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
This is response to amendment filed 07/07/2026 for application 18/754710.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARKER et al. (USPGPUB 2011/0105812).
MARKER et al. teach a process for improving cold properties of diesel range hydrocarbons produced from renewable feedstocks.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, MARKER et al. teach an embodiment of the process in paragraphs 48-53.
A renewable feedstock stream 2 is introduced into a deoxygenation reactor where the renewable feedstock is hydrodeoxygenated to produce a deoxygenation reactor effluent stream 6. (hydrotreating said biorenewable feed stream in the presence of hydrogen over a hydrotreating catalyst in a hydrotreating reactor to hydrodeoxygenate said biorenewable feed stream to provide a hydrotreated stream)
The deoxygenation reactor effluent stream 6 is fed into a hydrogen stripper 8 and then into an isomerization and selective hydrocracking reactor 22. The isomerization and selective hydrocracking reactor 22 can be modified to meet the limitation of a hydrocracking reactor and a hydroisomerization reactor.
Hydroisomerization is taught in paragraphs 22 to be performed with a catalyst. The isomerization and hydrocracking are further taught in paragraph 47 to be performed in an isomerization zone and/or selective hydrocracking zone respectively.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the isomerization and selective hydrocracking in separate zones in the same reactor. Placing the separate zones in separate reactors and placing those separate reactors in a vessel would be an obvious alternative to one of ordinary skill in the art. (hydrocracking a hydrocracking feed stream taken from said hydrotreated stream in a hydrocracking reactor in the presence of hydrogen over a hydrocracking catalyst to provide a hydrocracked stream; and hydroisomerizing a hydroisomerization feed stream taken from said hydrotreated stream in an hydroisomerization reactor in the presence of hydrogen over a hydroisomerization catalyst to provide a hydroisomerized stream)
The embodiment of the process is further taught in paragraphs 48-53.
The products of the isomerization and selective hydrocracker reactor may be introduced into hydrogen separator 26 and then into product separator 34. Liquid hydrocarbons are separated from the product separator and removed in stream 38 to a product stripper 42 wherein components boiling in the range of aviation range and components boiling in the diesel boiling range may be separated. (separating a jet fuel stream and a diesel stream from said hydroisomerized stream)
The components boiling in the diesel boiling range may be separated from product stripper 42 into a diesel product stream 45 and a diesel recycle stream 46. The diesel recycle stream 46 may be considered both the first recycle diesel stream and the second recycle diesel stream.
Diesel recycle stream 46 is introduced back into the isomerization and selective hydrocracking zone 22 which may comprise separate isomerization zone and selective hydrocracking zone.
Given that a diesel recycle stream 46 may be introduced back into the isomerization and selective hydrocracking zone 22, it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art in one embodiment, to either separate diesel recycle stream 46 into 2 streams and introduce the 2 streams at different points of the isomerization and selective hydrocracking zone 22. (separating said diesel stream into a first recycle diesel stream and a second recycle diesel stream) (passing said first recycle diesel stream to the hydrocracking reactor; or passing said second recycle diesel stream to the hydroisomerization reactor)
Furthermore, MARKER et al. teach in paragraph 51 that diesel recycle stream can be either introduced to isomerization and selective cracking zone can be either introduced combined with a separate stream or without being combined with a second stream.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce recycled diesel in 2 different locations to isomerization and hydrocracking zone 22.
The teaching to do so can be found in paragraphs 48-50 of MARKER et al.
MARKER et al. teach that it is known to recycle a stream and introduce them to different areas of the same reactor.
MARKER et al. teach that doing so allows for better control of the process, particular temperature.
Alternatively, the diesel product stream 45 may also be recycled back into the isomerization and selective hydrocracking zone 22 by one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve higher conversion rates. For example, MARKER et al. teach in paragraph 34 that at least a portion of the bottoms of isomerization may be recycled back into the isomerization reaction zone to increase the degree of isomerization.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be led to recycle diesel to a hydrocracking reactor and a hydroisomerization reactor separately for better control of the process.
Further regarding claim 12, MARKER et al. further teaches that when a target characteristic for aviation fuel is desired, the relative yields of diesel fuel and aviation fuels may be controlled. MARKER et al. further teach that a select portion of the diesel fuel may be recycled. The select portion of the diesel fuel that is recycled may be cracked to form hydrocarbons in the aviation range thereby influencing the yield of the aviation fuel or the characteristics of the aviation fuel.
Setting a target characteristic for the aviation fuel as density or viscosity of the aviation fuel and measuring the actual characteristic for the aviation fuel would be an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Adjusting the rate of the recycled diesel fuel (both first recycle diesel stream and second recycle diesel stream) would be obvious given that adjusting the rate of the recycled diesel fuels would affect the amount of recycled diesel fuel and MARKER et al. recognize that the select portion of the diesel fuel may influence the yield or the characteristics of the aviation fuel.
[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce the recycled diesel stream to hydroisomerization zone directly to allow for better control.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the isomerization and selective hydrocracking may occur in a reactor 22. MARKER et al. teach that the isomerization and hydrocracking are further taught in paragraph 47 to be performed in an isomerization zone and/or selective hydrocracking zone respectively.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to alternatively have the isomerization zone in a reactor and the selective hydrocracking zone in a separate reactor and the 2 reactors in the same vessel with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, MARKER et al. teach that the isomerization and hydrocracking are further taught in paragraph 47 to be performed in an isomerization zone and/or selective hydrocracking zones respectively. One zone would be inherently higher than the other zone.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce the recycled diesel streams to the hydrocracking zone above the hydroisomerization zones allow for better control of the reaction conditions.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, MARKER et al. teach that the isomerization and hydrocracking are further taught in paragraph 47 to be performed in an isomerization zone and/or selective hydrocracking zone respectively.
MARKER et al. teach in paragraph 25 that the conditions of isomerization are controlled and chosen specifically. MARKER et al. further teach in paragraph 30 that the conditions for hydrocracking are also controlled by catalyst choice and reaction conditions.
Feeding a different recycle stream to the isomerization zone and/or selective hydrocarbon zone would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow better control of the conditions. Feeding to the isomerization zone would bypass the hydrocracking zone if the hydrocracking zone is above the isomerization zone.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, MARKER et al. teach that the isomerization and hydrocracking are further taught in paragraph 47 to be performed in an isomerization zone and/or selective hydrocracking zones respectively. One zone would be inherently higher than the other zone.
Having the hydrocracking zone above the isomerization zone would be an obvious option of arrangement for 2 different zones.
Regarding claim 8, MARKER et al. teach in paragraphs 48-50 that it is known in the art to recycle a hydrogen stream to a reactor and between different beds in the same reactor.
MARKER et al. teach that doing so allows for better control of the process, particular temperature.
MARKER et al. teach in paragraph 25 that the conditions of isomerization are controlled and chosen specifically. MARKER et al. further teach in paragraph 30 that the conditions for hydrocracking are also controlled by catalyst choice and reaction conditions.
MARKER et al. further teach in paragraph 34 that hydrogen may be recycled.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle a stream of hydrogen between hydrocracking zone and isomerization zone for better control of the process.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, MARKER et al. further teach in paragraph 34 that hydrogen may be recycled. Hydrogen is passed into the isomerization reaction zones to provide the necessary hydrogen partial pressures.
Combining the recycled hydrogen with the recycled diesel stream would be an obvious alternative to recycling hydrogen or recycling diesel stream separately absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, separating the diesel recycle stream 46 into 2 separate recycle streams of between 10%-90% of the total or separating the diesel recycle stream 46 of between 10%-90% and the diesel product stream 45 of between 10%-90% would both be obvious options for recycling the diesel streams back into isomerization and hydrocracking zone 22.
[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, MARKER et al. teach in paragraph 25 that the conditions of isomerization are controlled and chosen specifically. MARKER et al. further teach in paragraph 30 that the conditions for hydrocracking are also controlled by catalyst choice and reaction conditions.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the hydrocracking zone and the isomerization zone with respectively first liquid hourly space velocity for the hydrocracking zone and second liquid hourly space velocity for the isomerization zone with the first liquid hourly space velocity higher than the second liquid hourly space velocity given that MARKER et al. teach in paragraph 30 that the reaction conditions are chosen to both maximizes paraffin products in the desired fuel range while minimizing the production of the light paraffins that are not useful for either diesel fuel or aviation fuel applications.
[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 5 and 9 and 20, MARKER et al. teach in paragraph 10 that the process may be performed to produce different types of diesel fuels and aviation fuels such as jet fuels.
MARKER et al. teach that when a target characteristic for aviation fuel is desired, the relative yields of diesel fuel and aviation fuels may be controlled. MARKER et al. further teach that a select portion of the diesel fuel may be recycled. The select portion of the diesel fuel that is recycled may be cracked to form hydrocarbons in the aviation range thereby influencing the yield of the aviation fuel or the characteristics of the aviation fuel.
Setting a target characteristic for the aviation fuel as density or viscosity of the aviation fuel and measuring the actual characteristic for the aviation fuel would be an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Adjusting the rate of the recycled diesel fuel (both first recycle diesel stream and second recycle diesel stream) would be obvious given that adjusting the rate of the recycled diesel fuels would affect the amount of recycled diesel fuel and MARKER et al. recognize that the select portion of the diesel fuel may influence the yield or the characteristics of the aviation fuel.
[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, MARKER et al. teach in paragraph 25 that the conditions of isomerization are controlled and chosen specifically. MARKER et al. further teach in paragraph 30 that the conditions for hydrocracking are also controlled by catalyst choice and reaction conditions.
One of ordinary skill in the art would choose different proportion of first recycle diesel stream and second recycle diesel streams given that [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that examiner has not identified any teaching or suggestion that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to modify MARKER to abandon the integrated recycle approach that MARKER teaches to route to different reactor.
This is not persuasive as performing hydroisomerization in one reactor from hydrocracking in a separate reactor. Placing the separate zones in separate reactors and placing those separate reactors in a vessel would be an obvious alternative to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that MARKER et al do not teach a motivation to separate the diesel stream to be recycled to the isomerization and selective hydrocracking reactor 22. Applicant argues that MARKER et al do not teach separately recycling a portion of diesel to the hydroisomerization reactor and a second portion of diesel to the hydrocracking reactor.
MARKER et al. teach that it is known to recycle a stream and introduce them to different areas of the same reactor. MARKER et al. teach that doing so allows for better control of the process, particular temperature. When hydrocracking is performed in a separate reactor from hydroisomerization, it would be obvious to recycle the diesel stream to both the hydrocracking and hydroisomerization for better control of the process.
Applicant argues that MARKER does not teach measuring a property of the jet fuel stream such as density or flow rate to adjust the flow rate of the recycle streams.
This is not persuasive as MARKER teaches that when a target characteristic for aviation fuel is desired, the relative yields of diesel fuel and aviation fuels may be controlled. MARKER et al. further teach that a select portion of the diesel fuel may be recycled. The select portion of the diesel fuel that is recycled may be cracked to form hydrocarbons in the aviation range thereby influencing the yield of the aviation fuel or the characteristics of the aviation fuel.
Setting a target characteristic for the aviation fuel as density or viscosity of the aviation fuel and measuring the actual characteristic for the aviation fuel would be an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Adjusting the rate of the recycled diesel fuel (both first recycle diesel stream and second recycle diesel stream) would be obvious given that adjusting the rate of the recycled diesel fuels would affect the amount of recycled diesel fuel and MARKER et al. recognize that the select portion of the diesel fuel may influence the yield or the characteristics of the aviation fuel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GOSLING (USPGPUB 20090229173) teaches production of diesel and aviation fuel. GOSLING teaches in paragraph 17 isomerization and selective hydrocracking can be done in separate bed of the same reactor or in separate reactors.
SANGALLI et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0204877) teach process for hydrocracking a hydrocarbon feed stream. A portion of the diesel stream is recycled.
THAKKAR (WO 2008010799) teaches a hydrocarbon desulfurization process in which a stream is recycled between beds of hydrocracking and hydrogenation respectively.
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 MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights