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 .
The response dated 05/18/2026 has been considered and entered. The remarks about the hot and cold being descriptive of warmer and cooler systems made to distinguish one separator from the other. The argument is persuasive and the previous rejections based on indefiniteness are withdrawn. The response based on the rejections in view of Radlein et al. (US 2014/0288338) has been considered but was not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Radlein fails to teach a recycled stream wherein a stable product is added to the feedstock. The argument is not persuasive.
Radlein teaches UBA and UBB streams each of which are product streams that are added to feedstock and thus provide the recycled stream of the claims.
Applicant argues that Radlein fails to teach the process of claim 14 involving separation of catalyst from the product and then recycling of the product and adding to the biooil. The argument is not persuasive.
Again, the UBA and UBB streams provide products that are separated from the catalyst and which are added to the bio-oil, thus providing the limitation of the claim.
Applicant argues that Radlein fails to specifically teach the taking of a recycle stream from the UBA product to the reactor. The argument is not persuasive.
Since the UBA and UBB products are re-added to the feed, the step of recycling the product is provided.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights