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.
Claim 3 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "or no greater than" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
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.
Claims 1-5, 11 and 14-19 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 Song et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0261894 (hereinafter referred to as Song).
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 11 and 14-19, Song discloses a method for deoxygenation of an oxygen-containing hydrocarbon product comprising introducing a methane-containing gas into à reactor, introducing an oxygen-containing hydrocarbon feedstock ("bio oil") into the reactor, reacting the feedstock in the reactor in the presence of the methane-containing gas and a catalyst structure to form a hydrocarbon product ("bio oil product") having a lower oxygen content than the feedstock (as recited in claim 1) (Para. [0107]).
Song discloses several catalyst structures, broadly defined as a catalyst structure that can be synthesized by impregnating or doping a suitable support material with two or more metals (Para. [0034]). Song in Table 2, specifically embodiments 6-7, discloses catalysts comprising a porous aluminosilicate support (i.e. a zeolite) and two more metals including gallium and cerium present in a concentration ranging from 1 wt% to 10 wt% (as recited in claims 1, 4, 11 and 17-18) (see Abstract and see Table 2).
Song further discloses a method of preparing a catalyst where at least 2 metal salts (including gallium and cerium) are dissolved in water to form a metal precursor, wherein metal precursor salts that can be used to form the catalyst structure include, without limitation, chlorides, nitrates and sulfates, which are then loaded onto the porous support ("HZSM-5"), dried for at least two hours ("overnight") at 92°C, and calcined at a temperature of 550°C. Song further discloses that calcining at 550°C should be done at a heating rate of about 5 to 20°C per minute wherein the resulting product can be a plurality of granules and the catalysts were used at a temperature between 350 and 450°C, and a pressure between 1 and 50 atm and were used in a continuous flow reactor having LHSV of 1 h-1 (as recited in claims 5, 14-16 and 19) (Para. [0036], [0038]-[0039], [0049] and [0057]).
Song does not explicitly disclose which of the catalysts of paragraph 0034 would be suitable for the method of paragraph 0107 as recited in claim 1. But it is evident that the catalysts described in Table 2 would be used in the process described in paragraph 0107 in order to render the claims anticipated or at least obvious.
Regarding claims 2-3, Song discloses a “bio-oil” which is well-known to have an oxygen content of greater than 2 wt% and the process disclosed in Song reduces the oxygen content in the formulated “bio-oil” which would therefore have an oxygen content of less than 2 wt%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Cortright et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0257416 (hereinafter referred to as Cortright).
Regarding claims 6-10 and 12-13, Song does not disclose the presence of Iridium in the catalyst structure disclosed therein, nor a support that includes anatase/titanium dioxide as recited in claim 13. Song does allow for the presence of additional metals.
Cortright discloses processes and reactor systems for the conversion of oxygenated hydrocarbons to hydrocarbons, ketones, cyclic ethers and alcohols useful as liquid fuels, such as gasoline, jet fuel or diesel fuel, and industrial chemicals. The process involves the conversion of oxygenated hydrocarbons, by condensation and/or deoxygenation by using a deoxygenation catalyst. The deoxygenation catalyst is preferably a heterogeneous catalyst having one or more materials capable of catalyzing a reaction between hydrogen and the oxygenated hydrocarbon to remove one or more of the oxygen atoms from the oxygenated hydrocarbon wherein the catalyst comprises a support and Re, Cu, Fe, Ru, Ir, Co, Rh, Pt, Pd, Ni, W, Os, Mo, Ag, Au, an alloy thereof, or a combination thereof and the support includes a nitride, carbon, silica, alumina, zirconia, titania (anatase), vanadia, ceria, boron nitride, heteropolyacid, kieselguhr, hydroxyapatite, zinc oxide, chromia, or a mixture thereof (as recited in claims 6-10 and 12-13) (see Abstract and Para. [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the catalysts disclosed in Cortright in the process of Song as it is a simple substitution of one known element for another in order to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights