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 the response to amendment filed 02/18/2026 for application 18/773287.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, and 21-27 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 6, 8, and 11-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 7 and 9-10 have been withdrawn from consideration for directed toward a nonelected invention.
Claims 7 and 9-10 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/10/2025.
Applicant’s request of rejoinder of claims 7 and 9-10 is premature as there are no allowable claims.
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 21-27 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SREEKUMAR (WO 20120238787).
It is noted that the claims are directed toward a fuel intermediate composition.
The fuel intermediate composition is taught to comprise a jet fuel component such as a fraction or a cut that meets the limitations of a jet fuel.
SREEKUMAR teaches a method for producing cyclic and acyclic ketones from methyl ketones.
Regarding claim 1, the methyl ketones are obtained from biomass. The jet fuel produced would also be expected to comprise carbon content that is at least 90 % derived from biological sources if the methyl ketones are obtained 100 % from biomass.
Employing carbon-14 to determine biological origin would not change that the methyl ketones are obtained from biomass.
SREEKUMAR also teaches one a cyclic ketone that may be used as jet fuel. (Para 16 of SREEKUMAR)
SREEKUMAR also recognizes cycloalkanes and acyclic alkanes may also be used as jet fuel. (Paras 167 and 176 of SREEKUMAR)
The cyclic and acyclic ketones are taught to be suitable for use as fuels and lubricant precursors and may be hydrodeoxygenated to form their corresponding cycloalkanes and alkanes. The cycloalkanes and alkanes may be suitable for use as jet fuels.
SREEKUMAR teaches the method employed allows for a commercially-viable methods to selectively produce fuels from renewable sources in high yields. (Para 3 of SREEKUMAR)
SREEKUMAR teaches that cycloalkanes of formulas X-I, X-II, X-III, and X-IV that may be used as jet fuels have a pour point of less than -70°C and a freezing point of less than -45°C and a boiling point between 175 and 275°C. (Para 176 of SREEKUMAR)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
The cycloalkanes may be considered the jet fuel component or cut.
The cycloalkanes are not acyclic.
The cycloalkanes of formulas X-I, X-II, X-III, and X-IV are monocyclic, a non-aromatic cyclic hydrocarbon with 1 ring.
The cycloalkanes would have a an acyclic isoalkane content of less than 10 wt%; and a non-aromatic cyclic hydrocarbon content having one or two rings, the non-aromatic cyclic hydrocarbon content comprising greater than 7 wt% of the renewable fuel intermediate composition.
SREEKUMAR teaches that the cycloalkanes are produced from their respective cyclic ketones with respective formulas (I) (II) (III) and (IV).
An intermediate composition comprising the products of a hydrodeoxygenation process of the cyclic ketones would be expected to comprise the cycloalkanes and the unreacted cyclic ketones as a partially hydrodeoxygenated fraction with cycloalkanes and unreacted cyclic ketones.
This varying partially hydrodeoxygenated fraction with cycloalkanes and unreacted cyclic ketones may be considered the fuel intermediate composition.
The amount of unreacted cyclic ketones would be a matter of the efficiency of the process and the stage at which the hydrodeoxygenation was at.
Selecting a partially hydrodeoxygenated fraction with cycloalkanes and unreacted cyclic ketones with 20-50 wt% of the cyclic ketones not hydrodeoxygenated would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
The amount of oxygen containing compounds being primarily cyclic ketones, such as greater than 80 % would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art given that the cyclic ketones are the precursors to the cycloalkanes.
Hydrodeoxygenation are also taught to be performed with catalysts that comprises metals. The metals may be supported on acidic oxides. The partially hydrodeoxygenated fraction with cycloalkanes and unreacted cyclic ketones would not be considered to comprise the catalysts and the only source of oxygen would be expected to be from the unreacted cyclic ketones.
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.
Regarding claim 2, the cycloalkanes would not be expected to comprise any appreciable amounts of acyclic isoalkanes and the ratio between the cycloalkanes to any amount of acyclic isoalkanes would be expected to be far greater than at least twice.
Regarding claim 3, cycloalkanes may be the only component of the jet component and would be expected to be far more than 10% of the jet fuel component.
Regarding claim 4, the partially hydrodeoxygenated fraction with cycloalkanes and unreacted cyclic ketones may be hydrodeoxygenated with catalyst that comprise metals and oxides. (Para 167 of SREEKUMAR)
Applicant is further reminded that "[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).
Regarding claim 5, a partially hydrodeoxygenated fraction with cycloalkanes and unreacted cyclic ketones would be expected to comprise cycloalkanes and the unreacted cyclic ketones. Choosing one with mostly cycloalkanes such as more than 50% would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Cycloalkanes do not contain oxygen.
Regarding claims 21-22, a partially hydrodeoxygenated fraction with cycloalkanes and unreacted cyclic ketones would be expected to comprise cycloalkanes and the unreacted cyclic ketones.
The amount of unreacted cyclic ketones would be a matter of the process and at what stage the hydrodeoxygenation was at.
Selecting the intermediate composition with 1-4 wt% or less than 5 wt% of the cyclic ketones not hydrodeoxygenated would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, the process to produce the cyclic ketones with formulas (I) (II) (III) and (IV) are to react a ketone with structure of formula (A) with a catalyst. One embodiment is taught with methyl ketones. (Para 41 and 73 of SREEKUMAR)
The partially hydrodeoxygenated fraction with cycloalkanes and unreacted cyclic ketones would be expected to comprise also some unreacted methyl ketones that were used in synthesizing cyclic ketones.
The amount of unreacted methyl ketones would be a matter of design choice and the stage at which the partially hydrodeoxygenated composition is viewed.
Regarding claim 24, the NMR branching index is defined in the present specification as the integral of the protons in the methyl region of 0.5 to 0.95 ppm as a percentage of the integral of the entire aliphatic proton resonances region of 0.5 to 2.1 ppm.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to select a point in the hydrodeoxygenation of the cyclic ketones to generate the partially hydrodeoxygenated fraction with cycloalkanes and unreacted cyclic ketones to meet the NMR branching index.
Regarding claim 25, a partially hydrodeoxygenated fraction with cycloalkanes and unreacted cyclic ketones would be expected to have a low total acid number given the lack of acids present and any strong acidic compounds.
Regarding claim 26, the partially hydrodeoxygenated fraction with cycloalkanes and unreacted cyclic ketones would not be expected to comprise any significant amounts of chlorine.
Regarding claim 27, the partially hydrodeoxygenated fraction with cycloalkanes and unreacted cyclic ketones may be hydrodeoxygenated with catalyst that comprise metal. (Para 167 of SREEKUMAR)
These metals include those that are not alkali, or alkaline earth, or Group VII or Group VIII metals. Metals used include Ni (Nickel) or Pt (Platinum)
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the partially hydrodeoxygenated fraction with cycloalkanes and unreacted cyclic ketones to not comprise any appreciable amounts of alkali, or alkaline earth, or Group VII or Group VIII metals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that the “renewable fuel intermediate composition” is separate from the “jet fuel component” and that the properties of the jet fuel component are not necessarily those of the renewable fuel intermediate composition or a liquid portion of the renewable fuel intermediate composition.
Applicant argues that the Examiner has not met the burden of proof to show why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to generate an intermediate composition by only partially carrying out the hydrodeoxygenation process taught by SREEKUMAR to arrive at a composition with 10 wt% to 50 wt% of oxygen containing molecules and having more than 80 % of the oxygen being in the form of ketone groups as required by claim 1.
This is not persuasive as the present claims are explicitly directed toward a “renewable fuel intermediate composition.” A composition that has been partially processed would be considered an intermediate.
The fuel intermediate composition being an intermediate composition may be a considered a composition at any intermediate stage of producing a product composition.
The amount of unreacted cyclic ketones would be a matter of the efficiency of the process and the stage at which the hydrodeoxygenation was at.
Applicant argues that a statement of modification of the prior art to meet the claimed invention would have been “well within the ordinary skill in the art” because the references relied upon teach that all aspects of the claimed invention were individually known in the art is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness without some objective reason to combine the references.
This is not persuasive as the rejection is not based on a combination of references. References are not being combined with multiple references individually teaching aspects of the claimed invention. The rejections are based on the teachings of a single reference: SREEKUMAR (WO 20120238787).
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success for generating a composition with 10% to 50% of oxygen containing molecules, a boiling point of greater than 121 C and less than 300 C and a freezing point of less than -15 C.
This is not persuasive as the properties that applicant is stating are referring to different components. The boiling point and freezing point are properties of a jet fuel component of a renewable fuel intermediate composition. The 10-50% wt of oxygen containing molecules is referring to a liquid portion of the renewable fuel intermediate composition.
Applicant further argues that SREEKUMAR (WO 20120238787) do not inherently teach the properties. Applicant further states that SREEKUMAR is silent to the boiling point and freezing point characteristics of cyclic ketones/cycloalkanes taught in SREEKUMAR.
This is not persuasive as SREEKUMAR explicitly teaches that cycloalkanes of formulas X-I, X-II, X-III, and X-IV that may be used as jet fuels have a pour point of less than -70°C and a freezing point of less than -45°C and a boiling point between 175 and 275°C. (Para 176 of SREEKUMAR)
The boiling point and freezing point are properties of a jet fuel component of a renewable fuel intermediate composition. The jet fuel component are not the cyclic ketones taught in SREEKUMAR.
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.
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 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