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 .
This communication is in response to the application filed 12/3/2024.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 4, 5, 7, and 14 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 claims 4, 7, and 14 the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05.
Regarding claim 5, “mild or moderate” conditions are not defined in the specification. It is unclear if the conditions described in the specification are mild/moderate, or what other criteria is intended by this limitation. The claim is unclear and therefore indefinite.
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) 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by or alternatively 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 12516256)(priority filing June 29, 2022).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 12516256)(priority filing June 29, 2022).
With respect to claim 1, Xu (figure 2 shown below) is directed to a process for producing renewable jet fuel and renewable diesel. Jet fuel boils in a range similar to kerosene and one of ordinary skill could tailor the hydrotreating conditions to achieve the desired product, kerosene or jet fuel. Xu teaches reacting a renewable feedstock 205 in a hydrotreating zone 210 under hydrotreating conditions sufficient to cause a hydrotreating reaction to produce a hydrotreated effluent. Xu, col. 9, lines 25-47. The hydrotreated liquid 215 is reacted in a dewaxing zone, Id. at col. 9, lines 48-60, operating under cracking or under isomerization conditions (“The hydrotreated effluent can then be cascaded into a dewaxing or hydroisomerization reactor,” col. 5, lines 45+), thus an hydroisomerization zone 240 under hydroisomerization conditions to cause a hydroisomerization reaction to produce an isomerized effluent. col. 4, lines 51-55, . The isomerized effluent is separated 220 to produce an off gas stream 251, at least one fuel stream having a desired boiling point range (e.g. naphtha 223 and jet 225), and a heavy fraction having a boiling point greater than the desired boiling point range 227. Id. at col. 9, lines 61+. The bottoms 227 is reacted in a hydrocracking zone 230 under hydrocracking conditions to cause a hydrocracking reaction to produce a hydrocracked effluent and the hydrocracked effluent recycled to the hydrotreating and hydroisomerization zones. Id. at col. 10, lines 7+.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, one fuel may be naphtha. Col. 5, line 65.
With respect to claim 3, Xu discloses using a ZSM-48 catalyst in the isomerization zone and that “ZSM-48 based catalysts have a high selectivity for isomerization of paraffinic feeds relative to cracking.” Id. col. 14, lines 25+. Thus, Xu teaches wherein hydroisomerization conditions and hydroisomerization catalyst are selected to favor isomerization (i.e. branching) over cracking. The hydrocracking is designed for cracking, which is known to favor cracking over branching.
With respect to claim 6, Xu teaches wherein the hydroisomerization step is conducted with a hydroisomerization catalyst comprising a Group VIII metal and a zeolitic material. Id.
With respect to claim 4, the hydroisomerization conditions include a temperature of 2600C to 4000C and a pressure in a range of from 1.4 to 14 MPa, which anticipate and fall within the claimed ranges.
With respect to claim 5, Xu is silent regarding whether the hydroisomerization conditions and hydroisomerization catalyst are selected to operate at a mild or moderate hydroisomerization severity. However, Xu teaches operating with catalyst which favor isomerization over cracking and under the same conditions as disclosed. Thus, it appears they operate within the same relative isomerization severity claimed.
With respect to claim 7, Xu teaches wherein the hydrocracking conditions include a at temperatures of 200° to 450° C, overlapping the claimed ranges, and a hydrogen partial pressures of from 0.7-20.7 MPa, which results in a total pressure within or overlapping the range of 1 to 30 MPa. Id. at col. 16, lines 15+.
With respect to claim 8-9, Xu teaches The catalyst comprises a Group VIII metal and acidic material. Id. at col. 15, lines 47+.
With respect to claim 11, Xu teaches wherein the hydrocracking zone and the hydroisomerization zone are arranged in reactors in series.
With respect to claim 10, Xu teaches wherein the hydrocracking zone and the hydrotreating-hydroisomerization zone are arranged in cascade without separation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to place the serial reactor beds in a single vessel or two or more vessels as one of a limited number of options well known in the art and a matter of design choice.
With respect to claim 12, Xu teaches that the hydrotreating zone may further comprises a separation zone for separating a product of the hydrotreating reaction into a vapor phase effluent and a liquid hydrotreated effluent. Id. at col. 13, lines 35+.
With respect to claim 13, Xu teaches wherein the renewable feedstock is selected from the group consisting of one or more bio-renewable fats and oils, liquid derived from a biomass liquefaction process, liquid derived from a waste liquefaction process, and combinations thereof. Id. at col. 10, lines 48+
With respect to claim 14, Xu does not expressly state using a petroleum-derived feedstock for co-processing, but does disclose using more than one feed at a time, processing the feed using hydroprocessing reactors and catalyst used for processing traditional feedstreams, and recycling diesel product produced from the process further upgrading through the system. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feedstream of Xu by including cofeeds in the same boiling range with the alternative oil feed for the benefit of producing additional product using feed available and to tailor the properties of the feed and thus product produced.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 12516256)(priority filing June 29, 2022), as applied to claims 1-14 above, further in view of Kivusalmi (US 20080302001).
With respect to claim 15, Xu is silent regarding hydrofinishing the isomerized effluent.
Kivusalmi is directed to a process of producing renewable fuels derived from biological feedstocks. Abstract. The process includes hydrotreating (“hydrodefunctionalization” which is hydroprocessing to remove oxygen, nitrogen and sulphur atoms by means of hydrogen, [0037]) and hydroisomerization, followed by distillation to isolate fractions. Par. [0043]-[0045]; [0039]. “Optionally the product obtained from the CHI step may be subjected to hydrofinishing in order to adjust product qualities to desired specifications. Hydrofinishing is a form of mild hydrotreating directed to saturating any olefins as well as to removing any remaining heteroatoms and colour bodies.” [0079]
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process by subjecting the hydroisomerized effluent of Xu to hydrofinishing as taught in Kivusalmi because both are directed to producing renewable fuels using hydrotreating and hydroisomerization and Kivusalmi teaches optional hydrofinishing provides the benefit of adjusting product qualities to desired specifications and performing mild hydrotreating where needed. The addition of a hydrofinishing bed or reactor downstream of hydrotreating and isomerization is known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights