DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the application filed 10/24/2024.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abhari (US 12,454,650).
With respect to claims 1-4, 7-9, and 11-12, Abhari teaches a process for producing renewable diesel. Abhari, col. 12, lines 20+. A lipid feedstock was subject to hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) over a catalyst system comprising NiMo at WABT of 600-660° F under 1700-1800 psig pressure. Id. at col. 12, lines 29+. “The HDO product was stripped of dissolved gas phase byproducts (e.g., hydrogen sulfide and ammonia) and isomerized in a hydroisomerization (HI). The HI reactor contained a bifunctional noble metal catalyst (with hydrogenation-dehydrogenation and acid functionalities).” Id. at col. 12, lines 35+. Noble metals on the HI catalyst include Pt. See Id. at col. 4, line 40. The HI reactor was operated at about 970 psig and a WABT between 600 and 635° F. Id. at col. 12, lines 40+. In one example, the nC18 content was 8.4% and the cloud point -10° C. Id. at col. 12, lines 52-57. The HDO product has an isoparaffin to normal paraffin ration of about 3:1-1:3 and a nitrogen content of less than 5 ppm. Id. at col. 10, lines 10-12 and 18+. Both of these overlap the claimed ranges. Diesel and lighter fractions may be separated by distillation. Id. at col. 11, lines 53+. The product from the stripper may include C6-24 range hydrocarbons. Col. 10, lines 1+. The stripper bottoms is the stream fed to the hydroisomerization reactor and then subsequent distillation. Thus, at the time of filing, it would have been expected or else would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recover a naphtha fraction boiling lower than diesel when isolating the diesel product for downstream use.
Abhari is silent regarding the selectivity of diesel and of the HDO reactor, including wherein the HDO selectivity is less than 89% (or between 82-89%) and the diesel selectivity is greater than or equal to 95% (or between 95.5-99.5%) as claimed.
However, Abhari teaches an HDO reactor, stripper, and HI reactor all operating under the same conditions as the reactors claimed and producing a diesel stream having the same or overlapping range for cloud point, n-octadecane, and iso-/n-paraffin ratio. Given Abhari teaches the same HDO reactor is operated with the same catalyst and conditions to produce an HDO product having the same or overlapping properties, it appears that the HDO selectivity would fall within the same range. With respect to diesel selectivity, the diesel product is being produced using the same process and achieves the same diesel properties.
With respect to claim 6, Abhari is silent regarding the TAN of the HDO effluent. The TAN of the HDO effluent will be dependent on the oxygen content of the feedstream as well as the operating conditions of the HDO reactor. Given both the feedstock and the HDO catalyst and reaction conditions of Abhari anticipate or overlap those of the instant claims, it is expected that the total acid number of the resulting effluent will also fall within or an overlapping range.
With respect to claim 10, “[i]n some embodiments, the propane coproduct of lipid HDO is subjected to dehydrogenation to produce a vapor stream having propylene and hydrogen. The propylene is subsequently oligomerized to iso-olefins and the iso-olefins are combined with the lipid feed for hydrogenation in the HDO reactor.” Abhari, col. 3, lines 3+. Where the effluent were passed to an HI reactor after stripping, it would have been with in the skill of one in the art at the time of filing to separate the propane rich overhead in Abhari in the final distillation stage after hydroisomerization for the benefit of separating the final product and isolating all product fractions after all of the hydroconversion reactions are complete. With respect to the percentage of propane in the overhead fraction, the propane is sent on to further upgrading to propylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maximize isolation of the propane, including greater than 90%, to achieve the desired propane feed to the downstream process.
With respect to claim 5, Abhari is silent regarding the Reed Vapor Pressure of the naphtha. However, given both the feedstock, process, and catalyst and reaction conditions of Abhari anticipate or overlap those of the instant claims, it is expected that the naphtha product isolated from the effluent will also fall within or an overlapping range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights