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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is based on the 18/849301 application originally filed September 20, 2024.
Amended claims 1-11, filed September 03, 2025, are pending and have been fully considered. Claim 11 has been canceled.
The rejection under 35 USC 112 2nd paragraph is withdrawn in light of applicants claimed amendments and remarks.
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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duong et al. (WO 2020/083989 A1) hereinafter cited under US 2021/0395620 “Duong”.
Regarding Claims 1-9 and 11
Duong discloses in the abstract, a process plant and a process for production of a hydrocarbon fraction suitable for use as jet fuel from an oxygenate feedstock, which may be a feedstock being a renewable feedstock, including combining the feedstock with a diluent hydrocarbon stream to form a hydrotreatment feed stream to contact a material catalytically active in hydrotreatment under hydrotreating conditions to provide a hydrotreated intermediate product, directing at least an amount of said hydrotreated intermediate product to contact a material catalytically active in hydrocracking under hydrocracking conditions to provide a hydrocracked intermediate product, separating the hydrocracked intermediate product in a hydrocracked intermediate liquid fraction and a gaseous fraction, directing at least an amount of said hydrocracked intermediate liquid fraction to contact a material catalytically active in hydrodearomatization under hydrodearomatization conditions to provide a treated product comprising the hydrocarbon fraction suitable for use as jet fuel.
Duong discloses in paragraphs 0013-0017, a process for production of a hydrocarbon fraction suitable for use as jet fuel from an oxygenate feedstock, which may be a feedstock being a renewable feedstock, comprising the steps of: a. combining the feedstock with a diluent hydrocarbon stream to form a hydrotreatment feed stream to contact a material catalytically active in hydrotreatment under hydrotreating conditions to provide a hydrotreated intermediate product, b. directing at least an amount of said hydrotreated intermediate product to contact a material catalytically active in hydrocracking under hydrocracking conditions to provide a hydrocracked intermediate product, c. separating the hydrocracked intermediate product in a hydrocracked intermediate liquid fraction and a gaseous fraction, d. directing at least an amount of said hydrocracked intermediate liquid fraction to contact a material catalytically active in hydrodearomatization under hydrodearomatization conditions to provide a treated product comprising the hydrocarbon fraction suitable for use as jet fuel, with the associated benefit of producing a hydrocarbon fraction suitable for use as jet fuel with a high yield from an oxygenate feedstock.
Duong discloses in paragraph 0037, the processes receives a renewable feedstock and/or an oxygenate feedstock which comprises one or more oxygenates taken from the group consisting of triglycerides, fatty acids, resin acids, ketones, aldehydes, alcohols, phenols and aromatic carboxylic acids where said oxygenates originate from one or more of a biological source, a gasification process, a pyrolysis process, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, methanol based synthesis or a further synthesis process, especially obtained from a raw material of renewable origin, such as originating from plants, algae, animals, fish, vegetable oil refining, domestic waste, used cooking oil, plastic waste, rubber waste or industrial organic waste like tall oil or black liquor. Some of these feedstocks may contain aromatics; especially products derived by pyrolysis or other processes from e.g. lignin and wood or waste products from e.g. frying oil. Depending on source, the oxygenate feedstock may comprise from 1 wt/wt % to 40 wt/wt %. Biological sources will typically comprise around 10 wt/wt %, and derivation products from 1 wt/wt % to 20 wt/wt % or even 40 wt/wt %.
It is to be noted, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the oxygenates of Duong would encompass oxygen in the amount of at least 0.5 weight percent due to Duong disclosing in paragraph 0037 the feedstock may comprise from 1 wt/wt% to 40 wt/wt%, which would encompass oxygen in the same amount. The applicant is reminded that where 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.
Duong discloses in paragraph 0059, the hydrocracked stream is directed to a separation section comprising a means of separation, such as a stripper or a fractionator, and at least a gas fraction, an intermediate fraction and a bottoms fraction are withdrawn. All streams out of the fractionator have a very low level of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. The bottoms fraction of the hydrocracked stream will be too heavy for being used as jet product, and is recycled to the hydrodeoxygenation reactor. The intermediate fraction has a boiling range which often is suitable for use as jet fuel, but the content of aromatics and the freezing point may not be within specification.
Duong discloses in paragraph 0069, the separator, fractionation and light ends recovery sections can be configured in multiple ways as it is known to the skilled person. If light materials like LPG or propane are valuable, the recovery of these can be improved by using a sponge oil absorption system e.g. using the heavy naphtha from the fractionator overhead as lean oil and returning the rich oil to the stripper.
Duong discloses in paragraph 0072, the dewaxed intermediate product (314) is directed to a hydrocracking section (HDC) where it contacts a material catalytically active in hydrocracking under hydrocracking conditions, providing a hydrocracked product (316). The hydrocracked product (316) is directed to a fractionation section (FRAC) shown for simplicity as a single unit, separating the hydrocracked product in a light overhead stream (320), a naphtha stream (322), a jet product (324) and a bottom diesel fraction (326).
Duong discloses in paragraph 0046, the material catalytically active in hydrocracking is of a nature similar to that of the material catalytically active in isomerization, and it typically comprises an active metal (either elemental noble metals such as platinum and/or palladium or sulfided base metals such as nickel, cobalt, tungsten and/or molybdenum), an acidic support (typically a molecular sieve showing high cracking activity, and having a topology such as MFI, BEA and FAU, but amorphous acidic oxides such as silica-alumina may also be used) and a refractory support (such as alumina, silica or titania, or combinations thereof). The catalytically active material may comprise further components, such as boron or phosphorous. Preferred hydrocracking catalysts comprise molecular sieves such as ZSM-5, zeolite Y or beta zeolite.
Duong discloses in paragraph 0047, typically hydrocracking involves directing the intermediate hydrotreated feedstock to contact a material catalytically active in hydrocracking. The conditions are typically a temperature in the interval 250-400° C, a pressure in the interval 30-150 Bar, and a liquid hourly space velocity (LHSV) in the interval 0.5-4.
Regarding Claim 10
THE FOLLOWING CLAIM INTERPRETATION IS HEREBY INCORPORATED INTO EACH AND EVERY REJECTION BELOW SET FORTH AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH THEREIN:
The examiner notes the claims are set forth as product by process claims. The product will determine patentability. The references as more fully below cited disclose the claimed product. The examiner notes that hydro treated/cracked hydrocarbon feedstock is known in the art and results in a transportation fuel.
“[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) (citations omitted) Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). [Emphasis added by examiner]
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 03, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued: “The process of Duong is optimized for straight-chain paraffinic feeds and employs hydrocracking primarily to shorten chain length, not to open rings or decrease density. See Duong, [0037] [0041] [0047] [0059]. Accordingly, Duong does not teach or suggest a feedstock rich in cyclic carbon (> 25 wt%). In contrast, the triglyceride/fatty-acid feeds of Duong are principally linear; Duong nowhere discloses, suggests, or finds need for a feedstock containing even 5 wt %, much less the claimed 25 wt%, of carbon in cyclic structures. See, e.g., Duong [0037], [0041]. Moreover, there is no reason to modify Duong in a manner to arrive at the claimed subject matter. For example, substituting a highly cyclic pyrolysis-oil feed into Duong would defeat teaching of Duong that jet fuel yield and freezing-point compliance rely on linear paraffins.”
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. As stated in the above rejection, Duong discloses the feedstock comprises AROMATIC hydrocarbons. Particularly, Duong discloses in paragraph 0037, the processes receives a renewable feedstock and/or an oxygenate feedstock which comprises one or more oxygenates taken from the group consisting of triglycerides, fatty acids, resin acids, ketones, aldehydes, alcohols, phenols and aromatic carboxylic acids where said oxygenates originate from one or more of a biological source, a gasification process, a pyrolysis process, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, methanol based synthesis or a further synthesis process, especially obtained from a raw material of renewable origin, such as originating from plants, algae, animals, fish, vegetable oil refining, domestic waste, used cooking oil, plastic waste, rubber waste or industrial organic waste like tall oil or black liquor. Some of these feedstocks may contain aromatics; especially products derived by pyrolysis or other processes from e.g. lignin and wood or waste products from e.g. frying oil. Depending on source, the oxygenate feedstock may comprise from 1 wt/wt % to 40 wt/wt %. Biological sources will typically comprise around 10 wt/wt %, and derivation products from 1 wt/wt % to 20 wt/wt % or even 40 wt/wt %. Duong does not disclose ONLY straight chain carbons due to Duong disclosing aromatics are present in the feedstock. Therefore, it is maintained Duong has met the limitations of the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 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 at 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 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771