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 § 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 1-14 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 Bergvall et al., International Publication No. WO/2021/156436 (hereinafter referred to as Bergvall – for citation purposes USPG-PUB No. 2023/0054561 is being used).
Regarding claims 1-14, Bergvall discloses a process for upgrading a solid biomass feedstock, the process comprising: introducing a solid biomass feedstock, a renewable liquid carrier, a slurry hydrocracking catalyst to a slurry hydrocracking zone in the presence of hydrogen and under slurry hydrocracking conditions to produce a slurry hydrocracking effluent comprising lighter hydrocarbonaceous products (Para. [0010] which states: "the hydrocarbon feedstock, . . . , and the pyrolysis oil are hydrocracked in the slurry hydrocracking reactor in the presence of the hydrocracking catalyst and hydrogen gas”, and Para. [0015] which states: "The hydrocarbon feedstock of the present invention may be any ... biologically derived feedstock", and Para. [0017] which states: "Examples of such biologically derived feedstocks include, but are not limited to, hydrothermal liquefication oils and lignin oil", and Para. [0020] which states: "The hydrocarbon feedstock may further comprise particles of biomass, such as particles of lignin, sawdust, forest residue and/or plant parts”) (as recited in claim 1).
Bergvall further discloses the solid biomass feedstock is selected from the group consisting of agricultural residues, wood materials, municipal waste, algae-derived biomass, energy crops, and any combination thereof (Para. [0020]). The renewable liquid carrier is selected from the group consisting of lipids, tall oil products, pyrolysis oils from biomass, hydrothermal liquefication oils from biomass, biodiesel, hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids, bio-alcohols, and any combination thereof (Para. [0048]).
Bergvall also discloses the slurry hydrocracking catalyst comprises solid catalyst particulates (Para. [0023] which states: "the catalyst is introduced as fine powder). The slurry hydrocracking catalyst comprises molybdenum sulfide, iron sulfide, nickel sulfide, zinc sulfide, iron zinc, or any combination thereof (Para. [0023]) wherein the slurry hydrocracking catalyst is present in an amount of from 0.005% to 3% on a metal basis (Para. [0029] which states: “the amount of catalyst in the process may be in the range of 0.005-1% by weight of the combined weight of the hydrocarbon feedstock and the pyrolysis oil'). The slurry hydrocracking zone comprises a fluidized bed reactor and the process is conducted in an absence of a liquid fossil-based fuel carrier wherein the renewable liquid carrier is combined with the solid biomass feedstock upstream of the slurry hydrocracking zone to form a combined feed; the combined feed subsequently being introduced to the slurry hydrocracking zone (Para. [0009]).
The slurry hydrocracking catalyst is present in the solid biomass feedstock (Para. [0036] which states: "suspending the hydrocracking catalyst in the hydrocarbon feedstock”). The slurry hydrocracking catalyst is present in the renewable liquid carrier (Para. [0036] which states: "suspending the hydrocracking catalyst in the hydrocarbon feedstock”) wherein a ratio of renewable liquid carrier to solid biomass feedstock is in a range of from 0.1 :1 to 20:1 (Para. [0041] which states: "the combined feed comprises 5-50 wt% pyrolysis oil'). The slurry hydrocracking effluent comprises at 50 wt% naphtha and diesel range components (see Table 5); the slurry hydrocracking effluent comprises at 75 wt% naphtha and diesel range components (see Table 5); and the slurry hydrocracking effluent comprises from 15 wt% to 30 wt% naphtha range components and from 40 wt% to 60 wt% diesel range components (see Table 5). The process further comprises recycling at least a portion of the slurry hydrocracking effluent to the slurry hydrocracking zone (Para. [0018] which states: “The recycled feedstock may be a feedstock obtained form the slurry hydrocracking process disclosed herein”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-14 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 Lin et al., Chinese Publication No. CN108219819A (hereinafter referred to as Lin).
Regarding claims 1-14, Lin discloses a continuous process for upgrading a solid biomass feedstock, the process comprising: introducing a solid biomass feedstock (see Claim 1 of Lin), a liquid carrier, a slurry hydrocracking catalyst to a slurry hydrocracking zone in the presence of hydrogen and under slurry hydrocracking conditions to produce a slurry hydrocracking effluent stream comprising lighter hydrocarbonaceous products (see Claim 8 of Lin); wherein the liquid carrier is a hydrocracking recycle stream taken only from the slurry hydrocracking effluent (see Claim 6 of Lin); wherein the solid biomass feedstock and liquid carrier are combined upstream of the slurry hydrocracking zone to form a combined feed; the combined feed subsequently being introduced to the slurry hydrocracking zone (see Claims 1 and 8 of Lin).
Lin further discloses the use of sulfided metal catalysts (Para. [0049] and [0050]), the type of biomass (Para. [0051]), the catalyst particle diameter and weight fraction (Para. [0038]), and the liquid carrier weight fraction (see Claim 1 of Lin).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-14 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 Quignard et al., International Publication No. WO/2012/140335 (hereinafter referred to as Quignard).
Regarding claims 1-14, Quignard discloses a biomass hydroconversion method comprising a step of hydroconversion of the feedstock in at least one reactor containing a bubbling-bed supported catalyst and another reactor with a dispersed catalyst, wherein the feedstock is sent to a slurry reactor to hydroconvert with a slurry catalyst in the presence of hydrogen with an upward flow of liquid, gas, and catalyst.
The feedstock is taught on pages 2 and 5 to include fats and vegetable and animal oils. The catalyst is taught on page 3 to be dispersed and evacuated along with the slurry effluent. The slurry effluent is then separated into gases, a residual fraction containing at least a portion of the solid particles of the dispersed catalyst and a liquid fraction or fractions.
The reactor is taught in page 8 to comprise an internal recirculation pump. An internal recirculation pump is recognized by the specification as a separation unit that at least partially separates one or more chemical constituents in a mixture form one another. Furthermore, in page 9 an internal separation zone and a separate liquid recycling pump improving dispersion of the catalyst and its circulation in the reactor is taught (see Claims 1-6 of Quignard).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of co-pending application No. 18/762,929. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '929 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the references discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Conclusion
There was an unused X reference from the ISR report. The examiner is of the position that the prior art cited adequately reads on the claims as instantly recited.
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