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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is based on the 17/466008 application originally filed September 03, 2021.
Amended claims 13-44, filed August 15, 2025, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 1-12 have been canceled. Claims 21-32 are withdrawn from consideration due to being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 33-44 are new.
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 (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 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) 13-20 and 33-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steven et al. (US 2012/0005949) hereinafter “Steven” in view of Strathmann et al. (US 2020/0155885) hereinafter “Strathmann” and Chen et al. (US 2014/0296495) hereinafter “Chen”.
Regarding Claims 13-20 and 33-44
Steven discloses in the abstract, an improved method for solvent liquefaction of biomass to produce liquid products such as transportation fuel. The method uses a novel solvent combination that promotes liquefaction relatively quickly, and it reduces the need to transport large amounts of hydrogen or hydrogen-carrying solvents. It operates at lower pressure than previous methods, does not require a catalyst or hydrogen gas or CO input, and provides very high conversion of biomass into a bio-oil that can be further processed in a petroleum refinery. It also beneficially provides a way to recycle a portion of the crude liquefaction product for use as part of the solvent combination for the biomass liquefaction reaction.
Steven discloses in paragraph 0013, methods and systems for converting biomass solids into a liquid product by solvent-enhanced liquefaction. The methods use a solvent combination that promotes liquefaction under suitable pressure and temperature conditions. The solvent combination provides suitable solubilization of components of the biomass to promote liquefaction, and helps in minimizing side reactions. The solvent combination also provides miscibility of the bio-oil product with hydrocarbon or petroleum refinery streams, permitting the product to be co-processed in a petroleum refinery. The improved methods reduce the need for hydrogen gas or hydrogen donor solvent in the liquefaction process, thereby making it possible to site the liquefaction facility near a biomass source.
Steven discloses in paragraph 0017, this mixture of solvents and biomass is held in a pressurizable container or region and heated to a temperature of at least about 250° C. to produce a crude reaction product comprising a liquid bio-oil product. The process optionally does not include hydrogen or carbon monoxide as an input, and may be done with or without a catalyst.
Steven discloses in paragraphs 0095 and 0107, “Biomass” as used herein refers to plant-derived materials, which may be by-products (e.g., from pulp production for paper), recycled wastes (e.g., lawn clippings and the like), or purpose-grown plant materials (e.g., switchgrass or similar biomass crop plants) intended for conversion into fuel, etc., as described herein. Biomass is typically biologically produced solid material that is not readily soluble in water or typical solvents, and which can be used as a source of organic materials or fuel. Biomass used for the process described herein typically comprises a mixture of lignins and cellulose, and optionally other plant-derived materials. Optionally, switchgrass for this process can be produced by known intercropping methods on forest land, where the switchgrass is grown as a biofuel feedstock in the spaces between trees growing for timber harvest.
Steven discloses in paragraph 0114, the solvent combination includes a make-up solvent, which can be a mixture of solvents and can include tetralin or methyl naphthalene, for example. Use of make-up solvents is known in the art for similar applications: under the reaction conditions, the make-up solvent can transfer hydrogen to components of the biomass material. This can reduce the oxidation level of the biomass, and can also reduce the oxygen content of the bio-oil product and thus improve the fuel value of the product. The process also makes the bio-oil product compatible with petroleum refinery streams for co-processing.
Steven discloses in paragraph 0117, a process for liquefaction of biomass, which comprises combining biomass with a solvent combination comprising at least one liquefaction solvent that promotes liquefaction and at least one make-up solvent. This mixture of solvents and biomass is held in a pressurized container, and heated to a temperature of at least about 250° C. to produce a crude reaction product comprising a liquid bio-oil product.
Steven discloses in paragraph 0157, a metal reagent or a metal catalyst can be used separately or together to enhance the liquefaction process described herein.
It is to be noted, Steven fails to disclose the waste biomass containing perfluoro- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
However, it is known in the art to treat waste biomass containing perfluoro- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under hydrothermal conditions, as taught by Strathmann.
Strathmann discloses in the abstract, methods and systems for treating a waste substance containing perfluoro- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The method includes combining the PFAS with a first amendment in a reactor to create a combination, heating and pressurizing the combination to hydrothermal conditions, and holding the combination at hydrothermal conditions for a holding time sufficient to at least partially mineralize the PFAS to create a treated combination.
Strathmann discloses in paragraph 0010, currently, one option for complete destruction and mineralization of PFAS in chemical stockpiles, wastes, and concentrate streams (e.g., ion exchange regenerant waste stream) would be high temperature thermal decomposition or incineration processes that require drying of the materials. While this may be practical for PFAS-containing solid wastes, incineration of wet wastes and concentrate solutions is inefficient because of the high energy requirements for vaporizing water. Other approaches for treatment cannot ensure complete mineralization of the PFAS chemicals. Other disposal options would include landfilling in hazardous waste landfill, but this may be undesirable for any parties that want to ensure there remains little future liability associated with the wastes.
Strathmann discloses in paragraph 0012, methods and systems for treating a waste substance containing perfluoro- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The method includes combining the PFAS with a first amendment in a reactor to create a combination, heating the combination in the reactor to a temperature of about 200° C. or more, pressurizing the combination in the reactor to a pressure of about 2 MPa or more, and holding the combination in a heated and pressurized state for a holding time sufficient to at least partially mineralize the PFAS to create a treated combination.
Strathmann discloses in paragraph 0077, hydrothermal technologies for destruction of PFASs and co-contaminants within investigation-derived waste (“IDW”) materials generated at DoD, and other facilities. The disclosed hydrothermal technologies apply elevated temperatures and pressures to promote a unique highly reactive chemical environment within wet samples (FIG. 2). Under hydrothermal conditions, aqueous properties are altered (increased acidity/basicity, decreased dielectric constant) in a manner that promotes decomposition and reformation of organic substances present. The disclosed technologies may be used for processing a diverse stream of wet organic waste materials (e.g., algal biomass, wastewater solid residuals), generating liquid biocrude products that can be upgraded to transportation-grade fuels, and pilot-scale reactor systems are currently being demonstrated at several locations. Applicants have surprisingly shown that the presently disclosed methods are more cost effective than other methods of mitigating perfluoro- and polyfluoro-alkyls. Specifically, significantly less energy input may be necessary to heat wet materials to elevated temperatures (e.g., 300-350° C.) under elevated pressure than may be needed to dry the same materials (a pre-requisite for incineration processes) under ambient pressure. Thus, while energy requirements for hydrothermal processing may be too high for large-scale treatment of dilute groundwater plumes, they may be ideal for processing effectively smaller quantities of site investigation waste to ensure complete PFAS destruction in samples. This is supported by previous reports as well as the data presented herein, which demonstrate destruction and defluorination of PFASs in hydrothermal reactions amended with reactive species (e.g., zerovalent iron, sulfite).
Strathmann discloses in paragraph 0078, hydrothermal reactions, as disclosed herein, destroy both PFASs and associated co-contaminants (hydrocarbons, halogenated solvents) in various waste materials. This includes waste materials generated during site investigation activities at DoD, and other sites. Hydrothermal processing may use less input energy than incineration. Experimental work, described herein, has assessed various parameters of the disclosed technology, including: reaction conditions and reactive amendments to degrade and defluorinate PFASs of concern in water; effectiveness of reactions in addressing components in different AFFF formulations (e.g., sulfonic acid—versus fluorotelomer-based formulations); influence of soils and mineral solids on hydrothermal destruction of PFASs; ability of PFAS-containing IDW to be co-processed with wastewater biosolids; reaction conditions suitable for PFAS destruction and the ability of those conditions to destroy common co-contaminants detected at AFFF-impacted sites; and efficiencies of hydrothermal processing strategies versus incineration. According to some embodiments of the methods of the present disclosure, wastes may also be co-treated with wastewater biosolids to destroy the fluorochemicals and produce liquid and gaseous fuel products.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art the waste biomass of Steven contains perfluoro- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as taught by Strathmann. The motivation to do so is to treat waste biomass containing perfluoro- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under to hydrothermal conditions, as taught by Strathmann and further taught by Steven of treating waste biomass under hydrothermal conditions in order to produce a liquid and gaseous fuel product.
Steven discloses a hydrothermal liquefaction system but fails to teach the system comprising a control system.
However, it is known in the art to add a control system to a hydrothermal liquefaction system, as taught by Chen.
Chen disclose in the abstract, methods of producing bio-fuel and other high-value products from oleaginous biomass (e.g. algae biomass) are provided. The two-step methods use a first step of subcritical water extraction of the biomass at low temperatures to produce polysaccharides and other high value products of interest, followed by, ii) hydrothermal liquefaction of remaining solid biomass at high temperatures to produce bio-oil.
Chen discloses in paragraph 0047, the system of the method may be operably connected to and operable by a controlling element such as computer 40. The computer may be programmed to cause the system to carry out the steps of the methods described herein e.g. to automatically open or close the reactor, attain the correct temperature for a suitable period of time, to cool the reactors, to monitor temperature and pressure, to monitor and correct fluctuations in reaction conditions, to automatically receive or eject the contents of the reactors e.g. by operating valves, etc. The computer may be operated locally and/or via the internet.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the controlling system of Chen to the hydrothermal liquefaction system of Steven. The motivation to do so is to use a controlling system in order to carry out the steps of the method and monitor the reaction conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued: “Applicant has repeatedly argued that Strathman is directed to "methods and systems for treating a waste substance containing perfluoro- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)... [including] holding the combination at hydrothermal conditions for a holding time sufficient to at least partially mineralize the PFAS to create a treated combination." Abstract (emphasis added). With respect to PFAs concentrates, Strathman discloses: "[t]he PFAS-rich reject stream can be fed into a hydrothermal reactor capable of performing the methods of the present disclosure, for mineralization and destruction before being discharged." Para. [0116] (emphasis added). Accordingly, Strathmann is specifically directed to mineralization of PFAS with a contaminated stream, and the solvents and compounds used in Strathmann are directed to mineralization. Strathmann does not and would not disclose this element without including the process of mineralization. It would be improper to cite Strathmann as embracing a system and method that does not include a step of mineralization. More importantly, Steven and Chen are directed to the conversion of biomass to transportation fuels, and not environmental remediation of biomass. Neither of these inventions, however, address PFAS in the biomass and the fate of these chemicals during liquefaction, nor speak to methods of elimination of PFAS from the contaminated biomass. Steven, Strathmann, and Chen do not disclose or suggest, at least, this element. In fact, Strathmann teaches away from the present invention as it only urges mineralization of the PFAS as the method of deactivation and elimination.
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. First, the present claims state “comprising”. Applicants open-ended claim language “comprising” allows for the addition of mineralization of the biomass such as those set forth in the prior art. Second, the presently claimed invention is directed to the “apparatus/system” NOT a composition. Therefore, the claims have been met due to Strathmann discloses a portion of the biomass/waste comprise PFAS and enters the reactors. Additionally, Steven modified by Strathmann and Chen have met the limitations of the presently claimed invention, wherein Strathmann specifically teaches the process of heating and pressurizing under a hydrothermal conditions of combined PFAS in order to destruct PFAS and co-contaminants through decomposition and reformation. Strathmann has met the limitation of “substantially eliminate the PFAS contaminant from at least the portion of the biomass”, as stated in the above rejection. It is maintained, applicants claimed invention, states “heating” or “a heating source” would aid in “substantially eliminate the PFAS”, which is met my the teachings of Strathmann, which discloses the process of heating and pressurizing the biomass containing contaminants, i.e. PFAS, under hydrothermal conditions. It is recommended for applicants to further define the “heating source” if it aids in a particular result, i.e. eliminating PFAS. Therefore, it is maintained Steven modified by Strathmann and Chen have met the limitations of the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nielsen (WO 2021/209555 A1) discloses in the abstract, where thermochemical liquefaction of lignocellulosic biomass is conducted using recirculated product oil as solvent, yields can be substantially increased by addition of a short chain alcohol reactant such as ethanol or methanol. A synergistic effect is thereby obtained where liquefaction is improved over using either recycled product oil or alcohol alone. The combination of re-circulated product oil and alcohol reactant permits high conversion at operating pressures considerably lower than typically applied in alcohol solvolysis, typically within the range 30-60 bar. The liquefaction reaction occurs at subcritical pressure where the alcohol acts as a gaseous reactant and not as a solvent.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 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 on 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771