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 Interpretation
The term “recycle ratio” (claim 1) or “recycle rate” (claims 15 and 19) is defined in the specification as “the ratio of the recycle flow rate to the fresh feed flow rate” (Spec., [00025]). The claimed limitation “the recycle ratio [or recycle rate] of said recycle oil stream” is interpreted as the ratio of the flow rate of the recycle oil stream to that of all fresh feed materials including “a bio-oil stream” and, if applicable, “a petroleum stream,” e.g., in claims 6 and 13.
Claims 8, 15, and 19 each recite separating “a light upgraded bio-oil stream” from “an upgraded bio-oil stream.” The term “light upgraded bio-oil stream” is interpreted to be lighter relative to another stream separated from the upgraded bio-oil stream. For example, “a light upgraded bio-oil stream” recited in claim 8 is construed to be lighter than “a hot bottoms stream.” In claims 15 and 19, “a light upgraded bio-oil stream” is construed to be lighter than “a recycle oil stream comprising the catalyst.”
The limitation “band area ratio of oxygenates,” recited in claim 5, is interpreted to be based on measurement by ATR-IR spectroscopy (Spec., [00062]).
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 3-5, 8-12, 14, and 16 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.
Claim 3 recites “wherein said recycle oil stream is recycled to the reactor if the measured concentration of the oxygenate is within a predetermined range.” It is unclear as to how the conditional limitation of claim 3 is performed since claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends, already requires the recycling step to occur (see claim 1, “recycling said recycle oil stream to the reactor”). The instant specification discloses that the recycle ratio of the recycle oil stream is adjusted if “the measured concentration of the oxygenate is not within the predetermined range” (Spec., [0008], [00059]). For the purpose of examination, claim 3 is construed as follows: The process of claim 1, wherein the recycle ratio of said recycle oil stream is adjusted if [[the]] a measured concentration of the oxygenate is not within a predetermined range. Claims 4 and 5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 3.
Claim 8 is considered indefinite for reciting “a hot separator.” The term “hot separator” is a relative term which 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. The instant specification discloses the hot separator “may be run at a temperature of about 250°C to about 400°C” (Spec., [00065]). Accordingly, the term “hot separator” is construed to mean a separator operating at a temperature of about 250°C to about 400°C.
Claims 9-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 8.
Claim 9 is considered indefinite for reciting “a cold separator.” The term “cold separator” is a relative term which 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. The instant specification discloses the cold separator “may be operated at a temperature of about 0 to about 75°C” (Spec., [00080]). Accordingly, the term “cold separator” is construed to mean a separator operating at a temperature of about 0°C to about 75°C.
Claim 14 is indefinite for reciting “a ratio of a mixed stream comprising said recycle oil stream and said biooil stream to a partially upgraded bio-oil stream inside the reactor,” because it is unclear from the claim language or the specification what “a partially upgraded bio-oil stream inside the reactor” is referring to. There appears to be no guidance or discussion in the instant specification that describes how to determine the claimed ratio.
Claim 16 recites “wherein said recycle oil stream is recycled to the reactor if the measured concentration of the oxygenate is within a predetermined range.” It is unclear as to how the conditional limitation of claim 16 is performed since claim 15, upon which claim 16 depends, already requires the recycling step to occur (see claim 15, “recycling said recycle oil stream to the reactor”). The instant specification discloses that the recycle ratio of the recycle oil stream is adjusted if “the measured concentration of the oxygenate is not within the predetermined range” (Spec., [0008], [00059]). For the purpose of examination, claim 16 is construed as follows: The process of claim 1, wherein the recycle rate of said recycle oil stream is adjusted if [[the]] a measured concentration of the oxygenate is not within a predetermined range.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites “wherein said recycle oil stream is recycled to the reactor if the measured concentration of the oxygenate is within a predetermined range.” Claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends, recites “recycling said recycle oil to the reactor to provide said upgraded bio-oil stream.” That is, claim 1 requires the recycling step to occur, while the recycling step in claim 3 is conditional. Therefore, claim 3 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Claims 4 and 5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 3.
Claim 16 recites “wherein said recycle oil stream is recycled to the reactor if the measured concentration of the oxygenate is within a predetermined range.” Claim 16 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for the same reason discussed above.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al. (US 2022/0010219 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a process comprising:
reacting a bio-oil stream (“biofeed stream ” 14) with hydrogen (16) in the presence of a catalyst in a reactor (34) to produce an upgraded bio-oil stream (“hydrodeoxygenation reactor effluent” 42) ([0027]-[0029], [0042]; see Figs 1-2);
taking a recycle oil stream (30) from the upgraded bio-oil stream ([0027], [0035]; see Figs.1-2);
recycling the recycle oil stream to the reactor (34) and/or passing the unrecycled portion of the upgraded bio-oil stream (hydrotreated product stream 20) to a dewaxing stage ([0035]); and
measuring the concentration of an oxygenate in the recycle oil stream with an analyzer (24) ([0032]-[0035]; see Figs. 1-2).
Wang does not explicitly teach adjusting the recycle ratio of the recycle oil stream based on the measurement of the concentration of the oxygenate in the recycle oil stream.
However, Wang is directed to “monitoring” conversion of a biofeedstock in a hydrotreating stage by measuring oxygenates in the hydrotreated stream ([0019]). Specifically, if the measured value exceeds a predetermined value, it would indicate insufficient conversion and direct the hydrotreated stream back to the hydrotreating stage ([0035]). Additionally, if the measured value is equal to or less than the set intensity value, it would indicate sufficient conversion with the hydrotreated biofeedstock being sent to the dewaxing stage ([0035]). Therefore, Wang is considered to suggest that when the measured value is equal to or less than the set value, any portion of the hydrotreated product stream being recycled can be redirected to the dewaxing stage, thereby adjusting the recycle ratio of the recycle oil stream based on the measured concentration of the oxygenate in the hydrotreated product stream.
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses separating the upgraded bio-oil stream into a gas stream (Fig. 2, 46) and a hydrotreated product stream, and sending an unrecycled portion of the hydrotreated product stream to a dewaxing unit (18), which may be accomplished by selective hydrocracking or by hydroisomerization ([0036], [0042]). Since hydrocracking and hydroisomerization are hydroprocessing, Wang is considered to teach charging a portion of the hydrotreated product stream to a hydroprocessing unit.
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses that if a measured value exceeds a predetermined value, it would direct the hydrotreated stream to the hydrotreating stage, instead of the dewaxing stage ([0035]).
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses, upon further processing by dewaxing, taking a fuel stream (“renewable diesel product stream”) from the upgraded bio-oil stream ([0036]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2022/0010219 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sunito et al. (US 2022/0098500 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the process of claim 1, as discussed above.
Wang does not teach passing a petroleum stream to the reactor.
However, Sunito, directed a hydrodeoxygenation process, teaches that a hydrocarbon of fossil origin can be co-fed to a hydrodeoxygenation reactor in order to control the exothermic character of the hydrotreatment reactions ([0046], [0056]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang by adding a petroleum stream to the hydrodeoxygenation reactor of Wang, because (i) Wang discloses a hydrodeoxygenation process, (ii) Sunito teaches that a petroleum stream can be added as a diluent to a hydrodeoxygenation reactor to control the heat generated in the reaction, and (iii) this involves application of a known technique to improve a known process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 19, and 20 are allowable over prior art.
Claims 13, 17, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4, 5, 8-12, 14, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. No prior art of record, individually or in combination, teaches or reasonably suggest a process for upgrading a bio-oil stream with hydrogen and a catalyst, in conjunction with the required feature recited in claim 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, or 19. Specifically, there is no teaching or suggestion which would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to: (i) adjust the recycle ratio of the recycle oil stream if the measured concentration of the oxygenates falls outside the ranges included in claims 4 or 5; (ii) separate the upgraded bio-oil in a hot separator provide a hot overhead stream comprising a light upgraded bio-oil stream, as recited in claim 8; (iii) decrease a flow rate of a petroleum stream to the reactor based on the measured concentration of oxygenate in the recycle stream, as recited in claim 13; or (iv) separate the upgraded bio-oil stream to provide a light upgraded bio-oil stream and a recycle oil stream comprising the catalyst and measure the concentration of an oxygenate in said recycle oil stream, as recited in claim 15 or 19.
Wang et al. (US 2022/0010219 A1), applied in the above rejection, is directed to monitoring conversion of a biofeedstock in a hydrodeoxygenation step and controlling recycle of the hydrotreated biofeedstock in response to a measured concentration of oxygenates therein. Specifically, if insufficient conversion of the biofeedstock, indicated by the presence of oxygenates in an amount greater than a predetermined value, is detected, then at least a portion of the hydrotreated product stream is recycled back to the reactor for further conversion in order to prevent catalyst poisoning in a downstream process (dewaxing) ([0032], [0035]). The claimed feature of claim 4, however, requires that a portion of the upgraded bio-oil stream is carried out when the oxygenates have been sufficient removed, determined by the recited ranges. Furthermore, Wang does not teach decreasing a flow rate of a petroleum stream to the reactor based on the measured concentration of the oxygenate. Additionally, Wang fails to teach or suggest separating a light upgraded bio-oil stream or recycle coil stream comprising the catalyst, as recited in claims 8, 15, or 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772