DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, 21, and 22 in the reply filed on 31 August 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in step (c) “the cracked products”. This should be “the renewable products” for antecedent basis purposes and to connect the preamble to the claimed process.
Claim 2 recites in line 4 “the total load”. This should be “a total load” for antecedent basis purposes.
Claim 5 recites in line 2 “the proportion” and in line 3 “the total processed load”. These should be “a proportion” for antecedent basis purposes and “a total load” for antecedent basis purposes and for consistency with claim 2.
Claim 7 recites in line 2 “the catalyst”. This should be “the regenerated catalyst” for antecedent basis purposes.
Claim 7 also recites in line 3 “and kaolin for closing the balance”. The Examiner suggests “and a remainder is kaolin” uses terminology common in the art and avoids antecedent basis issues.
Claim 8 recites in line 2 “wherein the catalyst comprises a structure selected from…” The Examiner suggests “wherein the zeolite is selected from” to correct antecedent basis issues and to be clear that the zeolite is what is being discussed.
Claim 8 also recites in line 4 “ and any of the combinations thereof”. The Examiner suggests “and combinations thereof” is more concise.
Claim 9 recites in line 2 “the fluid catalytic cracking unit”. This should be “the one or more fluid catalytic cracking units” for antecedent basis purposes.
Claim 21 recites in line 2 “the total processed load”. This should be “the total load” for consistency with claims 2 and 5 as suggested above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 9, and 22 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 6 recites the broad recitation “an oil of plant origin”, and the claim also recites “castor oil”, “soybean oil” “cottonseed oil”, and “peanut oil” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. Claim 6 also recites the broad recitation “animal fat”, and the claim also recites “beef tallow” which is 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.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the broad recitations of “animal fat” and “oil of plant origin” are intended to refer to any other animal fats or plant oils not previously listed, as this is the broadest reasonable interpretation. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Claim 9 recites “catalyst/biomass ratio”. There is no previous recitation of biomass in claims 1 or 9. As such, it is unclear how to determine the desired ratio, and the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the same ratio amounts are described in the instant specification as a “catalyst-to-oil” ratio (paragraph [0038]). However, the Examiner notes that “catalyst-to-oil” would also be indefinite if presented in the claims, as the claims do not use the term “oil” to refer to any components. The Examiner suggests that it appears from the specification that “oil” refers to the total feed comprising both bio-oil and renewable grease (paragraphs [0038] and [0082]). As such, the Examiner suggests that if claim 9 is amended, the ratio be described as “a catalyst to total load” ratio as this phrase “total load” is used elsewhere in the claims and specification to refer to the combined feed of bio-oil and renewable grease.
Claim 22 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-9, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2013/102662, cited on IDS of 11/19/2024) in view of Patel et al. (US 2021/0008517).
With regard to claims 1 and 6, Chen teaches a method for fluidized catalytic cracking
a) preheating and feeding via a nozzle a hydrocarbon co-feed (page 12, lines 21-26) where the hydrocarbon co-feed can include renewable oils such as vegetable oil (claimed renewable grease that is an oil of plant origin instant claim 6) (page 13, lines 11-13). Chen also teaches providing a cellulosic feed which can be pyrolysis oil (claimed bio-oil) (page 7, lines 13-14) and feeding the pyrolysis oil through a separate nozzle (page 17, lines 15-16). Chen does not explicitly teach preheating the pyrolysis oil, but does teach that the liquid feeds are vaporized while feeding to the reactor (page 7, lines 4-5 and page 12, lines 22-24). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the process of becoming a vapor is the claimed preheating, absent any evidence to the contrary.
b) providing the feedstock comprising cellulosic material (claimed bio-oil) and hydrocarbon co-feed (claimed renewable grease) to a FCC reactor comprising a regenerated FCC catalyst to catalytically cracking the feed (page 40, lines 19-28), wherein the catalyst includes a medium pore zeolite (intermediate zeolite) (page 19, lines 6-9).
c) fractionating (separating) the products obtained from the cracker (page 25, lines 3-6).
d) passing the spent catalyst to a regenerator to remove coke (page 26, lines 20-23) and recycling the regenerated catalyst to the reactor (page 41, lines 9-14).
Chen fails to specifically atomizing the renewable grease stream and bio-oil stream.
Patel teaches a process for fluid catalytic cracking of a hydrocarbon feed and bio-oil (Abstract). Patel teaches that the process comprises atomizing both the hydrocarbon feed and the bio-oil feed (page 3, claim 1). Patel additionally teaches that the atomization is critical for contacting the feed with the catalyst in the reactor, and that the atomization reduces formation of undesirable coke and enables more effective product yield (paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to atomize both the hydrocarbon co-feed which is vegetable oil (claimed renewable grease) and also the pyrolysis oil (claimed bio-oil) of Chen when feeding to the reactor, because each of Chen and Patel teaches feeding a hydrocarbon co-feed and a bio-oil to an FCC reactor, and Patel teaches that atomization of the feed is critical to reduce formation of undesirable coke and enable more effective product yield (paragraph [0014]).
With regard to claim 2, Chen teaches that the weight ratio of hydrocarbon co-feed (claimed renewable grease) to cellulosic material (claimed bio-oil) is at least 70:30 (page 15, lines 25-28). This overlaps the ranges of 70-98 wt% renewable grease and 2-30 wt% bio-oil of instant claim 2, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 3, Chen teaches that the pyrolysis oil is produced by pyrolysis (page 8, lines 24-26) which is a specific example of the claimed thermochemical conversion (see instant specification paragraph [023]).
With regard to claim 4, Chen teaches that the hydrocarbon co-feed and cellulosic material are fed at the same location of the reactor (page 17, lines 1-2).
With regard to claim 5, Chen teaches that the weight ratio of hydrocarbon co-feed (claimed renewable grease) to cellulosic material (claimed bio-oil) is at least 70:30 (page 15, lines 25-28). This amount of 30 wt% or less bio-oil overlaps the range of 5-20 wt% bio-oil of instant claim 5, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 7, Chen teaches that the catalyst comprises 5 to 50 wt% zeolite (page 20, lines 20-21), where the rest is binders, fillers, and matrix components (page 20, lines 24-26). Chen further teaches the binder is silica, the matrix is alumina, and the filler is kaolin (page 20, lines 10-18). The range of 5 to 50 wt% zeolite overlaps the range of 10 to 75 wt% zeolite of instant claim 7, rendering the range prima facie obvious. The total amount of binder, matrix, and filler is 50 to 95 wt%, which overlaps the total amount of alumina, silica, and kaolin of 1 to 60 wt%, rendering the total amount prima facie obvious. Chen does not teach phosphorus, which is 0 wt% phosphorus and within the range of 0 to 20 wt% of instant claim 7.
While Chen does not specifically teach the amounts of binder, matrix, and filler, one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of adjusting the amounts of individual components in order to obtain the desired strength and shape of the catalyst composite. As such, the specific amounts of binder, filler, and matrix material are result-effective variables, and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use 1 to 40 wt% alumina, 0 to 20 wt% silica, and remainder kaolin, as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With regard to claim 8, Chen teaches that the zeolite comprises an MFI, ZSM-12, or ZSM-23 structure (page 19, lines 13-21)
With regard to claim 9, Chen teaches that the residence time (contact time) is 2 to 5 seconds (page 23, lines 1-5), the pressure is 0.1 to 0.6 MPa (100 to 600 kPa) (page 23, lines 19-22) and the catalyst to total feed ratio is 3:1 to 50:1 (page 23, lines 22-32). These ranges of Chen overlap the ranges of 1 to 3 seconds, 200 to 400 kPa, and 5:1 to 30:1 of instant claim 9, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 21, Chen teaches that the weight ratio of hydrocarbon co-feed (claimed renewable grease) to cellulosic material (claimed bio-oil) is at least 70:30 (page 15, lines 25-28). This amount of 30 wt% or less bio-oil overlaps the range of 5-10 wt% bio-oil of instant claim 21, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 22, Chen teaches the hydrocarbon co-feed can be vegetable oil. Chen does not specify whether the vegetable oil is pure or used. However, the use of pure or used vegetable oils is a selection of two options from a finite list of 3 options, including pure vegetable oil, used vegetable oil, and vegetable oil mixed with a substance that makes it unpure. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to try using pure or used vegetable oil in the process of Chen, because Chen generally teaches vegetable oil and the selection of items from a finite list is prima facie obvious with a reasonable expectation of success, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that any vegetable oil would function in the process of Chen, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights