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 .
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, 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.
Claims 1 and 3-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underwood et al (US 5,397,582) in view of Meyers et al (WO 2012/115754).
The instant claims are drawn to a process for the thermolytic fragmentation of a sugar into a C1-C3 oxygenate through a series of steps.
Underwood et al teach a process wherein a sugar, e.g. glucose, sucrose, dextrose, starch, etc. is pyrolyzed at a temperature of at least 400° C (about 400-800°C) to form hydroxyacetaldehyde. The pyrolysis occurs in a fluidized bed reactor vessel with an upwards flow of vapors, wherein a particulate heat transfer medium, e.g. sand is employed. The stream comprising the heat transfer medium and pyrolysis vapor is sent with up flow from the reactor to a primary cyclone separator wherein the heat transfer medium is removed from the raw product vapor and recycled to the reactor. The resulting stream of hot vaporous pyrolysis product is directed to a secondary cyclone separator through a conduit that feeds the product comprising condensable and noncondensable vapors to a first condenser where the pyrolysis product is immediately quenched using the pyrolysis liquid as a quenching medium. The condensed pyrolysis is fed to a pump and sent to a heat exchanger indirectly cooled by water (col. 9, line 29 to col. 12, line 30).
The primary difference between Underwood et al and the instant process is that Underwood et al do not teach that particles separated from the product are reheated and then recirculated back to the pyrolysis reactor. However, Myers et al teach a pyrolysis method wherein biomass, such as wood or other plant materials, and a solid heat carrier, such a sand, are mixed at the bottom of a riser reactor and subjected to pyrolysis conditions. The pyrolysis reaction mixture is, like in the process taught by Underwood et al, operated with the flow of the reaction mixture in an upward direction using a transport gas containing little or no oxygen. The pyrolysis effluent, solid heat carrier, and products are removed from the upper section of the reactor. Condensables and noncondensables may be recovered after separation of solids, including char and the heat carrier. Cooling to promote condensation, and possibly further separation steps are used to provided one or more liquid pyrolysis products, e.g. raw pyrolysis oil which contains oxygenates such as hydroxyaldehydes, hydroxyketones, sugars, acids, etc. Importantly, the separated solids-enriched portion of the pyrolysis product is reheated in a reheater and recycled back to the pyrolysis reactor (0010-0012; 0018-0023; 0027).
The instant claims are rendered obvious by the combined reference teachings, since Meyers et al teach that in a similar pyrolysis process as taught by Underwood et al, separated solid particles (which includes heat carrier) may be reheated and returned to the pyrolysis reactor in order to better control heating the of the pyrolysis reactor, as well as better control of heat removal from the system.
Specific limitations with regard to construction of placement of components in the fragmentation unit employed in the process of the present invention are obvious absent unexpected results since one of ordinary skill in the art may construct such a device as seen fit to optimize the fragmentation process.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 23-33 of U.S. Patent No. 10,570,078. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to a process for thermolytic fragmentation of a sugar into a C1-C3 oxygenate through a series of steps. The ‘078 patent includes steps not specifically recited by the instant claims, such as quenching the particle lean fragmentation product; and comprises parameters of the particle separator used, e.g., a riser terminator, not recited by the instant claims. However, these are not patentable distinctions since the instant claims are open-ended and may include other steps and/or parameters not expressly recited in the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIKARL A WITHERSPOON whose telephone number is (571)272-0649. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-9pm IFP.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/SIKARL A WITHERSPOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights