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 .
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 8 – 13 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.
The term “hot” or “cold” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot” or “cold” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the sake of examination, any temperature would be expected to provide each of the limitations “hot” and “cold”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Radlein et al. (US 2014/0288338) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Radlein et al. (US 2014/0288338)
In regards to claim 1, Radlein teaches method of upgrading biooil comprising contacting hydrocarbon liquid, biooil and a partially upgraded biooil with transition metal catalyst and hydrogen gas at temperatures of around 330℃ and a pressure of about 11.7 MPa for sufficient time to reduce the oxygen content of the biooil such that it separates on cooling into an aqueous phase and an organic phase, subjecting the organic phase to further hydrotreating, hydrocracking to produce a hydrocarbon mixture boiling at gasoline, diesel or jet fuel ranges (abstract).
The process is drawn to upgrading biooil through hydroreforming to provide a hydrocarbon rich mixture consisting of partially upgraded biooil designated UBA [0035]. The upgraded biooil, UBA, is converted to fully deoxygenated hydrocarbon through hydrotreating and hydrocracking to provide a product designated UBB (i.e., stable oil or upgraded biooil according to the claim) [0036]. The UBA product of hydroreforming is a hydrotreated product with a hydrogen content of about 50% to lower than 15% [0038]. UBA can be directly blended as a product with hydrocarbon fuels [0054]. It is prepared by hydrogenation of bio-oil at temperatures of from 250 to 450℃ at 3.4 to 27.6 MPa [0059]. Thus, UBA also provides the limitation of stable oil, upgraded oil or recycle oil according to the claim.
The hydrocarbon liquid used in the process is the UBB (i.e., recycled upgraded oil or recycle oil according to the claim) [0062]. Thus, a process of hydrogenation which mixes bio-oil with stable oil, wherein the stable oil is a recycled portion of the upgraded bio-oil after hydrogenation in a reactor in the presence of a catalyst as claimed is provided.
In regards to claim 2, Radlein teaches the process wherein the upgraded biooil (UBB) provides hydrocarbon fuel mixtures such as gasoline, diesel or jet fuel and thus provides the fuel oil of the claim. Radlein teaches separation of UBB which provides the step of taking the fuel oil [0176].
In regards to claim 3, Radlein teaches the process wherein in Example 4, UBA is mixed with Biooil. The UBA may be considered as providing the limitation of upgraded oil or partially upgraded oil. Also, In Example 8, biooil, UBA (i.e., partially upgraded oil) and UBB (stable recycle oil) were mixed at a ratio of 2:2:1 and hydrotreated with catalyst at 330℃ and 12.8 MPa and the products were separated into aqueous phase and hydrocarbon phase [0215 – 0220].
In regards to claims 4 – 6, Radlein teaches the process wherein bio-oil, UBA and UBB are mixed at a ratio of 2:2:1 as previously stated. The biooil which has the most oxygen content comprises about 10% to about 60% of oxygen, and thus the mixture of Example 8 would comprise oxygen compounds of the claims in amounts overlapping the claimed ranges [0082]. The ratios of claim 5 would also be overlapped. The acid content of claim 6 would also be expected or overlapped due to very low amounts of oxygen compounds.
In regards to claim 7, Radlein teaches the process having the claimed limitations as previously discussed.
In regards to claims 8 – 13, Radlein teaches the process in the examples comprising separating out light (LUBA) and heavy oils (HUBA), water, other gases, and catalyst from the products (Examples 4 – 12). The separation of the desired products from the unwanted products such as gases, water, catalyst is implied or obvious [0132 – 0137]. The system for performing the process such as a hot or cold separator or device does not carry patentable weight.
In regards to claims 14 – 20, Radlein teaches the process of upgrading biooil having the claimed limitations as previously discussed. The entirety of the oil is bioderived.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771