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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiao (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2012/0167876)
In paragraph 16 Qiao discloses methods of making a biomass hydrolysate, comprising a step of reacting water, a water-soluble oxygenated hydrocarbon, and hydrogen in the presence of a deoxygenation catalyst, to produce an oxygenate in a reaction stream, corresponding to step (i) of claim 1, and condensing the oxygenate in the presence of a condensation catalyst to produce a solvent comprising C4+ compounds, corresponding to the condensation step of claim 20. In paragraph 105 and Figures 1-2, Qiao discloses that the hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) product can be fractionated, as in step (ii) of claim 1, and that the heavy bottom stream from the fractionation can be recycled directly to the hydrodeoxygenation reactor, in which case the step of reacting this recycled stream in the hydrodeoxygenation reactor again meets the limitations of step (iii) of claim 1, since the upgrading catalyst can be a hydrodeoxygenation catalyst, and claim 1 does not require that steps (i) and (iii) be carried out in different reactors. Claim 7 specifically recites carrying out steps (i) and (iii) in the same reactor, and claims 8-9 allow for the upgrading catalyst to be identical to the hydrodeoxygenation catalyst. Since at least some of the upgraded heavy bottom stream will be part of the lighter oxygenate stream from the ensuing fractionation, this will be combined with the lighter oxygenate stream from the previous hydrodeoxygenation, meeting the limitations of step (iv) of claim 1. Claims 1, 7-9, and 20 are therefore anticipated by Qiao.
Additionally, Qiao discloses in paragraph 105 that the heavy bottom stream comprises “less volatile” compounds while the other fraction, which corresponds to the first oxygenate stream of claim 1, comprises “more volatile” compounds, indicating that the heavy bottom stream is higher-boiling than the first oxygenate stream, meeting the limitations of claim 4. Qiao discloses in paragraph 57 that hydrogenation reactions occur on the metallic catalyst used for the deoxygenation, meeting the limitations of claim 10. In paragraph 66 Qiao discloses that the WHSV can be in various ranges within the range recited in claim 18.
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.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao.
The discussion of Qiao in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference. Qiao discloses a method meeting the limitations of claim 1. The difference between Qiao and the currently presented claims is that Qiao does not disclose the specific catalysts recited in claims 11-15.
In paragraph 57 Qiao discloses that the deoxygenation catalyst, which as discussed in paragraph 4 above also acts as the upgrading catalyst, it preferably a heterogeneous catalyst. In paragraph 58 Qiao discloses that the catalyst can include palladium alloyed or admixed with a Group VIB metal and a Group IVA metal on an acidic support. Qiao further discloses in paragraph 58 that molybdenum and tungsten, which are Group VIB metals, and tin, which is a Group IVA metal, are suitable metals to use in combination with a transition metal such as palladium in the catalyst. Preparing the catalyst of Qiao to contain palladium, molybdenum as the Group VIB metal, and tin as the Group IVA metal, meets the limitation of claim 11, and the further inclusion of tungsten as a Group VIB metal meets the limitations of claim 12. The acidic support of Qiao meets the limitations of claim 13, and in paragraphs 58-59 Qiao discloses that the support can be various types recited in claims 14-15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the deoxygenation catalyst of Qiao to meet the limitations of claims 11-15, in particular to contain palladium, molybdenum, tin, and optionally tungsten, since Qiao teaches that those are suitable metals for the deoxygenation catalyst, and that palladium can be combined specifically with a Group VIB metal and a Group IVA metal.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Li (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2023/0092425).
The discussions of Qiao in paragraphs 4 and 8 are incorporated here by reference. Qiao discloses a method meeting the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose regenerating the deoxygenation catalyst (which is also the upgrading catalyst) or the amount of time the catalyst is in operation without regeneration.
Li, in paragraphs 98-99 and Table 21 discloses a hydrodeoxygenation reaction. Li teaches that after 3000 hours (125 days), within the range recited in claim 19, the activity of the catalyst decreases. Li further discloses that when the decreased-activity catalyst is regenerated, the deoxygenation reaction using the regenerated catalyst has almost the same activity as the reaction without the regenerated catalyst over 1000 hours (about 41.67 days), also within the range recited in claim 19.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the reaction and catalyst for at least 20 days without catalyst regeneration, since Li teaches that the catalyst is effective over periods of more than 20 days, even when an already-regenerated catalyst is included in the catalyst.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Qiao is silent regarding the H/Ceff values of the hydrodeoxygenation effluent (intermediate stream) or the heavy fraction of the effluent, and also does not disclose hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen contents that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine that these streams would have H/Ceff values within or overlapping the claimed ranges. Qiao also does not provide any motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the H/Ceff values in order to arrive at the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 3, Qiao does not teach the water content of the heavy fraction of the hydrodeoxygenation effluent and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have any motivation to optimize the water content. Qiao discloses in paragraph 61 that the feedstock can have a vast range of water contents, but the water content of the heavy fraction of the hydrodeoxygenation effluent cannot be determined from this.
Claim 6 and its dependent claims 16-17 require the deoxygenation step (i) and the upgrading step (iii) to be carried out in different reactors. Qiao, as discussed in the above rejection, discloses performing the steps in the same reactor by recycling the heavy fraction back to the hydrodeoxygenation reactor. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have any motivation to modify Qiao to perform the reactions in separate reactors. While Qiao discloses in paragraph 105 and Figure 1 that some of the heavy fraction can be recycled to a bioreforming process involving a reaction in a separate slurry reactor, but this reaction uses a deconstruction catalyst rather than the upgrading catalyst recited in step (iii) of the claims. Kania (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2013/0263498) discloses a method similar to that of Qiao, but also does not disclose upgrading the heavy fraction of the hydrodeoxygenation effluent in a separate reactor in the presence of the recited upgrading catalysts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
