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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 102.
Additionally, the text within the drawings is illegible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 7-10 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.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what is meant by “a prior delignification reaction” as it relates to the “delignification of biomass” recited in claim 1. Is Applicant intending to introduce an additional, distinct delignification reaction or specify that the feedstock further comprises a dissolved hemicellulose which is also obtained from the delignification of biomass as recited in claim 1? For the purposes of examination, the office has adopted the latter interpretation.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear how the claim step recited therein relates to the overall method of claim 1. The claim specifies a pretreatment step to remove “sulfuric acid present in a crude bio-oil.” From where does this crude bio-oil originate and/or how does it relate to the material being processed in claim 1? For the purposes of examination, the office has interpreted the crude bio-oil as being equivalent to the lignin-rich feedstock obtained from delignification of biomass as introduced in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said alkaline salt" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may have intended for claim 9 to depend from claim 8 instead of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 2015/0099868).
Regarding claims 1-6, 11 and 13-16, Yang discloses a method for producing biofuel comprising (see [0003]):
a) providing a lignin-rich feedstock, wherein the lignin-rich feedstock comprises more than 95 wt.% of lignin-based compounds (e.g., oligomers) obtained from delignification of biomass (see [0023]; [0076]; [0082], the concentration of lignin being within or overlapping the ranges of claims 1-6); and
b) performing a hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) reaction on the feedstock (see [0024]).
HDO is carried out in the presence of hydrogen under conditions (i.e., temperature, pressure, time) which are conducive to the production of jet fuel and provide high yields of aromatics and/or aliphatic hydrocarbons (see [0018]; [0080]; [0083]-[0084]; [0178]). Example 5 illustrates conditions including a hydrogen pressure of 5-6 MPa (50-60 bar) and a temperature of 250°C (see [0178]).
Yang does not explicitly disclose the TAN, viscosity, or char content of the resulting fuel product. However, given that HDO reaction is carried out under conditions in line with those claimed on a feedstock having the claimed properties, it is reasonably expected that the resulting product would have properties that, at the very least, overlap with those claimed. Furthermore, as noted above, Yang discloses tailoring conditions to optimize the yield of aromatic and/or aliphatic hydrocarbons, in particular C7 to C9 cyclohexane derivatives in the jet fuel range (see [0179]) and explicitly notes that HDO results in a substantial reduction in oxygen content (and thus, a decrease in TAN) (see [0079]). Therefore, based on the facts of record in Yang, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily optimize reaction conditions to provide a product having the desired fuel properties, including those in line with the claimed TAN, viscosity, and char content. The claimed properties are not considered to provide a patentably distinguishing feature over Yang, absent objective evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 7, Yang discloses wherein the feedstock further comprises a dissolved hemicellulose resulting from the delignification of biomass (see [0086]).
Regarding claim 12, Yang does not explicitly disclose an HDO temperature of about 350°C, but, as noted above, suggests optimizing HDO conditions to produce the desired yield of jet fuel range products. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily optimize the reaction conditions, including temperature, which provide the desired yield of product. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, the claimed temperature is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 17, Yang discloses recovering the upgraded oil (see [0029]).
Regarding claim 18, Yang discloses a method for producing biofuel comprising (see [0003]):
a) providing a liquid lignin-rich feedstock obtained from a delignification process which separates cellulose from lignin and hemicellulose and depolymerizes lignin and hemicellulose into mainly monomers and dimers thereof (see [0023]; [0076]; [0086]; [0198]; [0216], teaching the claimed LHDO feedstock); and
b) performing a hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) reaction on the feedstock (see [0024]).
HDO is carried out in the presence of hydrogen under conditions (i.e., temperature, pressure, time) which are conducive to the production of jet fuel and provide high yields of aromatics and/or aliphatic hydrocarbons (see [0018]; [0080]; [0083]-[0084]; [0178]). Example 5 illustrates conditions including a hydrogen pressure of 5-6 MPa (50-60 bar) and a temperature of 250°C (see [0178]).
Yang does not explicitly disclose the TAN or viscosity of the resulting fuel product. However, given that HDO reaction is carried out under conditions in line with those claimed on a feedstock in line with that claimed, it is reasonably expected that the resulting product would have properties that, at the very least, overlap with those claimed. Furthermore, as noted above, Yang discloses tailoring conditions to optimize the yield of aromatic and/or aliphatic hydrocarbons, in particular C7 to C9 cyclohexane derivatives in the jet fuel range (see [0179]) and explicitly notes that HDO results in a substantial reduction in oxygen content (and thus, a decrease in TAN) (see [0079]). Therefore, based on the facts of record in Yang, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily optimize reaction conditions to provide a product having the desired fuel properties, including those in line with the claimed TAN and viscosity. The claimed properties are not considered to provide a patentably distinguishing feature over Yang, absent objective evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 19, Yang does not explicitly disclose that the feedstock contains at most 2% of aldehyde-containing compounds. However, it is considered that selecting a suitable material to subject to the HDO reaction which produces the desired jet fuel product, as stated in Yang, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and associated with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent a showing of new or unexpected results, the claimed aldehyde concentration is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 20, Yang discloses that HDO results in a substantial reduction in oxygen content from the lignin intermediates (see [0079]), which is considered to teach and/or suggest the claimed conversion of substantially all carboxylic acids, given that carboxylic acids are oxygen containing compounds.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, as applied to the claims above, in view of Geigle et al (US 2019/0390405).
Regarding claims 8-10, Yang does not disclose wherein the method comprises a pretreatment procedure using an alkaline salt for the removal of sulfuric acid. It is noted, however, the Yang discloses the delignification step entailing treatment with sulfuric acid (see [0023]; Example 1, 3).
Geigle, like Yang, is directed to processing lignocellulosic material to separate lignin, which then may be subjected to HDO reaction(s) (see Abstract; [0600]). Delignification entails treatment with sulfuric acid, wherein the reaction solution may be completely neutralized with a calcium hydroxide neutralizing agent (see [0519]-[0520]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process of Yang by mixing the delignification process effluent with calcium hydroxide, as suggested by Geigle, in order to neutralize the stream prior to subsequent treatment/conversion steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights