DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 1/16/2025.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 3 and 6, the claim recites wherein the reactions are “performed at [conditions] for 0.5-6 h” or 1-6 h. It is unclear what time this is referring and for purposes of examination below, is assumed runtime of the process. Claims 4-5 and 7-8 depend from claims 3 and 6, respectively, and are therefore rejected for the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-3
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Mathieu (WO 2018058172).
With respect to claim 1, Mathieu (WO 2018058172) teaches preparing a transportation fuel from a hydrothermal liquefaction produced bio-crude oil, comprising subjecting the biooil or a fraction thereof to hydrotreating. Abstract; Figure 1-2. The hydrotreating includes both hydrocracking and hydrogenation; and “the hydrothermally-produced biooil may be subjected to hydrocracking before hydrotreating.” p. 51. The biooil may be distillated to obtain a distillate (i.e. purified bio-oil) and residue 400. p. 49 (“fractionate the biooil 100 or a mixture of biooil 100 and additive 1 10 before the hydrotreating step, yielding an aqueous fraction 200, a distillate stream 300 and a residue stream 400.). The fuel products may be obtained by fractionation. p. 56.
Claim(s) 2-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathieu (WO 2018058172).
With respect to claim 2, the “[f]ractionation process 10 can be achieved by known methods in the art, for example, by vacuum distillation. The distillation can be carried out in a manner that maximises distillate yield.” p. 49. While the temperature of distillation isn’t expressly taught, it is expected that known atmospheric or vacuum distillation would occur at a temperature of 150-350°C.
With respect to claim 3, wherein the hydrocracking is performed at a temperature 350 °C to 450°C, which anticipates the claimed range, a space velocity may range from 0.1 to 10 h-1, and a pressure of 80 to 250 bar, which when converted to hydrogen pressure overlaps a hydrogen pressure of 5-20 MPa, p. 14-15. The art expressly teaches use of hydrogen but is silent regarding a hydrogen to oil ratio. However, the hydrogen rate is known to affect operating conditions and reaction rate and selectivity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a hydrogen to oil ratio to achieve the desired conversion in the hydrocracking reactor. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. MPEP 2144.
With respect to the time, the same process is being conducted. Thus, it is expected that the process would be capable of running for 1 to 6 hours. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to maximize run time of the continuous process as long as quality may be maintained to maximize production.
With respect to claim 4, hydrocracking occurs with a hydrocracking catalyst consisting of a metal of Ni, W, Co, Mo, and any combination thereof supported on an inorganic oxide having an acid function selected from the group consisting of: silica-alumina and a zeolite. p 7.
With respect to claim 6, the catalytic hydrogenation is performed at a temperature of 280-380C, which anticipates 200-400°C, a hydrogen pressure of 20 to 120 bar, which overlaps 2-10 MPa, p. 59. In one example, the “hydrogen fed to the reactor was 122 Nml/min, or approximately 16 wt% of feed or approximately 1900 scf per scf of feed” by volume, p. 67. When converted to mass is expected to fall within the claimed range of 0.01-0.04.
With respect to the time, the same process is being conducted. Thus, it is expected that the process would be capable of running for 1 to 6 hours. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to maximize run time of the continuous process as long as quality may be maintained to maximize production.
With respect to claim 7, the hydrogenation catalyst “may comprise one or several metals, for example, selected from the group of Ni, Co, Mo, and W” including presulfided. p. 59. Alternatively, “the catalysts may comprise one or several precious metals, for example, selected from the group of Pt, Pd, Rh, and Ir.” p. 59. “Non-limiting examples include Pt/Al2O3/SiO2, Pd/Al2O3/SiO2, Ni/Al203/SiO2, and mixtures thereof.” p. 59.
With respect to claims 5 and 8, the catalyst for hydrogenation and hydrocracking may be presulfided. e.g. p 75, 61. The art does not disclose mass ratio of the purified bio-oil to the hydrocracking catalyst is in a range of 1.6-20: 1 and mass ratio of the cracked bio-oil to the hydrogenation catalyst is 2:1. It is well known that the amount of catalyst (catalyst to oil ratio) at minimum has an effect on the reaction rate. It would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to design the catalyst to oil ratio to achieve the desired reaction rate in the hydrotreating and/or hydrocracking process. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. MPEP 2144.
With respect to claim 9, the process produces fuels and may include e.g. naphtha (i.e. gasoline), kerosene, diesel and jet fuel. pp. 56-57. The known boiling ranges fall within the ranges claimed.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathieu (WO 2018058172) as applied to claims 1-9 further in view of Fiato (CA 2913159).
With respect to claim 10, Mathieu is silent regarding subjecting the distillation residue to metal recovery, and then preparing into a biochar. However, in analogous art of biooil processing, Fitatio teaches separating the biooil into a distillate and residue. The residue is separated into a 1000 F+ fraction and passed to a closed reactor for pyrolysis to produce biochar. p 9. The art teaches removing metals from the biomass feed and using the char as a fertilizer or in other processing. P 10. Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove any metals concentrated in the residue as taught regarding the feed prior to use of the char in further processing to prevent process or environment contamination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 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 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights