in the pre-treatment processing steps of Markkanen.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights