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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18846728 filed 9/13/24.
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 9/13/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 9/13/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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.
Claim 7 and all dependent claims 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 and all dependent claims recite the broad recitation (see respective claims), and the claim also recites the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The Examiner has taken the position that only one is present.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUIGNARD ET AL. (US PG PUB 20110167713) in view of CHEN ET AL. (US PG PUB 2013025191) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as QUIGNARD and CHEN.
Regarding claims 1-18:
QUIGNARD teaches a process (see par 88-103) for the conversion of lignocellulosic starting materials (par 46-55) into an organic liquefaction product characterized in that in a first hydroprocessing step lignocellulosic starting material, an amorphous sulfided nickel-molybdenum catalyst (see par 104-112) and a cofeed (par 51 ), are mixed, thereby obtaining a mixture, and said mixture being subjected to not less than a stoichiometric amount of hydrogen (see par 93 and 98), an elevated pressure and a temperature within the range from 270°C and up to but not including 350°C (see par 95 and 98) , thereby producing an organic liquefaction product (see par 113-130).
QUIGNARD teaches in para [0104] the two stages of hydroliquefaction, it is possible to use any conventional catalyst for hydrotreating and/or hydroconversion of feeds of high molecular weight, in particular a granular catalyst comprising, on an amorphous support, at least one metal or metal compound having a hydrodehydrogenating function. (see also para [0046] - [0138]; examples 1-2; tables 1-14; figure 1)
QUIGNARD teaches an organic liquefaction product obtainable by the process according to claim 1, the organic liquefaction product having an oxygen content within a range of from 0.5 % by weight than 35 % by weight, as measured by elemental analysis (see para 130).
Furthermore, CHEN also teaches in para [0010] The lignin used as a feedstock in processes described herein may be obtained from a variety of biomass sources, and particularly residues from wood and crops, including forestry wastes, sawdust, straw, corn stover, and bagasse. Lignin is understood in the art to refer to the cross-linked, polymeric macromolecule that bonds to cellulose and hemicellulose, thereby conferring strength to plant (e.g., wood) cell walls. The utility of lignin as a precursor for making aromatic oxygenates through depolymerization and ultimately aromatic hydrocarbons through deoxygenation resides in the high content of aromatic rings in the biomolecule. These rings originate from three aromatic monomers, namely p-coumaryl alcohol, coniferyl alcohol, and sinapyl alcohol, which are methoxylated to various extents.
Para [0012] Suitable biomass sources for cellulosic ethanol production and biomass pyrolysis can be any lignocellulosic material, and especially a plant material, including a hardwood (e.g., whitewood), a softwood, or a hardwood or softwood bark. Energy crops, or otherwise agricultural residues (e.g., logging residues) or other types of plant wastes or plant-derived wastes, may also be used as plant materials. Specific exemplary plant materials include corn fiber, corn stover, and sugar cane bagasse, in addition to "on-purpose" energy crops such as switchgrass, miscanthus, and algae. Short rotation forestry products, as energy crops, include alder, ash, southern beech, birch, eucalyptus, poplar, willow, paper mulberry, Australian blackwood, sycamore, and varieties of paulownia elongate. Other examples of suitable biomass include organic waste materials, such as sawdust, wastepaper and construction, demolition, and municipal wastes.
Para [0013] According to representative methods for converting lignin to aromatic hydrocarbons as fuel components or chemical intermediates, the lignin is mixed with a suitable solvent, preferably having the capability to facilitate hydrogen transfer in the reaction medium. Representative solvents are aromatic-containing solvents comprising one or more aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g., single ring aromatic compounds such as benzene, toluene, and xylenes and/or fused ring aromatic compounds such as tetralin and its alkylated derivatives). The solvent may or may not have the capability to dissolve all of the lignin (as required to form a lignin solution) in the lignin/solvent mixture. Often, at least some of the lignin is not dissolved, such that the lignin mixture is a lignin slurry. Without being bound by theory, it is believed that aromatic hydrocarbons and/or other compounds beneficially introduce a hydrogen transfer functionality to the solvent, thereby limiting detrimental coke formation and/or re-polymerization reactions that limit conversion and reduce product yields, as well as shorten catalyst life.
Para [0015] The mixture of lignin and solvent, for example an aromatic-containing solvent, is contacted with hydrogen in the presence of catalyst under conditions which promote the depolymerization of lignin to aromatic oxygenate substituents (e.g., phenol, and its alkoxylated derivatives) and also the deoxygenation (or hydrodeoxygenation) of these substituents or intermediates to aromatic hydrocarbons. The catalyst may be present in the form of solid particles comprising a catalytically active metal disposed on a support, with suitable metals and supports being described below. The catalyst, either supported or otherwise unsupported (e.g., in the form of fine particles of a compound containing the catalytically active metal), may be used in a fixed bed or moving bed, such as in the case of a slurry reactor. Homogeneous systems operating with catalysts that are soluble in the reactants and products may also be used. Catalytic depolymerization/deoxygenation conditions will vary depending on the quality of the lignin conversion effluent desired, with higher severity operations directionally resulting in greater conversion of organic oxygenate intermediates and other oxygenated species (e.g., carboxylic acids) by hydrogenation.
Para [0020] It is within the scope of the invention to use more than one type of catalyst for carrying out the depolymerization/deoxygenation of lignin, and different catalysts may be used in the same or a different reaction vessel. Two or more different catalysts and one or more quench points may also be utilized in a reaction vessel or vessels to provide the lignin conversion effluent.
Para [0021] After reaction of lignin, in the lignin mixture, in the presence of hydrogen, a catalyst, and conditions as described above, the effluent obtained directly from the lignin depolymerization/deoxygenation reaction (i.e., the lignin conversion effluent) prior to any downstream separation and purification steps, has an organic oxygen content that is generally reduced to less than about 20%, and often to less than about 10% of the oxygen content of the liquid feedstock, namely the lignin mixture (e.g., lignin slurry). Organic oxygen originally present in the lignin molecular structure is therefore generally converted, to a large extent, to water that is easily separated from the desired hydrocarbons recovered in the lignin conversion product. Accompanying its decrease in organic oxygen is an increase in the heating value, on a mass basis, of the lignin conversion effluent. This heating value increases typically by a factor ranging from about 1.5 to about 3, compared to that of the lignin.
Para [0022] Fractionation or other separation methods may then be used to separate the desired aromatic hydrocarbons, as a lignin conversion product, from hydrogen, light hydrocarbons, water, and other lower value byproducts present in the effluent. At least a portion of the separated hydrogen, optionally together with light hydrocarbons, may be recycled to the reactor (or depolymerization/deoxygenation reaction zone), such that the combined gas stream of make-up hydrogen (which may be of varying purity) and recycle hydrogen is sufficient to achieve a hydrogen partial pressure within the ranges described above. The lignin conversion product, obtained after this separation of byproducts, comprises predominantly hydrocarbons, typically at least about 90% hydrocarbons (e.g., from about 90% to about 99.9% hydrocarbons) by weight, and often at least about 97% hydrocarbons (e.g., from about 97% to about 99.5% hydrocarbons) by weight.
Para [0024] The lignin conversion product is separated from the total lignin conversion effluent using any of a number possible separation/purification steps including single-stage and/or multiple stage vapor-liquid equilibrium contacting (e.g., flash separation and/or distillation). According to representative embodiments, the lignin conversion product may be separated from light byproducts of the depolymerization/deoxygenation reaction, and particularly light byproducts comprising C.sub.4 and lower carbon number (C.sub.4.sup.-) hydrocarbons and/or methanol that are present in the lignin conversion effluent (e.g., as cracked hydrocarbon byproducts). According to particular embodiments, at least some of the hydrogen used in the reaction may advantageously be produced from these light byproducts, for example by catalytic steam reforming Representative processes may therefore further comprise generating, from at least a portion of the light byproducts, at least a portion of the hydrogen for contacting with the mixture of lignin and the aromatic-containing solvent in the depolymerization/deoxygenation reaction.
Para [0025] The generation of hydrogen from byproducts (e.g., light hydrocarbons) of the depolymerization and deoxygenation reactions, can involve, in the overall production of aromatic hydrocarbons from lignin, integration with a hydrogen generation unit. In an exemplary embodiment, a catalytic steam reformer, in which at least a portion of the C.sub.4.sup.- hydrocarbons and/or at least a portion of the methanol are catalytically reformed in the presence of steam, is integrated with catalytic lignin conversion unit or reaction zone. Representative steam reforming catalysts include alumina supported nickel oxide. Importantly, the generation of hydrogen in this manner (i.e., from byproducts obtained from the processing of feedstocks comprising renewable carbon) reduces, or can even eliminate, the amount of hydrogen that must be obtained from external fossil sources (imported), thereby beneficially lowering the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission value of the aromatic hydrocarbon product. Therefore, the carbon footprint of end products, including fuel compositions having the aromatic hydrocarbons as blending component, or plastics (e.g., purified terephthalic acid) made from the aromatic hydrocarbons, is reduced. (see also para [0010]-[0030] in their entirety)
Having QUIGNARD and CHEN process and composition, one of oridinary skilled in the art would be motivated to from the various catalyst known in the art to use an unsupported catalyst as disclosed in CHEN.
Therefore, from the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
In addition, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that adding duplicate / repeating process steps or recognizing additional instrumentation for analysis or additional analysis would not have been expected to confer any particular desirable property on the final product. Rather, the final product obtained according to the claim limitations would merely have been expected to have the same functional properties as the prior art product.
Further, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Additionally, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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 on 571-272-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights