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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 7(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 25 and 49 have been amended. Claims 7, 15-16, 19-21 and 26-48 have been cancelled. Claims 25 has been withdrawn. Claims 1-6, 8-14, 17-18, 22-25 and 49 are pending. Claims 1-6, 8-14, 17-18, 22-24 and 49 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments and Amendments to the Claims both filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the claim 1 and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor prima facie obvious over cited prior art(s), Liu et al. (US 10,479,943 B1) and/or Thangadurai et al. (Acidity and basicity of metal oxide-based catalysts in catalytic cracking of vegetable oil, Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering (2021) 38:1–20). Applicant argues that: claim 1 is amended to recites “generating a first mixture of a renewable lipid feedstock, steam, and a particulate catalyst,” and “wherein the renewable lipid feedstock and the steam are substantially the only inputs to the system for reactions which are catalyzed by the particulate catalyst” in the context of a method of repurposing a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) system originally designed for cracking vacuum gas oil (VGO), and such features are neither taught nor fairly suggested in Liu and/or Thangadurai. See Remarks, pages 7-8.
In response, the applicants’ arguments direct a newly amended claim limitation which is a new issue. Therefore, the arguments are considered moot. Applicant's amendment necessitated a modified/new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Upon further consideration and search, a modified/new ground of rejections to claims 1-6, 8-14, 17-18, 22-24 and 49 are presented in the instant Office action.
MODIFIED REJECTIONS
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.
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.
It is noted herein that, per MPEP, during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach (See MPEP 2111). Consequently, the claim limitation "substantially" in claim 1 is reasonably interpreted as, in view of the Specification of the claimed invention (paragraph [0052]): the term "substantially" is intended to mean significantly. Illustratively, a concentration of a component within a first composition which is substantially less than the concentration of that component within a second composition, means that the concentration of that component within the first composition is less than about 20% of the concentration within the second composition, e.g., less than about 10%, less than about 5%, less than 1 %, or even less. As another example, a reaction that is performed using substantially only certain components means that of all the components which are present at the reaction, at least about 80%, at least about 90%, at least about 95%, at least about 98%, at least about 99%, or about 100% are the certain components.
Therefore, the limitaiton “wherein the renewable lipid feedstock and the steam are substantially the only inputs to the system for reactions which are catalyzed by the particulate catalyst” is reasonably interpreted as “wherein the renewable lipid feedstock and the steam are (i) at least about 80%, or (ii) at least about 90%, or (iii) at least about 95%, or (iv) at least about 98%, or (v) at least about 99%, or (vi) about 100% inputs to the system for reactions which are catalyzed by the particulate catalyst” in view of the Specification of the claimed invention (paragraph [0052]).
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 17-18, 22-24 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 10,479,943 B1, hereinafter “Liu”), in view of Thangadurai et al. (Acidity and basicity of metal oxide-based catalysts in catalytic cracking of vegetable oil, Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering (2021) 38:1–20, hereinafter “Thangadurai”).
In regard to claims 1 and 22-24, Liu discloses a method of converting a lipid-containing feedstock into hydrocarbons (col. 1, line 64 thru col. 2, line 16), wherein the hydrocarbons comprises a jet fuel (col. 11, lines 16-29). Since the method adopts an apparatus for conducting fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) reaction of vacuum gas oil (VGO) (col. 3, lines 16-23), the method/apparatus taught by Liu meets the recited “repurposing a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) system originally designed for cracking vacuum gas oil (VGO)”.
Liu discloses the method comprises (Fig. 1; col. 7, line 47 thru col. 11, line 29):
(i) generating a first mixture of a renewable lipid feedstock and a particulate catalyst (supplying lipid containing feed through an injection nozzle (145, Fig. 1) and a regenerated catalyst (125, Fig. 1) using a lift gas (115, Fig. 1) (col. 8, lines 40-50) into a riser 130, Fig. 1). In addition, steam and/or other lifting gas [emphasis added] via line 115, the petroleum derived feedstock via line 140, and one or more catalysts via a line 125 can be introduced to FCC reactor riser 130, forming fluidized mixture (“reaction mixture”) therein (col. 8, lines 40-50). Since the renewable lipid feedstock and a particulate catalyst (supplying lipid containing feed through an injection nozzle (145, Fig. 1) are transported into the riser reactor right next to the vacuum gas oil (VGO) feed input (140, Fig. 1), this meets the recitation “generating a first mixture of a renewable lipid feedstock, steam, and a particulate catalyst” in a riser reactor as recited in claim 1, lines 3-4;
(ii) flowing the first mixture through a riser for a sufficient time, under a temperature range of 900 [Symbol font/0xB0]F to about 1050 [Symbol font/0xB0]F (482 [Symbol font/0xB0]C -565 [Symbol font/0xB0]C) (col. 8, lines 28-39) for the particulate catalyst (such as ZSM-5 dispersed om a matrix, col. 7, lines 35-46) to promote reactions of the renewable lipid feedstock to generate a second mixture comprising (1) spent catalyst particles and (2) a vapor-phase intermediate composition (col. 8, line 40 thru col. 9, line 39);
(iii) flowing the second mixture from the riser into a reactor/stripper (the upper portion of the FCC reactor designated as “REACTOR” and “CYCLONE” in Fig. 1) which is partially filled with more of the particulate catalyst;
within the reactor/stripper:
contacting the second mixture with the particulate catalyst for a sufficient residence time for the particulate catalyst to promote reactions, to substantial completeness, of the second mixture to generate additional vapor-phase intermediate composition; and
disengaging the vapor-phase intermediate composition from the particulate catalyst using CYCLONE (Fig. 1);
collecting the disengaged vapor-phase intermediate composition;
regenerating some or all of the particulate catalyst in the REGENERATOR (Fig. 1); and
recycling the regenerated particulate catalyst (REGEN CAT in Fig. 1) into contact with additional renewable lipid feedstock (145, Fig. 1) in the riser (RISER, Fig. 1) (col. 9, lines 40-62).
Liu discloses the renewable lipid feedstock and the particulate catalyst are contacted in the RISER (130, Fig. 1), and/or in the STRIPPER (150, Fig. 1), thereby the renewable lipid feedstock is deoxygenated and cracked, and further cracked into a variety of products including, for example, diesel fuel having a boiling range in the diesel range, gasoline having a boiling range in the gasoline range, jet fuel having a boiling range in the jet range, LPG and the like and mixtures thereof (col. 10, line 20 thru col. 11, line 29). Liu discloses after the reaction has taken place, the reaction product can be fed to a separation unit (i.e., distillation column and the like) in order to separate the diesel, from other products. Un-reacted product may be recycled to the reaction system for further processing to maximize diesel production (col. 11, lines 24-29).
Regarding the composition range of the renewable lipid feedstock and steam with respect to the petroleum derived feedstock, wherein the renewable lipid feedstock and the steam are (i) at least about 80%, or (ii) at least about 90%, or (iii) at least about 95%, or (iv) at least about 98%, or (v) at least about 99%, or (vi) about 100% inputs to the system for reactions which are catalyzed by the particulate catalyst, as set forth above, Liu discloses an embodiment of coprocessing the petroleum-derived feedstock with about 0.05 wt. % to about 50 wt. %, relative to the total weight of the feedstocks, of the lipid-containing feedstock (col. 14, claim 12). When the petroleum-derived feedstock is about 0.05 wt. % relative to the total weight of the feedstocks, it is estimated that the lipid-containing feedstock is about 99.5% relative to the total weight of the feedstocks, thereby this renders the recitation “wherein the renewable lipid feedstock and the steam are substantially the only inputs to the system for reactions which are catalyzed by the particulate catalyst” prima facie obvious.
But Liu does not explicitly disclose the features of: (I) in the riser, acidic reaction intermediates are sorbed into catalyst particles; (II) in the reactor/stripper, the particulate catalysts promote reactions, to substantial completeness, of the acidic reaction intermediates in the second mixture; and (III) the catalyst particulate comprises metal oxide, such as CaO, catalyst on an oxide support.
Regarding the features of (I) and (II), however, since Liu discloses the same process of converting a lipid-containing feedstock into hydrocarbons using a riser and subsequent reactor/stripper in the presence of particulate catalyst as that recited in claim 1, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the process as taught by Liu to function the same as the process recited in claim 1. Specifically, it is asserted that one would reasonably expect the process of Liu would results in the features of: (I) in the riser, acidic reaction intermediates are sorbed into catalyst particles; and (II) in the reactor/stripper, the particulate catalysts promote reactions, to substantial completeness, of the acidic reaction intermediates in the second mixture as recited in claim 1. See MPEP 2112.01 and 2112.02.
Regarding the features of (III), Thangadurai discloses acidity and basicity of metal oxide-based catalysts in catalytic cracking of vegetable oil (Title; Abstract). Thangadurai discloses metal oxides, which are known as the active phase with acid–base and redox properties, exhibited relatively good performance in catalytic cracking of vegetable oil for green fuel production (Abstract). Thangadurai discloses various embodiments metal oxide supported on support material (alumina, silica, silica-alumina) such as metal oxide on ZSM-5 (page 10, Table1), Co3O4-CaO-modified silica-alumina (page 8, right column) and NiO-CaO (13 wt. %) supported on silica-alumina (col. 11, right column).
It is noted that both the Liu and Thangadurai references direct a catalytic conversion process using a catalytic cracking catalyst comprising zeolite.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Liu to provide the feature of the catalyst particulate further comprises metal oxide (e.g., CaO) supported on alumina, this is because fluid catalytic cracking catalyst particulate comprises metal oxide (e.g., CaO) supported on alumina is an effective catalyst for catalytic cracking of vegetable oil as taught by Thangadurai (page 10, Table1; page 8, right column; col. 11, right column).
In regard to claim 2, Liu discloses the disengaging of the vapor-phase intermediate composition from the particulate catalyst is accomplished using one or more cyclones (CYCLONE 170, Fig. 1) (col. 9, lines 29-62).
In regard to claim 3, Liu discloses the lipid-containing feedstock includes fatty acids, glycerol-derived lipids (including fats, oils and phospholipids), sphingosine-derived lipids such as ceramides, cerebrosides, gangliosides, and sphingomyelins, steroids and their derivatives, terpenes and their derivatives, fat-soluble vitamins, certain aromatic compounds, and long-chain alcohols and waxes (col. 3, lines 32-38). Consequently, ones skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the second mixtures that passes through the riser comprise fatty acids and/or carboxylates resulted from the lipid-containing feedstock.
In regard to claims 4, 5, 8 and 9, as set forth above, since Liu discloses the same process of converting a lipid-containing feedstock into hydrocarbons using a riser and subsequent reactor/stripper in the presence of particulate catalyst as that recited in claim 1, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the process as taught by Liu to function the same as the process recited in claim 1. Specifically, it is asserted that one would reasonably expect the process of Liu would results in the features of the vapor-phase intermediate composition has a total acid number (TAN) of less than about 5, or the acidic reaction intermediates in the second mixture are sorbed to the particulate catalyst via one or more of adsorption, chemisorption, and absorption, or the vapor-phase intermediate composition comprises ketone groups, or more than about 70 wt% of oxygen in the vapor-phase intermediate composition is in the ketone groups as recited in claimed invention. See MPEP 2112.01 and 2112.02.
In regard to claim 6, Liu discloses the contacting time between the lipid-containing feedstock and particulate catalyst in the riser is from about 0.1 seconds to about 3 seconds, or from about 0.1 seconds to about 2 seconds (col. 10, line 64 thru col. 11, line 3). Consequently, in light of teachings from Liu, the claimed rate (speed) of the first mixture in the riser would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize catalytic activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the fluid cracking operation (temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the catalytic bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the lipid-containing feedstock as well as the nature of the cracking products of the lipid-containing feedstock.
In regard to claim 10, Liu discloses within the reactor/stripper (the upper region of FCC REACTOR comprising “REACTOR” and “CYCLONE” in Fig. 1), the particulate catalyst of the second mixture and with the particulate catalyst partially filling the reactor/stripper promote the reactions of mixture therein (col. 9, lines 14-53). One skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the cracking reaction conducted in the reactor/stripper (the region comprising REACTOR and CYCLONE in Fig. 1) comprises reactions of the acidic reaction intermediates as recited.
In regard to claim 11, Liu discloses flowing the second mixture from the riser into a reactor/stripper (the upper portion of the FCC Reactor designated as “REACTOR” and “CYCLONE” in Fig. 1) which is partially filled with more of the particulate catalyst (col. 9, lines 40-62), and discloses further cracking into a variety of products including, for example, diesel fuel having a boiling range in the diesel range, gasoline having a boiling range in the gasoline range, jet fuel having a boiling range in the jet range, LPG and the like and mixtures thereof (col. 10, line 20 thru col. 11, line 29). In light of teachings from Liu, the claimed residence time in the reactor/stripper would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize catalytic activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the fluid cracking operation (temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the catalytic bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the first mixture feedstock as well as the nature of the cracking products of the first mixture feedstock.
In regard to claim 12, Liu discloses the particulate catalyst partially filling the reactor/stripper is located within a fluidized bed (Fig. 1, a FCC reactor).
In regard to claims 13 and 14, Liu discloses the method of converting a lipid-containing feedstock into hydrocarbons (col. 1, line 64 thru col. 2, line 16) is conducted under FCC conditions in the FCC REACTOR (Fig. 1; col. 7, line 47 thru col. 11, line 54) comprising a riser followed by a reactor/stripper as set forth above. Therefore, the recitations of claims 13-14 are considered obvious over the teachings of Liu.
In regard to claims 17 and 18, Liu discloses the reactor/stripper is stacked above the riser (Fig. 1), and the riser comprises a downturned outlet that purge spent catalyst and/or purge the second mixture into reactor/stripper (Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 49, Liu discloses an embodiment of coprocessing the petroleum-derived feedstock with about 0.05 wt. % to about 50 wt. %, relative to the total weight of the feedstocks, of the lipid-containing feedstock (col. 14, claim 12). When the petroleum-derived feedstock is about 0.05 wt. % relative to the total weight of the feedstocks, it is estimated that the lipid-containing feedstock is about 99.5%, thereby this renders the recitation “the first mixture consists essentially of a renewable lipid feedstock, steam and a particulate catalyst” as recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772