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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/24/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woodroffe et al., NPL document entitled High-Performance, Biobased, Jet Fuel Blends Containing Hydrogenated Monoterpenes and Synthetic Paraffin Kerosenes (hereinafter referred to as Woodroffe).
Regarding claims 1-5, Woodroffe discloses a jet fuel composition from renewable feedstocks comprising, relative to the total volume of the composition, a) 50 to 90 vol% of at least one paraffinic base and at least 90% by weight paraffins relative to the total weight of the paraffinic base, b) 10 to 50 vol% of at least one C8-C16 naphthenic base, wherein the jet fuel composition includes 10 to 49 wt% naphthenic compounds relative to the total weight of the composition (as recited in claims 1-5) (see Fig. 6 and Page 5932-5934/Col. 2-Col. 1 - wherein 32% p-menthane and 68% HEFA is disclosed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aulich et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0000185 (hereinafter referred to as Aulich).
Regarding claims 1-5, Aulich discloses a jet fuel composition from renewable feedstocks comprising, relative to the total volume of the composition, a) 50 to 90 vol% of at least one paraffinic base and at least 90% by weight paraffins relative to the total weight of the paraffinic base, b) 10 to 50 vol% of at least one C8-C16 naphthenic base, wherein the jet fuel composition includes 10 to 49 wt% naphthenic compounds relative to the total weight of the composition (as recited in claims 1-5) (see Claims 1, 2 and 5 – wherein up to 95 vol% first blendstock, from about 0 to about 30 vol% cycloalkanes, and from about 0 to about 15 vol% aromatics is disclosed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodroffe in view of Tret’yakov et al., NPL document entitled Production of Aaviation Fuel by Bioethanol Conversion on Zeolite Catalysts (hereinafter referred to as Tret’yakov).
Regarding claims 6-12, Woodroffe discloses a method for producing a jet fuel composition from renewable feedstocks, comprising at least the following steps: a) producing at least one paraffinic base from a hydroprocessing of fatty acids and esters, a Fischer- Tropsch process or a method for producing jet fuel from alcohols, the at least one paraffinic base comprising at least 90% by weight paraffins (Diagram 3/HEFA), b) producing at least one C8-C16 aromatic base (see Abstract/limonene), c) hydrogenating the C8-C16 aromatic base resulting from step b) so as to obtain a naphthenic base (Diagram 2/p-menthane via limonene; page 5930/Col. 2), and d) mixing 50% to 90% by volume of at least one paraffinic base produced in step a) with 10 to 50% by volume of the naphthenic base produced in step c), and obtaining a jet fuel composition comprising a paraffinic base and a napththenic base (see Fig. 6 and Page 5932-5934/Col 2-1).
The subject matter of claim 6 differs from this known method in that the C8-C16 aromatic base is prepared using the following steps: i) producing a biofuel by means of a method for converting at least one C1-C6 bio-alcohol to a fuel, ii) recovering the C8-C16 aromatic base by fractionating the biofuel obtained in step i).
Tret’yakov discloses a catalytic process of two-stage conversion of ethanol into jet fuel, wherein the second step is the hydrogenation of aromatic hydrocarbons obtained in the first step, has been studied. It has been shown that at 400°C and an ethanol space velocity of LHSV = 2 h⁻¹, aromatic hydrocarbons are produced, which are hydrogenated on a Pt/C catalyst in an autoclave at 80-100 atm and T = 200-250°C for 1.5 h with a final yield of naphthenic hydrocarbons on a fed ethanol basis of 15-20%. It would have been obvious to use the process steps of Tret’yakov in the process of Woodroffe as it is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
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 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of co-pending application No. 18/997,658. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '658 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures 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
11. There were unused X and Y references 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