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 .
Office Action Summary
This is the initial office action for application 18/975747 filed 12/10/2024.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-24, and 42 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 2-4, 8-9, and 25-41 and 43-68 have been cancelled.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10-16, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCNEFF et al. (USPGPUB 2008/0051592) in view of SEAMES et al. (USPGPUB 2008/0092436) and alternatively, further as evidenced by SARIN et al. (USPGPUB 20090038211).
MCNEFF et al. teach a process for producing alkyl esters comprising mixing a lipid feed stock with an alcohol to form a reaction mixture and then contacting the reaction mixture with a catalyst.
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, 10-20, and 24, applicant is reminded that the statement “for producing a sustainable aviation fuel composition” is read as an intended use recitation in the preamble.
If the body of a claim fully intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Regarding claim 1, MCNEFF et al. teach in paragraph 7 mixing a lipid feed stock with an alcohol to form a reaction mixture, contacting the reaction mixture with a catalyst under supercritical conditions for the alcohol, the catalyst comprising an unmodified metal oxide selected from the group consisting of alumina, titania, zirconia, and hafnia,
The alcohols used in MCNEFF et al. are taught in paragraphs 87-88 to include alcohols with 1 to 6 carbon atoms. MCNEFF et al. also consider using a mixture of different alcohols such as methanol with a higher molecular weight alcohol.
SEAMES et al. (USPGPUB 20080092436) teach in paragraph 8 that it is known in the art to use branched alcohols such as isopropanol or isobutanol to lower the cold temperature properties of fuels.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a branched alcohol such as isobutanol or to use a straight alcohol with a higher carbon alcohol that is branched such as isobutanol.
Branched esters are taught by SEAMES et al. to have lower freezing points in the neat form and have been shown to improve the cloud point and pour point of biodiesel fuels.
Alternatively, SARIN et al. further teach that in paragraph 5 that some synthetic diesel fuels may even be suitable for use as aviation fuels.
The synthetic diesel fuels are taught to have formula I.
The produced esters of MCNEFF et al. in view of SEAMES et al. may be contemplated for use as aviation fuels by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24, MCNEFF et al. teach in paragraphs 87-88 to include alcohols with 1 to 6 carbon atoms.
Absent evidence to the contrary, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ aromatic alcohols with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, SEAMES et al. teach isobutanol which meet the current limitations where n = 1, R1 is C1 alkyl and R2 is C1 alkyl.
Regarding claims 10-11, The alcohols used in MCNEFF et al. are taught in paragraphs 87-88 to include alcohols with 1 to 6 carbon atoms. MCNEFF et al. also consider using a mixture of different alcohols such as methanol with a higher molecular weight alcohol.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, MCNEFF et al. teach that the alcohol used may be more than one alcohol and SEAMES et al. provide the motivation to employ branched alcohols. Employing 2 branched alcohols would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, MCNEFF et al. teach in paragraph 80 that the lipid feedstock includes safflower oil.
Regarding claim 14, MCNEFF et al. tech in reference claim 5 that the pressure in the reaction is at between 1500 psi to 5000 psi.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 15-16, MCNEFF et al. tech in reference claim 4 that the temperature in the reaction when reactants are contacted with the catalyst is at between about 350 about 400°C.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 5-6, 17-23 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCNEFF et al. (USPGPUB 2008/0051592) in view of SEAMES et al. (USPGPUB 20080092436) and alternatively as evidenced by SARIN et al. (USPGPUB 2009/0038211) as applied to claims 1, 7, 10-16, and 24, above, and further in view of SARIN et al. (USPGPUB 2009/0038211).
The above discussion of MCNEFF et al. in view of SEAMES et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 42, MCNEFF et al. mixing a lipid feed stock with an alcohol to form a reaction mixture, contacting the reaction mixture with a catalyst under supercritical conditions for the alcohol, the catalyst comprising an unmodified metal oxide selected from the group consisting of alumina, titania, zirconia, and hafnia,
The alcohols used in MCNEFF et al. are taught in paragraphs 87-88 to include alcohols with 1 to 6 carbon atoms. MCNEFF et al. also consider using a mixture of different alcohols such as methanol with a higher molecular weight alcohol.
SEAMES et al. teach in paragraph 8 that it is known in the art to use branched alcohols such as isopropanol or isobutanol to lower the cold temperature properties of fuels.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a branched alcohol such as isobutanol or to use a straight alcohol with a higher carbon alcohol that is branched such as isobutanol.
Branched esters are taught by SEAMES et al. to have lower freezing points in the neat form and have been shown to improve the cloud point and pour point of biodiesel fuels.
SARIN et al. teach novel synthetic fuel that comprises a compound of formula I. The compounds are produced from esterification of branched acids in the presence of an acidic catalyst and alcohol.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a branched carboxylic acid derived from the lipid feedstock.
SARIN et al. teach in paragraph 32 that the produced esters from branched acids comprise improved properties such as high cetane number, no suphur, no aromatics, no olefins, improved oxidative stability and excellent low temperature properties.
SARIN et al. further teach that in paragraph 5 that some synthetic diesel fuels may even be suitable for use as aviation fuels.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, SARIN et al. teach in paragraph 37 that the alcohols that may be employed to produce the fuels include primary, secondary and tertiary alcohols.
Employing a branched alcohol such as isoheptanol or 2-ethyl octanol appears to be a matter of workable ranges absent evidence to the contrary.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 17-18, SARIN et al. teach in Table I properties of fuels produced include flash points greater than 60°C, and cloud points of less than -51,
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 19-20, SARIN et al. teach in Table I properties of fuels that include full distillation at 360°C. SARIN et al. also teach that some of the synthetic diesel fuels may be potentially suitable for use as aviation fuels.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 21-23, the modified process claimed is substantially the same as what is presently claimed and that SARIN et al. teach that some of the synthetic diesel fuels may be potentially suitable for use as aviation fuels.
Absent evidence to the contrary, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one of ordinary skill in the art may modify the process to meet the specifications of aviation fuels such as Jet A, Jet A-1 or ASTM D7566.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights