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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 is not drawn toward any patentable subject matter. It does not depend on any claim. It does not attempt to be an independent claim drawn toward a composition, method, process, system, or anything else. For the purpose of this office action claim 20 is not considered as in its current form it does not apply any discernable claim limitations.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells et al (US 2014/0007498 A1).
Well teaches a fuel composition (abstract). The fuel can consist of only hydrocarbons of 18 or more carbons. See p 24 and 27.
The cloud point is about -60C, a freeze point of about -57C, see table 1.
The boiling point is as low as 180C, see p 15.
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 16-18 the T5, T10, and T90 values, the type of fuel produced is a jet fuel and its T boiling points can and are modified to get differing specifications and desired physical properties. See p 18. P 17 can point on the T values can be as low as 180C or lower.
Regarding claim 19 the method of making a composition, such as the type of catalyst used, does not add any physical limitations to a composition claim.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strege et al (US 2012/0157734 A1).
Strege teaches a fuel (abstract). The fuel has hydrocarbons of 18 carbon atoms at 35%, see table 5 page 13 and table 8 page 14. The density if 789 kg/m3, the freeze point is -59C, see p 107.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 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.
Regarding the claims, the percent of dimethyl substitution is not taught or suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 21, A hydroisomerization catalyst comprising a metal component, a molecular sieve and a metal oxide binder, wherein about 40 to about 65 wt% of said metal component is dispersed on said molecular sieve and about 40 to about 65 wt% of said metal component is dispersed on said metal oxide binder was not found in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights