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 .
Election/Restrictions
The examiner recognizes the selection of group 1 claims 26-42 with traverse in a phone call with Jonathan Roberts on 7/2/2026. The restriction is upheld over the prior art below.
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.
Claim(s) 26-27 and 33-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta et al (US 2014/0081065 A1).
Sengupta teaches a process for making an upgraded liquid fuel component (p 4-6).
The process uses hydrodeoxygenation. A bio-oil (51-53) is added to a series of reactors (p 74). Thus the liquid output from the first stage would be a second stage with the below given parameters. This is done in the presence of hydrogen at 200 psig or above. See p 78. The temperature of the process is 150C to 250C (p 78). The contacting is down for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or more hours, see p 79.
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
The solvent used in the process is an organic solvent with 6 to 18 carbon atoms, a hydrocarbon. The ratio of feedstock to solvent is 15:1 to 1:1. See p 76.
The catalyst used is preferably platinum, see p 86.
Regarding claims 33 and 34 various alkanes used in fuels is the intended product, see p 65. This includes octadecane and other alkanes (see table 1 and p 53 for the unconverted feed). This is intended as a fuel component, see p 4-6. As such an obvious variant of the product would be blending the individual alkane products or total product into finished fuels. This includes at a broad ratio of 5%-95% of the total fuel as found in claim 34. In the alternative the examiner takes official notice that such alkanes are widely known and used in various fuels compositions to be blended to form specific fuels for specific reasons.
Claim(s) 28-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta et al (US 2014/0081065 A1) and Myllyoja et al (US 2020/0181504 A1).
Sengupta does not specifically state separate of the gas and liquid phases and dewatering.
Myllyoja teaches a hydrodeoxygenation process for bio oils. See abstract. The process includes a dewatering phase to remove that water that must be produced in hydrodeoxygenation .See p 117. Separation of the different phases (gas, liquid) is also taught as a method of purification and separation of products. This includes distillation and other methods known in the art. This is a filtering step. See p 113-114 and 117-123.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the purification techniques of Myllyoja in the invention of Sengupta. This has the advantage of removing the water that must be produced from the process from the fuel product. It also has the advantage of specific product removal when the intended alkane/fuel is produced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights