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/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-11, drawn to a method for fluidized coking of biomass.
Group II, claims 12-20, drawn to liquid products of hydrocarbons.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a liquid hydrocarbon product from coking comprising 30-50 wt% naphtha, 30-50 wt% heavy distillates, 10-25 wt% light distillates, and 5 wt% or less vacuum resid components, along with a micro carbon residue of 0.5 wt% or less, n-heptane insoluble of 0.5 wt% or less, or both, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Siskin et al. (US 2011/0233042) as evidenced by Colorado School of Mines (Refiner Feedstocks & Products Properties & Specifications) and ExxonMobil (Flexicoking technology and services).
Siskin teaches a process for fluidized coking and gasification (Siskin paragraph [0020] and Flexicoking page 1) of the same coker feedstock comprising similar amounts of biomass and petroleum feedstock (Siskin paragraphs [0024] and [0027], Colorado School of Mines pages 21-22, Tables), having a similar temperature of 480-565°C and pressure of 100 to 400 kPa (Siskin claim 18, instant specification temperature of 400°C to 550°C, and pressure of 120-400 kPa paragraph [0056]) to get a liquid coker product (paragraph [0019]) as in instant claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expect similar results of the liquid coker effluent comprising a weight ratio of naphtha to light distillate of 0.65 or less or comprising 30-50 wt% naphtha, 30-50 wt% heavy distillate, 10-25 wt% light distillate, and 5 wt% or less vacuum resid components, along with a micro carbon residue of 0.5 wt% or less, n-heptane insoluble of 0.5 wt% or less, or both, absent any evidence to the contrary.
As such, the liquid product is not a special technical feature, and the restriction is proper.
During a telephone conversation with Jason Howard on 17 June 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites in lines 9-10 “passing at least a portion of particles comprising deposited char, coke, or a combination thereof…” This should be passing at least a portion of “the” particles, as the particles are previously lines 5-7.
With regard to claim 4, the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the gas phase product further comprises H2.” However, claim 1 does not define any contents of the gas phase product, thus, the term “further” is unnecessary and should be removed.
Appropriate corrections are 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 1-11 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.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites in lines 7-8 “additional hydrocarbons associated with the particles comprising deposited char, coke, or a combination thereof…” It is unclear what is meant by the statement that the hydrocarbons are “associated” with the particles. This appears to be attempting to distinguish the additional hydrocarbons from the deposited coke and from the liquid hydrocarbons, but it is unclear how the additional hydrocarbons are considered associated with the particles. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification does not explicitly define “associated”. However, the specification does discuss the concept of “hydrocarbon carry under (HCCU)”, which is explained as the hydrocarbons which are entrained with the coke particles as the particles exit the reactor. These appear to be the only hydrocarbons discussed which can be considered “additional” hydrocarbons, and thus the Examiner will consider that the “additional hydrocarbons” are hydrocarbons entrained with the coke. The Examiner suggests “entrained” is a more commonly used term in the art and that the phrasing of claim 1 could be adjusted to use the more common terminology which would add clarity.
With regard to claims 2-11, the claims are 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 1-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siskin et al. (US 2011/0233042) as evidenced by Colorado School of Mines (Refiner Feedstocks & Products Properties & Specifications) and ExxonMobil (Flexicoking technology and services).
With regard to claims 1, 7, and 8, Siskin teaches a method for conversion of biomass as a co-feed in a coking process (Abstract) comprising the following steps:
a) providing a feed comprising a petroleum (mineral) feedstock (paragraph [0022]) and less than 50 wt% biomass (paragraph [0027]). This overlaps the ranges of 1 to 60 wt% biomass and 40-99 wt% mineral feed of instant claim 1 and the range of 10 to 60 wt% biomass of instant claim 7, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious. Siskin further teaches that the feed is preferably a vacuum resid (paragraph [0024]). Colorado School of Mines evidences that the vacuum resid initial boiling point is above 500°C (see pages 21 and 22, Tables). When the initial boiling point is above 500°C, the T10 boiling point must also be above 500°C, which is within the range of 500°C or high of instant claim 1. If the vacuum resid is the only petroleum feed, as contemplated by Siskin, then the feed comprises less than 20 wt% components with a boiling point of 350°C as claimed in instant claim 8.
b) passing the feed comprising biomass and petroleum feedstock to a fluidized bed coking process which is FlexicokingTM (paragraph [0016]) to produce a product comprising liquid hydrocarbon products (claimed liquid portion of coker effluent), and coke layers on coke particles in the fluidized bed (claimed coke deposited on particles) (paragraph [0019]).
c) passing the particles comprising coke to a heater unit (paragraph [0020]). The details of the heating unit and gasifier are taught by ExxonMobil Flexicoking, and comprise heating the particles with gasifier products including gasifier particles, passing heated particles (claimed first portion of heated particles) back to the coking reactor, and passing excess coke (claimed second portion of heated particles) to a gasifier (Flexicoking page 1).
d) in the gasifier, reacting (oxidizing) the coke with air (oxygen-containing stream) and steam to form gas products and gasified coke (partially gasified particles) and passing the gasified coke back to the heater (Flexicoking page 1).
Siskin does not specifically teach i) that the coking produces additional hydrocarbons associated with the particles comprising deposited char, coke, or a combination thereof; ii) that the particles comprising coke passed to the heater comprise 0.08 wt% or less of the associated additional hydrocarbons, relative to a weight of the feed; or iii) wherein the liquid portion of the coker effluent comprises a micro carbon residue content of 0.5 wt% or less, an n-heptane insolubles content of 0.5 wt% or less, or a combination thereof.
However, Siskin teaches the same coker feedstock comprising similar amounts of biomass and petroleum feedstock, similar temperature of 480-565°C and pressure of 100 to 400 kPa (Siskin claim 18, instant specification temperature of 400°C to 550°C, and pressure of 120-400 kPa paragraph [0056]), and passing the mixture of biomass and petroleum through the same flexicoking process comprising a gasifier (paragraph [0020] and Flexicoking page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expect similar results of i) additional hydrocarbons associated with the particles being present in the coker product, ii) that the coke particles passed to the heater comprise less than 0.08 wt% of the additional hydrocarbons, and iii) that the liquid coker effluent comprises micro carbon residue of 0.5 wt% or less, n-heptane insoluble of 0.5 wt% or less, or both, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 2, Siskin does not teach the micro carbon content or n-heptane insoluble content. However, because Siskin teaches the same process at similar conditions, as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expect similar results of the liquid coker effluent comprising micro carbon residue of 0.4 wt% or less, n-heptane insolubles of 0.4 wt% or less, or both, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claims 3 and 4, Siskin teaches that the gasification products include CO (instant claim 3) and H2 (instant claim 4) (paragraph [0030]) and Flexicoking teaches that the flexigas (gas product from the gasifier) includes CO2 (page 2).
With regard to claim 5, Siskin teaches that the gas from the gasifier is passed into the heater vessel and then that the gas is removed from the heater (paragraph [0020]).
With regard to claim 6, Siskin teaches that the biomass can include switchgrass (paragraph [0014]). While Siskin does not specifically teach the cellulose or lignin content of the switchgrass, because the instant specification also teaches that switchgrass is suitable biomass (paragraph [0045]) while teaching the same preferred ranges, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the switchgrass meets the limitations of 20 wt% or more cellulose, 30 wt% or less lignin, or both, as claimed in instant claim 6, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 10, Siskin does not teach the contents of the liquid coker effluent. However, because Siskin teaches the same process at similar conditions, as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expect similar results of the liquid coker effluent comprising a weight ratio of naphtha to light distillate of 0.65 or less or comprising 30-50 wt% naphtha, 30-50 wt% heavy distillate, 10-25 wt% light distillate, and 5 wt% or less vacuum resid components, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 11, Siskin does not teach the oxygen content of the liquid coker effluent. However, because Siskin teaches the same process at similar conditions, as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expect similar results of an oxygen content in the liquid effluent of 0.9 to 3 wt%, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siskin et al. (US 2011/0233042) as evidenced by Colorado School of Mines (Refiner Feedstocks & Products Properties & Specifications) and ExxonMobil (Flexicoking technology and services) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harandi et al. (US 2020/0063038).
With regard to claim 9, Siskin as evidenced by ExxonMobil teaches the method above comprising oxidation in the gasifier (Siskin paragraph [0020] and Flexicoking page 1).
Siskin fails to teach the oxygen-containing stream in the gasifier comprises 45-75% of a stoichiometric amount of oxygen.
Harandi teaches a method for flexicoking a feedstock (paragraph [0021]) where the gasification step takes place in an oxygen-limited atmosphere (Abstract) which comprises less than the stoichiometric amount of oxygen (paragraph [0015]). Harandi further teaches that the O2 deficiency is maintained at a level to have minority moles of carbon oxides be carbon dioxide (paragraph [0015]). While Harandi does not teach a specific range of oxygen content, the concept of less than stoichiometric amount of oxygen is obvious over Harandi. Further, Harandi teaches that the amount of oxygen is a result-effective variable, 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 optimize the amount of oxygen to 45-75% of a stoichiometric amount of oxygen, as claimed, because Harandi teaches an amount of O2 which is less than the stoichiometric amount in order to minimize carbon dioxide, and selecting the optimum value of 45-75% within the broader idea of a less than stoichiometric amount of oxygen as taught by Harandi involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
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
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights