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 18/984791 filed 12/17/24.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 12/17/24 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, 3-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG, Y. ET AL., "Production of jet and diesel biofuels from renewable lignocellulosic biomass", Applied Energy, 2015.07.15, Vol. 150, pp. 128-137 in view of MACLACHLAN ET AL. (US PG PUB 20110236946), DREILLARD ET AL. (WO2023088772A1; 5/25/2023), KOIVUSALMI ET AL. (EP1960497B1;4/29/2020) and as evidence by VILJA ET AL. (WO2024003463A1; 1/04/2024) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as ZHANG, MACLACHLAN, DREILLARD, KOIVUSALMI and VILJA.
The Examiner acknowledges that the VILJA ET AL. (WO2024003463A1; 1/04/2024) reference does not qualify as prior art under 102; however the Examiner is of the position that in certain circumstances, references cited to show a universal fact need not be available as prior art before applicant’s filing date. In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 135 USPQ 442 (CCPA 1962)
Regarding claims 1, 3-10 and 12-20:
ZHANG teaches in the abstract the continual growth in commercial aviation fuels and more strict environmental legislation shave led to immense interest in developing green aviation fuels from renewable lignocellulosic biomass. This work demonstrated a novel transformation of biomass into bio-jet and diesel fuels. The transformation included following three reaction steps:(i)the catalytic pyrolysis of sawdust into low-carbon aromatics, (ii)the production of C8–C15 aromatics by the aromatic alkylation and (iii)the production of C8–C15 cycloalkanes by the hydrogenation of C8–C15 aromatics. The production of the desired C8–C15 aromatics with the highest selectivity of 92.4% was achieved by the low temperature alkylation reactions of the low carbon aromatics using the ionic liquid of [bmim]Cl–2AlCl3(1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloroaluminate). The biofuels derived from sawdust basically met the main specifications of jet fuels. This transformation potentially provides a useful avenue for the development of green aviation biofuels utilizing lignocellulose biomass.
ZHANG teaches on pgs 128-129, two representative technologies, catalytic hydrotreating of vegetable oils and Fischer Tropsch synthesis using biomass derived syngas, have been developed for producing green aviation biofuels. Catalytic hydrotreating of vegetable oils and related feedstocks can transform the triglycerides-based oils into liquid alkanes in the diesel and/or jet fuel ranges. Generally, triglycerides extracted from plant or animal oils are hydrotreated over noble metal supported or metal sulfide supported catalysts under high hydrogen pressures. Such transformation typically involves the formation of free fatty acids (FFA) by breaking the C–O bonds of the triglycerides, followed by the deoxygenation of FFA to form linear n-alkanes and the formation of lighter iso-alkanes by isomerization or cracking. The low-temperature hydrotreat ing (typically at 300–350 C) mainly produce C15–C18 alkanes in the diesel range, and the cracking and isomerization at higher temperatures are generally required to improve the yield of iso-alkanes in the kerosene range.
ZHANG further teaches a mixture gas of C2-C4 light olefins used as an alkylating agent (see page 130). Producing C8-C15 cyclic alkanes (i.e., jet fuels) by the hydrogenation of C8-C15 aromatics (see abstract; pages 128, 132).
ZHANG teaches producing C8-Cl5 aromatic hydrocarbons by low-temperature alkylation at the temperature of 25-80°C (see page 131); as well as catalytic pyrolysis of biomass into low carbon aromatic hydrocarbons at the temperature of 450-600°C (see pages 130, 131).
ZHANG teaches a process of producing jet and diesel biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass comprising: (i) the catalytic pyrolysis of sawdust into low-carbon aromatics; and (ii) the production of C8-C15 aromatics by the aromatic alkylation. ZHANG differs from the present invention in that in separating lignin from a lignocellulosic biomass to provide a lignin stream is not explicitly taught; however, this different feature is merely a matter of design option when the general knowledge in the relevant field of the art over the disclosure of MACLACHLAN considering a process for producing lignin’s and fuel alcohol from a lignocellulosic feedstock by fermentation comprising processing solubilized liquid components stream to separate and recover lignin’s and lignin-derived compounds; and fermenting a liquid glucose stream to produce a fuel-grade alcohol (see the abstract; and claim 1 of MACLACHLAN).
ZHANG does not explicitly teach a process for preparing jet blend stock comprising hydrotreating a portion of the fluid product stream of b) after manufacturing a raw fluid product stream containing renewable aromatics of a) to remove heteroatoms; however DREILLARD does in claims 1 - A process comprising preparing renewable jet fuel blendstock by: a. feeding biomass, catalyst, and optionally transport fluid to a catalytic pyrolysis process fluidized bed reactor maintained at reaction conditions to manufacture a raw fluid product stream containing renewable aromatics, b. feeding the raw fluid product stream of a) to a solids separation and stripping system to produce separated solids and a fluid product stream, c. feeding the fluid product stream of b) to a fractionation system in order to recover a fraction boiling at 180 °C to 300°C, d. hydrogenating at least a portion of the fraction generated in c) with hydrogen at hydrogenation conditions to produce a hydrogenated fraction containing naphthenes, suitable as jet fuel blendstock, e. optionally recovering the jet fuel blendstock comprising naphthenes from the hydrogenated fraction of d) in a product recovery system.
ZHANG does not explicitly teach hydrotreating the aromatic rich bio-oil stream to remove oxygenates from the aromatic rich bio-oil stream; fractionating a de-oxygenated bio-oil stream to produce an aromatic naphtha stream; and alkylating the aromatic naphtha stream with the alkylating agent to produce the alkylated aromatic product stream; however it is within the scope of ZHANG as taught by KOIVUSALMI and as evident by VILJA.
KOIVUSALMI teaches in para [0076] The deoxygenation may alternatively be performed either as hydrodeoxygenation or decarboxylation/ decarbonylation which is not according to the invention. Deoxygenation preformed as hydrodeoxygenation (11DO) is suitable for all feedstocks. In the MO step, oxygen and oligomerized and optionally prehydrogenated stream is passed to the MO catalyst bed comprising one or more catalyst bed(s). In the MO step, the pressure is between O and 20 MPa, preferably between 1 and 15 MPa, particularly preferably from 3 to 10 MPa, the temperature being from 200 to 500 °C, preferably from 200 to 400 °C, particularly preferably from 250 to 350 °C, the flow rate WHSVis from 1 to 51/h, particularly preferably from WHSV from 1 to 3 1/h. In the MO step, special hydrodeoxygenation catalysts containing a metal of the Group VIII and/or VIA of the periodic table of the elements, and a support may be used. The MO catalyst is a supported 20 Pd, Pt, Ni, NiMo or CoMo catalyst, the support being either alumina and/or silica. [0077] In case the feedstock contains carboxylic acids and/or carboxylic acid esters, the deoxygenation may be performed using a decarboxylation/decarbonylation reaction, which is not according to the invention. [0078] In the decarboxylation/decarbonylation reaction, the feedstock and an optional diluent are introduced to the catalyst bed. The reaction takes place in liquid phase, and it may be carried out in atmospheric pressure. However, it is 25 preferable to use vapour pressure according to the reaction temperature of the reaction mixture. Depending on the feedstock, the pressure in the decarboxylation/decarbonylation step is between O and 20 MPa, preferably between 0.1 and 20 MPa, the temperature is from 200 to 400 °C, preferably from 250 to 350 °C, and the flow rate WHSV is from 0.1 to 10 1/h, preferably from WHSV from 1 to 5 1/h. In the decarboxylation/decarbonylation step special catalysts is used. Catalyst contains a metal of the Group VIII and/or VIA of the periodic table of the elements, such as a supported Pd, Pt, Ni, NiMo or CoMo catalyst, the support being either alumina and/or silica and/or activated carbon. The decarboxylation/decarbonylation catalyst is preferably Pd supported on carbon in a case of no hydrogen is used in the process, and sulfurized Ni Mo supported on alumina in a case of a mixture of hydrogen and an inert gas such as nitrogen is used in the process. Functional groups no longer exist in the product of the decarboxylation/decarbonylation step and the products contain only carbon and hydrogen. The carbon number has been reduced by one carbon per functional group removed. [0079] In case the deoxygenation is performed as decarboxylation/decarbonylation, the oligomerization may be carried out prior to deoxygenation, and accordingly, the feedstock of the oligomerization step contains unsaturated carboxylic acids and/or esters of carboxylic acids. In case the oligomerization is performed after the decarboxylation/decarbonylation step, the feed of the oligomerization step contains unsaturated compounds from decarboxylation/decarbonylation having the carbon numbers reduced by one carbon per functional group removed, compared to the feedstock. [0080] In the deoxygenation step, 11DO and decarboxylation/decarbonylation reactions described above may be performed simultaneously to yield carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide from part of the functional groups and part of the functional groups are hydrodeoxygenated. [0081] Following the deoxygenation step, light fractions may be passed with hydrogen to a separate isomerization step. The pressure of the isomerization step is from 0.1 to 20 MPa, preferably from 5 to 10 MPa. The temperature is between 100 and 500 °C, preferably from 200 to 400 °C. In the isomerization step, special isomerization catalysts containing a molecular sieve and a metal of the Group VI II of the periodic table of the elements, such as Pd, and Pt may be used. Alumina and/or silica may be used as the support. [0082] Following oligomerization and deoxygenation steps, the product stream may optionally be finished to remove double bonds and aromatics. In case the finishing step is carried out using hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst, the step is called hydrofinishing. In the hydrofmishing step, the pressure is from 1 to 20 MPa, preferably from 5 to 15 MPa. The temperature is between 50 and 500 °C, preferably from 100 to 400 °C. In the hydrofmishing step, special catalysts containing a metal of the Group VI 11 as well as alumina and/or silica may be used. The hydrofinishing catalyst is preferably a supported Pd, Pt, or Ni catalyst, the support being either alumina and/or silica. The finishing may also be carried out without hydrogen by removing polar components using adsorption materials, for instance clay or molecular sieve. This is evident by VILJA teachings that it is known in the art that the aviation fuel component may be obtainable or obtained by a process comprising providing a paraffinic hydrocarbon feed, preferably obtained by hydrodeoxygenation of an oxygenated hydrocarbon feed typically comprising vegetable oils, animal fats, and/or microbial oils and optionally followed by gas-liquid separation and/or paraffinic feed fractionation(s), and subjecting the paraffinic hydrocarbon feed to at least hydroisomerisation, preferably to hydroisomerisation and hydrocracking, followed by fractionation, and recovering from the fractionation at least the aviation fuel component. The feed(s) and process steps, especially the paraffinic hydrocarbon feed, the hydroisomerisation and the optional hydrocracking, and the fractionation, are preferably as further defined herein. (See pg 16 ln 4-13).
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it is asserted that, absent evidence to the contrary, one would reasonably expect that the systems and methods taught by ZHANG, MACLACHLAN, DREILLARD, KOIVUSALMI and as evident by VILJA would operate and function as the claimed invention, and the motivation to combine is taught in ZHANG wherein they have discovered and demonstrated a novel transformation of biomass into bio-jet and diesel fuels.Thus, they are from the same endeavor of fuel blend formulations; and one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize at least the above disclosure of said features of the prior art, which is merely one of several straightforward possibilities from which one skilled in the art would select, in accordance with circumstances, without the exercise of inventive skill, in order to solve the problem posed. See MPEP 2112.02 (I).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG, Y. ET AL., "Production of jet and diesel biofuels from renewable lignocellulosic biomass", Applied Energy, 2015.07.15, Vol. 150, pp. 128-137 in view of MACLACHLAN ET AL. (US PG PUB 20110236946), DREILLARD ET AL. (WO2023088772A1; 5/25/2023), KOIVUSALMI ET AL. (EP1960497B1;4/29/2020) and as evidence by VILJA ET AL. (WO2024003463A1; 1/04/2024); as taught above in claims 1, 3-10 and 12-20 is hereby incorporated; and further in view of HUMPHREYS ET AL. (WO2010034055A1; 4/1/2010) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as ZHANG, MACLACHLAN, DREILLARD, KOIVUSALMI, HUMPHREYS and VILJA.
Regarding claims 2 and 11:
Modified ZHANG does not explicitly teach a method of producing an alkylated lignin product from lignocellulosic matter, wherein an alkylating agent is ethanol used as the supercritical solvent, and the alkylating agent alkylates the lignin; however it is within the scope of ZHANG as taught by HUMPHREYS.
HUMPHREYS teaches in claims 23 and 24 - A method of producing an alkylated lignin product from lignocellulosic matter, the method comprising fractionating lignocellulosic, wherein an alkylating agent is used as the supercritical solvent, and wherein said agent alkylates the lignin of step (c). Wherein the supercritical solvent is ethanol and the alkylated lignin product is ethylated lignin.
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.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
In addition, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that performing specific test 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; thereby meeting said claim limitations of claims 1-20.
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. Additionally, 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)
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Again, VILJA is considered a teaching reference, not a modifying reference. See MPEP 2112.
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