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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18966760 filed 12/3/2024.
Claims 1-27 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 5/12/26, 3/30/26, 3/26/26, 7/18/25, 4/21/25 and 3/11/25 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 12/3/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASIKKALA ET AL. (WO2015101713; 7/2015) in combination with CHEN ET AL. (WO2020148343; 7/2020) and as evidence by NORTHROP ET AL. (WO2011014345; 2/2011) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as ASIKKALA, NORTHROP and CHEN.
Regarding claims 1-27:
ASIKKALA teaches an integrated process for producing hydrocarbons. More particularly the invention relates to a process, where pyrolysis of biomass is integrated with hydroprocessing and hydrogen plant. The present invention relates also to a method for producing hydrocarbons (pg 1 ln 10-14).
ASIKKALA teaches wood-based pyrolysis oil is the product of pyrolysis of wood or forest residues and it contains typically carboxylic acids, aldehydes, ketones, carbohydrates, thermally degraded lignin, water, and alkali metals. The oxygen-containing compounds (typically 40-50 wt-%) and water (typically 15-30 wt-%) make pyrolysis oils chemically and physically unstable. (see pg 2 ln 31-34)
ASIKKALA teaches feedstock comprising biomass 10 is charged to the pyrolysis reactor 100 and heat transfer material 20 is transferred from boiler 200 to the pyrolysis reactor 100. The feedstock is pyrolyzed in the pyrolysis reactor 100 in the presence of the heat transfer material whereby pyrolysis output 30 is obtained. The pyrolysis output 30 comprises pyrolysis vapors, gases (pyrolysis products) and char and heat transfer material (solids). The pyrolysis output 30 is directed to a solids/vapor separator 500, suitably a cyclone, where solids comprising char and heat transfer material are separated and recycled back to the boiler 200 as stream 40, and the pyrolysis gases and vapors are directed as stream 50 to a condenser 600 where pyrolysis oil 60 and non-condensable gases 70 are separated. The non-condensable gases 70 are directed to the hydrogen plant 400, optionally combined with stream 150. Fuel 80 is fed to the boiler 200, where the fuel is combusted together with the char in the presence of heat transfer material, which is looped at least partly, as stream 40 from the separator 500, and heat energy 90 and flue gas 110 are formed. Starting material 120 selected from natural gas, biogas, naphtha, LPG, and combinations thereof is directed to hydrogen plant 400 comprising a desulfurization unit 101, steam reformer unit 102, water gas shift unit 103 and carbon monoxide/carbon dioxide/water separator unit 104. In the hydrogen plant 400 the starting material 120 and stream 150 are subjected to sulfur removal in the desulfurization unit 101, followed by directing the desulfurized starting material to the steam reformer unit 102, where hydrocarbons are converted to hydrogen and carbon dioxide, followed by carrying out water gas shift reaction in the water gas shift unit 103 and separating in the carbon monoxide/carbon dioxide/water separator unit 104 carbon monoxide/carbon dioxide stream 140 and hydrogen stream 130. Recycle stream 150 comprising hydrogen and light hydrocarbons (Cl-CS), obtained from hydroprocessing system 300, particularly from separator 800, is directed to the hydrogen plant 400, to the desulfurization unit 101, where hydrogen acts in the desulfurization reaction, and the light hydrocarbons are converted to hydrogen and CO/CO2 in the hydrogen plant 400. Pyrolysis oil 60 and hydrogen stream 130 from the hydrogen plant 400 are fed to the hydroprocessing system 300 for enacting catalytic hydroprocessing. (pg 9, lines 9-41)
ASIKKALA teaches the hydroprocessed product, stream 160 from the hydroprocessing reactor system 300 is directed to a separator 700, such as cold separator, where separation of an aqueous component, i.e. stream 170 containing water, a heavy component, i.e. stream 180 and a light component i.e. stream 190 takes place. (pg 10, lines 5-8)
ASIKKALA teaches the gases exiting the steam reformer unit may then be directed to a water gas shift unit comprising at least one water gas shift reactor where the carbon monoxide is reacted with water to produce additional hydrogen. Any standard water gas shift reactors and catalysts may be used, such as copper based catalysts and ferro-chromium based catalysts. Pressures of 5-50 bar, suitably the same as in the steam reformer may be used. The temperature may range between 200 and 400°C, depending on the catalyst. Suitably high temperature catalysts, such as ferrochromium catalysts are used, at 300-400°C temperatures. The gases exiting the water gas shift unit are passed through a carbon monoxide/carbon dioxide/water separator unit. (pg 24, lines 21-34) (see also FIG 1, 3)
ASIKKALA in combination with CHEN further teaches hydroprocessing concepts; wherein the processes for the preparation of biofuel from biomass by fast hydropyrolysis or fast pyrolysis, using hydrogen generated by sorption enhanced steam reforming. The present invention also relates to fixed bed tandem catalytic-upgrading processes, and reactors and hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) catalysts useful in those processes (pg 1 ln 4-8) Further teaches a plant for producing a hydrocarbon product, comprising: a thermal decomposition section such as a pyrolysis section arranged to receive a solid renewable feedstock for producing a first off-gas stream comprising hydrocarbons, and a liquid oil stream (Figure 3, Fast Pyrolysis); a hydroprocessing section arranged to receive said liquid oil stream and a compressed hydrogen-rich stream for producing a main hydrotreated stream (Figure 3, Hydrodeoxygenator); a separation section arranged to receive said main hydrotreated stream suitable for producing an aqueous stream, a hydrogen-rich stream, a second off-gas stream comprising hydrocarbons (Figure 3, Flash Drum); a hydrogen producing unit (HPU) arranged to receive said second off-gas stream for producing a make-up hydrogen stream (Figure 3(PS-SE-SMR)); a compressor section arranged to receive said hydrogen-rich stream and at least a portion of the make-up hydrogen stream produced in said HPU, suitable for generating said compressed hydrogen-rich stream and a make-up hydrogen recycle stream (Figure 3, Compressor); a conduit for passing said first off-gas stream to said HPU; a conduit for passing said hydrogen-rich stream to said compressor section; a conduit for passing said make-up hydrogen stream from the HPU to said compressor section (Figure 3).
Wherein, ASIKKALA in combination with CHEN teaches the above disclosure; NORTHROP further supports the teachings that it is known in art from para [0160] that the connection with Figures 6A and 6B that if hydrogen sulfide is present in the dehydrated raw gas stream 624, much of it will pass through the separators 682, 684, 686 with the heavy hydrocarbons. Some of the hydrogen sulfide could be cycled back into the contacting tower 670 through line 687. To avoid this scenario, it may be preferable to have an H2S-selective removal process upstream of the contacting tower 670. The separation can be achieved with traditional H2S separation processes such as absorption by selective amines, redox processes, or adsorption. The hydrogen sulfide may be delivered to a sulfur recovery unit (not shown) or into an acid gas injection well 649 and then into a reservoir.
Therefore, from the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
In addition, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that adding duplicate / repeating process steps or recognizing additional instrumentation for analysis or additional analysis would not have been expected to confer any particular desirable property on the final product. Rather, the final product obtained according to the claim limitations would merely have been expected to have the same functional properties as the prior art product.
Further, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Further, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
Furthermore, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
In addition, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights