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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5 and claims 21- 35 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 6-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-35 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 teaches C1 and C2 hydrocarbon with boiling points between 0 and 20°C.
Claim 30 teaches C3 and C4 hydrocarbons with boiling points between 20 to 150°C.
It is unclear what these hydrocarbons are.
It is unclear if the boiling points are referring to simply a fraction collected at those temperatures or compounds with specific boiling points in the range. It has been interpreted as collecting compounds between those temperatures.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Parent claim 1 already states that the liquid fraction comprises 10 – 50 wt% of oxygen carbon molecules. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-5 and 21-35 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VARDON et al. (USPGPUB 2021/0188734).
It is noted that claim 1 is directed toward a renewable composition.
The renewable composition comprises a treated stream.
The treated stream comprises a gaseous fraction and a liquid fraction.
The liquid fraction comprises water and a bio-oil.
The bio-oil comprises a jet fuel component.
The treated stream may be a portion of the renewable composition.
The jet fuel component may also be a portion of the bio-oil.
It is further noted that the renewable composition, gaseous faction, liquid fraction, water, bio-oil and the jet fuel components do not necessarily have the same chemical or physical properties.
The present claims are composition claims and "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The present claims are directed toward the renewable composition.
VARDON et al. teach fuels and the methods for making the same.
VARDON et al. teach treating a mixture that includes a carboxylic acid having between 2 to 12 carbon atoms.
VARDON et al. teach fuels and the methods for making the same.
VARDON et al. teach in paragraphs 46 and 87 in which ketonization is applied to volatile fatty acids (VFA) to produce an organic phase ketone product, a gas phase, CO2 and water.
VARDON et al. teach in paragraph and Fig 2 that the output 212 from ketonization reactor 210 is fed into separator 220. A first ketonization stream 222 is sent to a hydrodeoxygenation reactor 230. A second ketonizaiton stream 224 is sent to an aldol condensation reactor 240. An output from the aldol condensation reactor 250 is sent to a second hydrodeoxygenation reactor 250 to produce an output 252.
The output 252 has been considered the treated stream.
VARDON et al. teach in paragraphs 41 -42 that conversion of 100% is unlikely and within 20% to 0.1% is considered to meet the terms for “substantially” and “about.” The output 252 would be expected to comprise some amount of unreacted CO2. The second hydrodeoxygenation is taught in paragraph 65 to result in the formation of a water byproduct. VARDON et al. further teach in paragraph 90 that the product comprises an organic phase, a water phase and a gas-phase byproduct.
(treated steam emitted from a reactor comprising a gaseous fraction and a liquid fraction, the liquid fraction comprising water and a bio-oil suitable for use as a renewable feedstock for hydroprocessing.
Waste VFA biojet blendstock is produced from waste VFA which is taught in paragraph 45 to be derived from bioderived materials.
The amount of carbon being from a biological origin would be considered to be 100%.
The properties of waste VFA biojet blendstock and blend are taught in paragarphs 91-93 and table 11.
The waste VFA Biojet is taught in table 11 to have a freezing point of less than -75 C and a boiling point between 199-311. (boiling point between 200-300 C and a freezing point of less than -15 C)
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
VARDON et al. teach in paragraph 83 that C2 acid levels can be adjusted to tune the iso-paraffin to cycloparaffin ratio. VARDON et al. teach in paragraph 77 a first example with 7 wt% isoparaffins and 2 wt% cycloparaffins. VARDON et al. also teach in paragraph 80 a second example with 76% iso-paraffin and 9% mono-cycloparaffin.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the initial C2 levels to adjust the ratio of iso-paraffin and mono-cycloparaffin to an acyclic isoalkane content of less than 10 wt% and a non-aromatic cyclic hydrocarbon having 1 ring greater than 7%.
VARDON et al. teach in paragraph 83 that C2 acid levels can be adjusted to tune the iso-paraffin to cycloparaffin ratio. Cycloparaffins is taught in paragraph 3 to impart beneficial polymer seal swelling for aviation fuel systems.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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).
VARDON et al. teach in paragraph 88 that ketone condensation conversion varied from 12% to 100%.
VARDON et al. teach removing solvents and unreacted ketones prior to second hydrodeoxygenation step. However, VARDON et al. also teach in paragraph 136 that approximately 10% solvent remained.
VARDON et al. teach in paragraph 90 that in the second hydrodeoxygenation step, oxygen functionality in the alkenones were removed.
VARDEON et al. teach in paragraphs 41 -42 that conversion of 100% is unlikely and within 20% to 0.1% is considered to meet the terms for “substantially” and “about”
In the case of the output from the second hydrodeoxygenation step, the presence of 20% unreacted ketones along with 0.1% unreacted enones present in the output from the second hydrodeoxygenation reactor would result in oxygen containing molecules being 20.1 wt% and more than 80% of the oxygen containing compounds being in the form of ketone.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, VARDON et al. teach in paragraph 83 that C2 acid levels can be adjusted to tune the iso-paraffin to cycloparaffin ratio. Cycloparaffins is taught in paragraph 3 to impart beneficial polymer seal swelling for aviation fuel systems.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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 claim 3, VARDON et al. teach in paragraph 83 that C2 acid levels can be adjusted to tune the iso-paraffin to cycloparaffin ratio. Cycloparaffins is taught in paragraph 3 to impart beneficial polymer seal swelling for aviation fuel systems.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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 claim 4, the present claims are composition claims and "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
The present claims are directed toward the renewable composition.
Regarding claim 5, water is taught to be a byproduct of the second hydrodeoxygenation reaction but the majority are taught to be isoparaffins along with cycloparaffins. The amount of isoparaffins and cycloparaffins are taught to be tunable. A majority of isoparaffins along with cycloparaffins would be expected to be more than 50 wt%.
Regarding claims 21-22, VARDON et al. teach in paragraph 90 that in the second hydrodeoxygenation step, oxygen functionality in the alkenones were removed.
The second hydrodeoxygenation product may comprise 5 wt% or less, such as 1-4 wt%, of water and unreacted ketone based on the face that VARDEON et al. teach in paragraphs 41 -42 that conversion of 100% is unlikely and within 20% to 0.1% is considered to meet the terms for “substantially” and “about”
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 23, VARDON et al. teach an example in paragraph 87 mixed ketone products with 9% methyl ketones. VARDON et al. further teach in paragraph 90 that C2 acids affect the concentration of methyl ketones, which are the precursors to cycloparaffins.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust up the amount of C2 acids to result in higher concentration of methyl ketones and therefore cycloparaffins.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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 claim 24, VARDON et al. teach in paragraph 90 that the biojet blendstock comprises a majority of iso-paraffins. The NMR branching index would be expected to be greater than 14% when the blendstock comprises a majority of iso-paraffins.
It is noted that the biojet blendstock along with the aqueous phase may be construed as the liquid portion as defined in the present claims. A portion of the biojet blendstock may be considered the jet fuel component given that VARDON et al. teach that the properties of the fuel desired may be adjusted by adjusted the amounts of cycloparaffins relative to the amounts of isoparaffins in paragraph 90.
Regarding claim 25, the total acid number would be expected to be low given that output 252 may have no significant amount of acids. Total acid number is directly determined by the amount of acids present.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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 26-27, VARDON et al. teach a process that produces a product that do not require chlorine or metals. VARDON et al. teach an impurity analysis of the feed in Table 14 and lists no appreciable amounts of metals.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the output 252 has less than 100 ppm chlorine and less than 1 ppm of alkali metal, alkaline earth metals, etc.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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 claim 28, VARDON et al. teach an example in paragraph 85 with C2-C5 volatile fatty acids.
Regarding claim 29, VARDON et al. teach in paragraph 87 that the gas-phase product was primarily CO2 with light hydrocarbon products comprising less than 1% of the total product. VARDON et al. further teach in paragraph 120 that CH4 is measured.
Regarding claim 30, VARDON et al. teach in paragraph 87 that the gas-phase product was primarily CO2 with light hydrocarbon products comprising less than 1% of the total product.
Some amount of unremoved light hydrocarbons may be expected to be present.
Regarding claim 31, VARDON et al. teach in paragraph 3 that the fuels produced include diesel fuel and jet fuels. The properties for the waste biojet fuel are taught in Table 11 to include a boiling point range between 199 to 311 C and teach the components of biojet fuel compositions in Tables 16 and 17 and include C6-C27 compounds.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 32-33, the biojet blendstock may be considered 100% of the output 252.
Regarding claim 34, VARDON et al. teach in paragraph 88 that ketone condensation conversion varied from 12% to 100%.
Depending on the amount of ketone condensation, the amount of ketone remaining supplied to the second hydrodeoxygenation step may be greater than 40%.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of VARDON et al. (USPGPUB 2021/0188734).
VARDON et al. teach a process for producing jet fuels that include both a ketonization step and subsequent aldol condensation and hydrodeoxygenation steps.
VARDON et al. teach that the aldol condensation of ketones may be between greater than 12%. VARDON et al. further teach no process is 100% and introduces a variable of plus or minus of 20% from the target.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WHITE (US 4645585) teaches production of jet fuels.
WHITE teaches kerosene that may be used in jet fuels that comprise of mono cyclohexane material and two ring non-fused cycloalkane material. The kerosene is taught to having a boiling curve acceptable for Jet A1 fuel specification.
AULICH et al. (USPGPUB 2009/0000185) teach aviation grade kerosene from independently produced blendstocks. The aviation grade kerosene comprises a first blendstock and a second blendstock. The second blendstock is taught to comprise primarily hydrocarbons selected from the group consisting of cycloalkanes and aromatics.
GRUBER et al. (USPGPUB 2012/0238787) teaches a renewable jet fuel and GRUBER et al. teach that the renewable jet fuel contains measurable amounts of 14C due to its origin from plant material.
VALENTICH (CA 3233265A1) teaches an aviation fuel composition that comprises cycloparaffinic kerosene generated from hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion of a solid biomass containing lignoceullulose wherein the cycloparaffinic kerosene comprises at least 90 vol% cycloparaffins and less than 1 vol% aromatics.
The aviation fuel composition is taught in lines 16-27 of page 32 to preferably have a boiling point in the range from 130 C to 300 C at atmospheric pressure, and a freezing point below -40 C, a maximum aromatics content of 25 vol%, and a total sulfur content less than 3000 ppm by weight.
ROBERTS (USPGPUB 2014/0171700) teaches a process that produces both lube basestocks and transportation fuels such as a renewable jet fuel from a feedstock of biological origin.
The renewable jet fuels produced have properties that are taught in paragraph 116 to include one embodiment that comprises 1 to 25% aromatics, 20 to 40% naphthenes, and 40% to 80% paraffins.
The renewable jet fuels produced are also taught to have certain properties in paragraphs 122-123 and table 3.
The renewable jet fraction is taught to approach Jet A specifications.
The jet fuel fraction has a boiling point from 330 to 550°F.
The jet fuel fraction has a pour point of -45°C.
KALE (USPGPUB 2012/0244585) teaches production of jet fuel from lipids derived from algal oil. KALE teaches a process that employs a metal oxide catalyst.
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