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
Applicant’s response filed 06/24/2026 with arguments and claim amendments is noted. Amendment to claims 1, 11, 12 and addition of new claims 13-20 is recorded.
In response to Applicant’s amendment to claims and addition of new claims, previous rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) is withdrawn. A new rejection under 35 USC 103 follows:
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abhari (US 8,231,804 B2), in view of Alain et al (WO 2012140335 A1) and Guay et al (WO 2014/158799 A1).
With respect to claims 1-6, 14, 20, Abhari discloses a single step hydrogenation/hydrogenolysis process of biological feedstocks comprising fats, oils and greases (Column 4, lines 1-2; Table 2) in a slurry reactor (column 4, line 50) using sulfided molybdenum catalyst (Column 4, lines 15-20). The catalyst slurry concentrate stream 114 returns to reactor 104 (Fig. 1). Abhari also discloses maintaining the reactor at a temperature between 450 and 750°F (Column 5, lines 25-28), pressure between 400 and 1000 psig (Column 4, lines 44-46), LHSV between 0.1 and 10/h and hydrogen supply rate between 3000 and 10,000 scf/bbl (Column 4, lines 64-67). Abhari further discloses removing from the reactor, vapor phase comprising hydrocarbon products,
and condensing to recover light hydrocarbons (Fig. 1; column 5, lines 40-45). Abhari uses a catalyst loading between 1% and 30% (Column 4, lines 51-53).
Abhari uses the term "catalyst slurry concentrate stream 114" and does not specifically disclose catalyst slurried in a vacuum gas oil.
Alain et al disclose hydroconversion of biological feeds including lignocellulosic biomass and extract or fractions of lignocellulosic biomass (Page 5, mid paragraph to page 6) similar to Abhari in a slurry reactor using catalyst dispersed in heavy oil or vacuum gas oil similar to Abhari (Page 5, bottom 4 paragraphs; page 8, bottom 3 paragraphs; page 10, bottom 4 paragraphs). Alain et al also disclose that the solvent has triple role including additional source of hydrogen transfer to the process (page 8, last 2 paragraphs)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use vacuum gas oil to prepare the catalyst slurry in Abhari process for more efficient hydrogen transfer to the system.
Abhari does not appear to expressly disclose phosphorus and metals content in the feed.
Alain et al disclose that biomass also contains other heteroatoms (sulfur, nitrogen etc.) and inorganic compounds of various natures (alkali, transition metals, halogens etc. (Page 2, paragraph 3).
Guay et al disclose a method of removing a contaminant from a contaminant-containing biological composition useful as a biofuel feedstock (Title). Guay et al use biological feeds (paragraph 0008, 0025) similar to Abhari. Guay et al also disclose that unrefined plant oils (e. g. Vegetable oils) and animal fats have undesirable quantities of phosphorus and other contaminants including metals (paragraph 0003). Guay et al further disclose that such contaminants are in large amounts (Paragraph 0024). Guay et al also disclose that while producing biodiesel from crude oils, it is highly desirable to reduce the phosphorus content to at most 20 ppm (paragraph 0005).
Thus, Alain et al and Guay et al disclosures show that the biological feeds used in Abhari process are expected to have high phosphorus and metals content and their removal is a must for acceptable specifications of diesel fuel.
Abhari discloses, “The slurry 106 is transported through conduit 112 to filter 113 to separate the catalyst from the reactor product. In some embodiments filter 113 is a crossflow filter. In some embodiments a hydro cyclone followed by a filter is used. It should be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that any device capable of separating suspended solids from liquid may be used in the present invention” (column 5, lines 55-61).
The Applicant also cites in the Specification, “The catalyst slurry 122 may be filtered to separate the catalyst and other solids from a filtrate. Various types of filters are known to persons skilled in the art and may be adapted to the present technology” (Specification, Page 9, paragraph 020). Further, “The filtrate is substantially free of the phosphorus and metal contaminants present in the feed stream” (Specification, Page 9, paragraph 021).
Thus, the filtrate 115 in Abhari process is expected to be substantially free of phosphorus and metals contaminants.
With respect to claims 7, 8,13, 16, 17, Abhari discloses hydrocarbon product comprising C12-C24 range paraffins (Column 5, lines 63-66). Since the feed and hydrocarbon product from Abhari process is similar to the claimed invention, it should inherently have total acid number in a range including as claimed.
Abhari also discloses conversion of C18 and C16 fatty acids to C18 and C16 paraffins with high selectivity (Fig. 6, column 10, lines 11-17 and Table 2). Abhari does not specially disclose C17 fatty acids. Since Abhari uses similar feed and operating conditions, it is expected that Abhari is getting higher concentration of C17 than C18 paraffins as claimed. It is not seen what difference in feed, operating conditions, reactor type and catalyst, makes the claimed invention different to produce more of C17 than C18 paraffins.
For claim 17, the limitations discussed under claim 1, are incorporated herein with claims 7, 8, 13, 16.
With respect to claim 9, Abhari discloses that C16 n-paraffin hydrocarbons have other markets, like diesel fuel additive and as intermediate for specialty chemicals (Column 12, lines 12-15).
Abhari does not appear to specifically disclose isomerization.
Alain et al disclose that the fractions naphtha, kerosene, gas oil, VGO may be subjected to one or more treatments including isomerization to bring to required specifications (sulfur content, smoke point, octane, cetane etc.) (page 15, bottom paragraph). It is to be noted that smoke point is a required specification for kerosene and jet fuels and high cetane is a requirement for diesel (Page 16, bottom paragraph, page 17, paragraph 2).
It is to be noted that Guay et al also disclose that hydroisomerization of the bio-derived n-paraffins to iso-paraffinic diesel is known in the art (paragraph 0004).
With respect to claims 10, 19, Abhari's disclosure of slurry bubble column reactor has already been discussed above under claim 1. Abhari also discloses that the reactor is operating under churn-turbulent regime and the hydrogen-rich gas flow rate is between 7 and 40 cm/sec (Column 5, lines 1-5).
With respect to claim 11, Abhari discloses that the slurry withdrawn from the reactor is filtered to provide a filtered paraffin product (Column 5, lines 55-67). Since Abhari uses a feed, process, reactor, and operating conditions similar to the claimed invention, the filtered paraffin product should also be free of phosphorus and metals as claimed.
It is also confirmed by Guay et al disclosing that efficient removal of phosphorus, iron and other metals is highly desirable, otherwise the downstream refining processes may not deliver acceptable results, phosphorus content being reduced to at most 20 ppm (paragraph 0005).
With respect to claim 12, 15 and 18, Abhari discloses removing filtrate product 115 from the filter (Fig. 1).
Abhari does not appear to specifically disclose hydroprocessing of the filtrate in a fixed bed reactor.
Alain et al disclose separation of reaction products from catalyst by any known techniques, including filtration (page 12, paragraph 2) and under subsequent treatments, taking various fuel cuts to one or more treatments, including hydrotreating (page 15, bottom paragraph; page 16, bottom paragraph). Fig. 4 clearly indicates hydrotreating and hydrocracking units (61) and (62) as fixed bed units.
Guay et al also disclose as mentioned earlier that efficient removal of phosphorus, iron and other metals is highly desirable, otherwise the downstream refining processes may not deliver acceptable results, phosphorus content being reduced to at most 20 ppm (paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to pass the filtrate 115 from Abhari process to a fixed bed hydrotreating unit as disclosed in Alain to achieve a product substantially free form contaminants for producing diesel and other fuels of commercial standard.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues,
“Unlike an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an anticipation analysis does not permit combining the teachings of multiple references to supply missing claim limitations. Therefore, to the extent the present rejection relies on disclosures from a secondary reference to meet limitations not found in the primary reference, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection is improper as a matter of law”.
In response, anticipation rejection under 102(a1) is withdrawn and a new rejection under 103 is presented.
The Applicant argues,
“Independent Claim 1 - Cited Prior Art Does Not Disclose A Reactor Containing a
Catalyst Slurried in a Heavy Oil”.
In response, primary reference Abhari uses the term "catalyst slurry concentrate stream 114" and does not specifically disclose catalyst slurried in a vacuum gas oil.
Alain et al disclose hydroconversion of biological feeds including lignocellulosic biomass and extract or fractions of lignocellulosic biomass (Page 5, mid paragraph to page 6) similar to Abhari in a slurry reactor using catalyst dispersed in heavy oil or vacuum gas oil (Page 5, bottom 4 paragraphs; page 8, bottom 3 paragraphs; page 10, bottom 4 paragraphs).
The Applicant argues,” In Abhari, the primary method for recovering the desired paraffin product is by withdrawing the liquid slurry and filtering it to separate out the catalyst. This is explicitly taught, "The slurry 106 is transported through conduit 112 to filter 113 to separate the catalyst from the reactor product while the filtered paraffin product 115 exits the reactor system." (Abhari, col. 5, 11. 55-61; emphasis added). Figure 1 of Abhari confirms that the main "paraffin product" (115) is the filtrate from filter 113. While Abhari does show an overhead vapor stream (107), its own disclosure defines the primary product as the liquid recovered via mandatory filtration. The Examiner's focus on Abhari's overhead stream ignores the reference's explicit teaching for how its main product is obtained”.
In response, it is to be noted that Abhari also discloses,” Product streams 115 and 112B include equal to or greater than about 75 wt% even carbon number paraffins in the C12-C24 range” (Column 5, lines 63-65). Thus, the main product of paraffins is taken both from bottom and top.
The Applicant argues, “New Independent Claim 14 - Cited Prior Art Does Not Disclose Filtering the Slurry to Provide a Filtrate Substantially Free of the Phosphorus and Metals in the Feedstock”.
In response, in the new Office action, claims 13-20, including details of claim 14 have been fully addressed above. Filtration of slurry in filter 113 to provide filtrate 115 has been discussed (Fig. 1, Abhari).
The Applicant argues, “New Independent Claim 17 - Cited Prior Art Does Not Disclose a Hydrocarbon Product Comprising C11-C18 Paraffinic Distillate with a Higher Concentration of C17 than C18 paraffins”. Further, “The operating conditions of the instant invention result in a product where the concentration of C17 paraffins is higher than the concentration of C18 paraffins”.
In response, as discussed above, Abhari discloses maintaining the reactor at a temperature between 450 and 750°F (Column 5, lines 25-28), pressure between 400 and 1000 psig (Column 4, lines 44-46), LHSV between 0.1 and 10/h and hydrogen supply rate between 3000 and 10,000 scf/bbl (Column 4, lines 64-67). Obviously, Abhari discloses operating conditions overlapping the claimed operating conditions. Therefore, the product distribution in Abhari is expected to be similar to the claimed invention.
The Applicant argues, “Claim 12 - Cited Prior Art Does Not Disclose A filtrate Subjected to Hydroprocessing in a Fixed-Bed Reactor System for Removal of Remaining Oxygen, Sulfur, and Nitrogen Heteroatoms”.
In response, Abhari discloses separation of hydrocarbon plus solids stream 112 going to the filter113 and filtrate 115 coming out of filter unit (Fig. 1).
Alain et al disclose separation by any known techniques, including filtration (page 12, paragraph 2) and under subsequent treatments, taking various fuel cuts to one or more treatments, including hydrotreating (page 15, bottom paragraph). Fig. 4 of Alain clearly indicates hydrotreating unit as a fixed bed reactor.
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 PREM C SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM to 3:00 PM (Eastern)..
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights