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 .
Election/Restrictions
During a telephone conversation with Attorney James Paschall on 29 July 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knudsen (US 2010/0061927) in view of Wallace (US 2002/0004533).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Knudsen teaches hydrotreating renewable feedstock, followed by water gas shift of the effluent [0007-0021]. Knudsen passes shift effluent to a cold separator 16 followed by amine unit 18 and then recycles the hydrogen to hydrotreating zone [0034].
Knudsen teaches that the water gas shift can be high or low temperature depending on the desired product distribution [0021]. Knudsen does not disclose the temperature range.
However, Wallace teaches low temperature gas shift temperatures of 150-300˚C [0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected gas shift temperatures, such as those disclosed by Wallace, for the benefit of obtaining the desired product profile.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 7 as discussed above. Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have included a cooling step, for the benefit of bringing the hydrotreated effluent to the desired water gas shift temperatures.
Regarding claims 3-6 and 13-14, Knudsen teaches 5-20% renewable feedstocks in combination with petroleum feed such as diesel [0014]. Knudsen teaches vegetable and animal oil renewable feeds [0010].
Regarding claims 8-10 and 16-17, Knudsen teaches that to ensure at least stoichiometric amounts of carbon monoxide and water during gas shift, steam may be added in order to enable all of the carbon monoxide in the gas to be shifted to hydrogen side [0022], followed by mixing with water [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected the amount of water added, for the benefit of shifting the carbon monoxide to the desired hydrogen products.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knudsen (US 2010/0061927) in view of Wallace (US 2002/0004533) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Marker (US 2009/0077867).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose a hot separator prior to the cold separator.
However, Marker teaches a similar process for simultaneously performing hydrodeoxygenation and water gas shift steps [0013]. Marker teaches hot separator prior to cold separator in order to obtain the desired products [00039-0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have implemented additional separation steps, as an alternate way to obtain the desired products.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,173,238. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to overlapping subject matter regarding hydrotreating, water gas shift reactions, and recycle of hydrogen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mayeur (US 2011/0047862) – teaches hydrotreatment followed by water gas shift [0132-0149]
Hanks (US 2011/0155636) – teaches deoxygenation and water gas shift reactions and appropriate selection of water gas shift conditions [0062-0067]
Sinha (US 2018/0010052) teaches simultaneous water gas shift and hydrotreating of renewable feedstocks to produce naphtha, kerosene, and diesel products.
Moulton (US 2012/0161077) teaches simultaneous gas shift and hydrogenation [0015] of biomass feeds [0022] and uses conventional product recovery [0030].
Huang (US 4,266,083) teaches biomass hydro liquefaction to treat sewage, sludge, wood, and agricultural waste feeds (column , lines 33-41).
Li (US 2015/0232764) teaches water gas shift catalyst used as a hydrotreating catalyst [0029].
Tonkovich (US 2006/0002848) teaches reaction of water and carbon monoxide to produce hydrogen for use in hydrotreating, hydrocracking, or other refinery steps [0040].
Steele (US 2014/0073827) teaches simultaneous hydroprocessing and water gas shift reactions to treat biomass feeds.
Eilos (US 2016/0289576) teaches treating hydrocarbons by desulfurization (101), steam reforming (102), water gas shift (103), CO/CO2/water separator (104). Eilos also teaches amine scrubber 202 to treat recycle hydrogen.
Sherwood (US 2016/0096998) teaches biomass to liquid integrated with water gas shift process [0013].
Petters (US 9,850,185) -teaches process for production of hydrogen.
Liu (US 2014/0230316) teaches biomass upgrading and water gas shift to produce hydrogen.
Abhari (US 2010/0043279) teaches hydrocracking biological feedstocks and recycle of hydrogen produced.
Powell (US 2015/0080621) teaches integrated processes for hydrotreating and water gas shift.
Mizan (US 8,822,744) teaches hydrotreating integrated with water gas shift to produce hydrogen, as well as amine scrubber to treat recycle hydrogen [0039].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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 C 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights