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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 32 and canceled claims 4, 31 and 33. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, 16-28, 30, and 32-35 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/8/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Coal Research’s teachings about the Hardgrove Grindability index of coal are not directly relevant to the Hardgrove Grindability Index of biocarbon pellets.
While it may be true that said teachings are not directly relevant to the Hardgrove Grindability Index of biocarbon pellets, depending on one’s definition of “directly relevant”, said teachings are nevertheless relevant. Hardgrove Grindability Index is merely a metric by which substance’s grindability can be quantified. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that many of Coal Research’s teachings regarding Hardgrove Grindability Index, for example the teachings to the effect of moisture on HGI, would be broadly applicable to substances other than coal, including biocarbon pellets. Furthermore, considering that: i) coal and biocarbon pellets are both carbonaceous materials, and ii) the biocarbon pellets in the prior art, such as those of Despen, are indicated to be suitable for use as coal substitutes, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have additional reason to expect that the teachings of Coal Research are relevant to the HGI of biocarbon pellets.
Applicant has argued that “One skilled in the art would not assume that the Hardgrove Grindability Index of coal is readily achieved from a biomass-conversion process.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, as newly cited Walter et al. (US 2016/0145519) and Ericsson et al. (US 2016/0053182) provide clear evidence that biocarbon compositions, and indeed biocarbon pellets, having HGI values comparable of coal are achievable.
Walter teaches the manufacture of biocarbon pellets (densified biomass) 18 comprised of a carbonized component 10 and at least one of a biomass 12, a lubricant 14, and a binder 16, wherein the carbonized component 10 may be a carbonized biomass (Figure 1A, paragraphs [0003], [0016], [0019], [0026]). Walter teaches that “The densified biomass may be formed using a combination of carbonized component and at least one of a biomass, lubricant and binder to have a similar grindability index as coal under the Hardgroves [sic] Grindability index (e.g. ball milling a source material until a percentage of the source material can be filtered through a specified mesh size) or any other grindability rating or standard, and/or a similar particle size distribution as coal or any other selected product or Hardgroves [sic] index which may be selected to match expectations and/or requirements of existing or anticipated combustion or processing equipment,” (paragraph [0026]).
Ericsson, which is drawn to a method for producing a biocarbon composition, i.e. biochar, which may be used as a fuel source (abstract, paragraphs [0001], [0035]), teaches the following:
The present biochar preferably is grindable. The coal industry uses the Hardgrove Grindability Index (“HGI”) as a standard test to measure grindability where samples are compared to a standard reference sample (“SRS”). For example, if the grindability of a sample was equal to the SRS coal, it would score 50. A score of less than 50 would indicate a sample is harder to grind and a score of greater than 50 would indicate is easier. The present biochar preferably has a HGI of about 50 or greater, about 52 or greater, about 54 or greater, about 56 or greater, about 58 or greater, about 60 or greater.
(paragraph [0030]).
In view of Ericsson and Walter, Examiner maintains that a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the Hardgrove Grindability Index of coal, i.e. an HGI comparable to that of coal, is readily achieved from a biomass-conversion process.
Applicant has made the following argument regarding the claimed HGI range:
Even if arguendo Coal Research is relevant to biocarbon pellets, there is no suggestion of an optimized range of 40-120 for the Hardgrove Grindability Index. In the second paragraph of page 20 of the Office Action, it is stated that "Coal Research teaches that, when a coal has a high HGI value, a coal mill will have a high output when using said coal, whereas when a coal has a low HGI value, a coal mill will have a low output when using said coal". This general teaching would mean that the higher the better for HGI-not limiting the HGI to be specifically in the 40-120 range.
Examiner’s understanding is that Applicant is arguing that the claimed HGI range is made patentable over coal research by due Applicant’s claiming of an upper limit on HGI, whereas Coal Research allegedly only suggests that HGI should be as high as possible. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
First, newly cited Grassi et al. (US 2012/0192485) clearly shows that the grindability of biocarbon pellets is an art recognized result effective variable (see 103 rejection of claim 1 below for details). Because pellet grindability is an art recognize result effective variable in the manufacture of biocarbon pellets as coal substitutes, it is implicit that pellet grindability as expressed/quantified in terms Hardgrove Grindability Index is also a result effective variable. See below section titled “Regarding the Claimed Hardgrove Grindability Index” for a detailed discussion on this matter.
Regardless of what is taught by Grassi, newly cited Walter et al. (US 2016/0145519), paragraph [0026] thereof in particular, clearly shows that grindability as expressed specifically in terms of Hardgrove Grindability Index is an art recognized result effective variable in the manufacture biocarbon pellets (see 103 rejection of claim 1 below for details). Furthermore, Walter clearly teaches that “The densified biomass may be formed using a combination of carbonized component and at least one of a biomass, lubricant and binder to have a similar grindability index as coal under the Hardgroves [sic] Grindability index…” (paragraph [0026]; emphasis added).
Finally, newly cited Ericsson et al. (US 2016/0053182) teaches that a biochar having an HGI of 50 or higher is desirable, and at least suggests that an HGI of more than 50 is consistent with what one would expect from a desirably grindable coal (paragraph [0030]; see 103 rejection of claim 1 below for details). Said teaching, when taken in combination with Walter’s teachings to the production of biocarbon pellets having an HGI value similar to that of coal and/or which “may be selected to match expectations and/or requirements of existing or anticipated combustion or processing equipment” (Walter: paragraph [0026]), at least suggests that HGI values greater than 50 would be desirable or at least suitable for biocarbon pellets intended for use as a coal substitute.
The HGI range of 50 or more taught by Ericsson overlaps the claimed HGI range of 40-120. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I). "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
In view of the forgoing, the fact that Applicant has set an upper limit on the claimed HGI range is insufficient to patentably distinguish claims from the prior art. To establish patentability on the upper HGI limit, Applicant would have to provide persuasive evidence that said upper limit is critical, i.e. that said upper limit yields unexpected results (see MPEP 716.02 and MPEP 2144.05(III)A for guidance).
Having considered the matter of the claimed upper HGI limit of 120, Examiner finds it unlikely that there is any criticality associated with said upper limit. Coal Research teaches that the test for determining HGI generally results in values which are between 30 and 100 (paragraph 3 of section titled “The Hardgrove Grindability Test”). This teaching would suggest that an HGI of 120 is extraordinarily high, even for coal. Considering Applicant’s well-established position that biocarbon pellets are difficult to grind (see page 10 of the 1/8/2026 Remarks and paragraph [0009] of the published specification), there is little doubt that an HGI of 120 would also be extraordinarily high for Applicant’s biocarbon pellets. Bearing the forgoing in mind, Examiner finds it unlikely that there is much significance, if any, to limiting the HGI of the biocarbon pellets at an HGI of 120.
Furthermore, Coal Research indicates that “The test [for determining HGI] is highly non-linear such that a change in HGI from 90 to 80 results in a small decrease in mill capacity while a change from 50 to 40 leads to a considerably greater decrease in mill capacity,” (paragraph 3 of section titled “The Hardgrove Grindability Test”). By this teaching, Coal Research clearly shows that increasing HGI further and further at some point yields diminishing returns. Considering that HGI is a metric for quantifying grindability, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect other materials, including biocarbon pellets, to exhibit the same diminishing returns with increasing HGI. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that some benefit could be derived from setting an upper limit on biocarbon pellet HGI, as the evidence suggests that increasing the HGI without bound is simply not worth it.
Applicant has argued that the Hargrove Grindability Index of biocarbon pellets is not a result effective variable. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, newly cited Grassi et al. (US 2012/0192485) and especially newly Walter et al. (US 2016/0145519) show that the HGI of biocarbon pellets is an art recognized result effective variable (see 103 rejection of claim 1 below for a detailed discussion of this matter).
Applicant has made the following arguments regarding a statement made by Examiner in the previous Office Action:
On page 20 of the Office Action, it is further argued by the Examiner that "a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that a pellet having an HGI value of at least 30 is possible to attain".1 The phrase possible to attain is a technical issue pertinent to 35 U.S.C. §112, not an obviousness issue under 35 U.S.C. §103.
With respect, it appears that Applicant has misunderstood the relevant point behind the statement in question.
To clarify, Examiner’s meaning behind the statement in question is that, a person having ordinary skill in the art, possessed of the teachings of Coal Research, would have a reasonable expectation of success in manufacturing a biocarbon pellet having an HGI of at least 30. Contrary to Applicant’s statements, a reasonable expectation of success is a matter relevant to obviousness rejections under 103 (see MPEP 2143.02 I).
It appears that Applicant is arguing that: i) there is no motivation in the prior art to modify Despen so as to produce biocarbon pellets having an HGI of 40-120; and ii) the rejections engage in improper hindsight reasoning by taking into account knowledge which can only be gleaned from Applicant’s disclosure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect, this argument fails to acknowledge that the manner in which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the proposed combination has been explained in detail in the 103 rejection of claim 1 set forth in previous Office Actions (see pages 15-18 of the 3/13/2025 Non-Final Rejection and 19-22 of the most recent previous Office Action). Said argument also fails to acknowledge the brief summary provided on pages 3-5 of the most recent previous Office Action, which explains the source of motivation in the combination of Depen, Coal Research, and Cheiky. Examiner refers Applicant to the aforementioned brief summary, and maintains that there was motivation for modifying Despen in the prior art previously relied upon. Examiner further maintains that the rejections maintained in the previous Office Action were not based on any improper hindsight reasoning.
Regardless, the 103 new rejections set forth below are made in reliance on newly cited Grassi et al. (US 2012/0192485), Walter et al. (US 2016/0145519), Ericsson et al. (US 2016/0053182). Motivation to modify Despen so as to produce biocarbon pellets having an HGI of 40-120 can be found in said newly cited references as detailed in the 103 rejection of claim 1 below. Examiner respectfully asserts that said rejections do not engage in any improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding the Claimed Hardgrove Grindability Index
Applicant’s claims describe a process for producing biocarbon pellets having a particular “Hardgrove Grindability Index”.
“Hardgrove Grindability Index” is a metric by which the property of grindability can be quantified. Put differently, “Hardgrove Grindability Index” is a scale by metric one can quantify or express the grindability of a substance, e.g. the grindability of coal or biocarbon pellets. Thus, when Applicant is claiming biocarbon pellets of having a particular Hardgrove Grindability Index, they are effectively claiming biocarbon pellets having a particular grindability, wherein said grindability is expressed/quantified in terms of a Hardgrove Grindability Index value.
If the grindability of a particular substance is recognized in the art as being a result effective variable, said grindability remains a result effective variable regardless of the metric by which it is quantified and/or expressed. Thus, if the prior art recognizes the broad grindability of a particular substance as result effective, the prior art implicitly also recognizes the grindability of said substance in terms of a specific metric as result effective. Accordingly, if the prior art recognizes the grindability of biocarbon pellets as a result effective variable, it also implicitly recognizes the grindability as expressed/quantified in terms of Hardgrove Grindability Index as result effective.
The following are new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, 16-24, 26, 28, 30, and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen et al. (US 2012/0285080), hereafter referred to as Despen, in view of Grassi et al. (US 2012/0192485), hereafter referred to as Grassi, and Walter et al. (US 2016/0145519), hereafter referred to as Walter, Ericsson et al. (US 2016/0053182), hereafter referred to as Ericsson, Australian Coal Research Limited (“The Hardgrove Grindability Index”, ACARP Report, Issue No.5, February 1998), hereafter referred to as “Coal Research”.
With regard to claims 1, 5, and 8: Despen teaches a process of producing biocarbon pellets (paragraphs [0494]-[0515]), the process comprising:
(a) Providing a biomass feedstock (paragraph [0495]).
(b) pyrolysing the biomass feedstock, thereby generating a biogenic reagent (paragraphs [0494]-[0509]), wherein the biogenic reagent comprises at least about 55 wt% carbon (paragraph [0503]), and wherein the biogenic reagent may comprise least about 5 wt% moisture (paragraph [0509]).
(c) Mechanically treating the biogenic reagent thereby generating a plurality of carbon-containing particles, i.e. performing particle-size reduction to obtain a powder form of the reagent (paragraph [0512]).
(d) Combining the carbon-containing particles with a binder, thereby forming a carbon-binder mixture (paragraph [0512]).
(e) Pelletizing the carbon-binder mixture thereby generating biocarbon pellets, i.e. forming the biogenic reagent into structural objects comprising pressed, binded, or agglomerated particles by mechanical pressing or other forces with a binder (paragraph [0512]).
In the interest of clarity, for the purposes of this rejection, steps (b)-(h) of Despen as taught in paragraphs [0496]-[0502]) are relied upon to teach step (b) of the claims. In step (b) (steps (b)-(h) of Despen) the moisture content of the biomass feed (i.e. the biomass obtained from step (a) in Despen) will necessarily be higher than that of the biogenic reagent at the conclusion of step (b) (i.e. at the conclusion of step (h) in Despen) on a wt% basis, as some amount of the moisture in the biomass feed is evaporated in the drying at the beginning of step (b) (i.e. in step (b) of Despen) and implicitly in the pyrolyzing which takes place during step (b) (i.e. in step (d) of Despen) (paragraphs [0496]-[0502]). Therefore, in Despen, the biogenic reagent in step c), i.e. at the start of step c), necessarily comprises less moisture than the biogenic reagent of step (b), i.e. the biogenic reagent at the start of step (b), on a weight basis.
In some embodiments of Despen substantially all of the carbon can in the biogenic reagent can be renewable carbon (paragraphs [0198] and [0546]).
Despen does not explicitly teach that the carbon is renewable “as determined from a measurement of the 14C/12C isotopic ratio of the carbon. However, base Despen indicates the following:
“Carbonaceous materials commonly include fossil resources such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, and lignite; and renewable resources such as lignocellulosic biomass and various carbon-rich waste materials,” (paragraph [0004]).
“biomass is the only renewable source of carbon,” (paragraph [0005]).
“For present purposes, "biogenic" is intended to mean a material (whether a feedstock, product, or intermediate) that contains an element, such as carbon, that is renewable on time scales of months, years, or decades. Non-biogenic materials may be non-renewable, or may be renewable on time scales of centuries, thousands of years, millions of years, or even longer geologic time scales. Note that a biogenic material may include a mixture of biogenic and non-biogenic sources,” (paragraph [0222]).
“In certain embodiments, the fixed carbon may be classified as non-renewable carbon (e.g., from coal) while the volatile carbon, which may be added separately, may be renewable carbon to increase not only energy content but also renewable carbon value,” (paragraph [0547]).
Together all of these teachings indicate that Despen is using the term “renewable” to refer to carbon which is from biomass (e.g. wood) and NOT fossilized biomass (e.g. coal). It is understood that one could determine whether or not a biomass is a fossilized biomass by carbon dating said biomass. Carbon dating is a process which determines the age of a material by measuring the carbon-14 content of said material. Older materials will have a lower carbon-14 content, and therefore, a lower 14C/12C isotopic ratio. Thus, “renewable”, i.e. non-fossilized, biomass such as wood could be distinguished from “non-renewable”, i.e. fossilized, biomass such as coal in terms of 14C/12C isotopic ratio, with renewable biomass having a 14C/12C isotopic ratio above a certain threshold, and non-renewable biomass having 14C/12C isotopic ratio below said certain threshold.
Because the teachings of base Despen point to the term “renewable” as being used to refer to non-fossilized biomass, it is understood that, when Despen teaches that in some embodiments, substantially all of the carbon can in the biogenic reagent can be renewable carbon (paragraphs [0198] and [0546]), base Despen is effectively teaching that in some embodiments, substantially all of the carbon in the biogenic reagent is from a non-fossilized biomass. Thus, it is understood that in some embodiments of base Despen, the carbon in the biogenic reagent is fully renewable as determined from a measurement of the 14C/12C isotopic ratio of the carbon.
In the unlikely alternative, the teachings of Despen (see above) at least suggest forming a biogenic reagent having a carbon content that is fully renewable as determined from a measurement of the 14C/12C isotopic ratio of the carbon. Furthermore, Despen teaches that “There may be certain market mechanisms (e.g., Renewable Identification Numbers, tax credits, etc.) wherein value is attributed to the renewable carbon content within the high-carbon biogenic reagent,” (paragraph [0546]), thereby suggesting that there are certain advantages to the biogenic reagent being comprised fully of carbon.
If it were not already the case in Despen, it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Despen so as to yield an intermediate product in the form of a biogenic reagent having a having a carbon content that is fully renewable as determined from a measurement of the 14C/12C isotopic ratio of the carbon, in order to obtain biocarbon pellets having value that is attributed to a high renewable carbon content.
Despen does not explicitly teach that the biocarbon pellets are characterized by an average Hardgrove Grindability Index of 40-120.
However, Despen teaches that “Some variations of the invention utilize the high-carbon biogenic reagents as coal replacement products. Any process or system using coal can in principle be adapted to use a high-carbon biogenic reagent,” (paragraph [0578]). To one of ordinary skill in the art, said teaching would at least suggest that the biocarbon pellets can be made as a fuel to be used as a substitute for coal. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to manufacture the biocarbon pellets in such a manner to make them useful as a coal substitute.
The prior art provides clear indication that pellet grindability is a result effective variable when manufacturing biocarbon pellets for use as a coal substitute. Grassi, drawn to the manufacture of biocarbon pellets, specifically torrefied biomass pellets (paragraph [0024]), teaches that “Torrefied biomass pellets can be easily handled, are especially attractive rather than using raw biomass because the torrefied biomass pellets have higher heating value and are friable (reducing milling energy needed) and can be blended, pulverized and co-fired with coal as the capital and operating costs for separate biomass fuel feed and firing systems are avoided,” (paragraph [0011]; emphasis added). Though this teaching is concerned with torrefied biomass pellets, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being an individual of ordinary creativity (see MPEP 2141.03 I), would recognize the general applicability of said teaching to any biocarbon pellets intended for use a coal substitute. That is to say, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pellet grindability is a result effective variable in the manufacture of any type biocarbon pellet for use as a coal substitute.
Because pellet grindability is an art recognize result effective variable in the manufacture of biocarbon pellets as coal substitutes, it is implicit that pellet grindability as expressed/quantified in terms Hardgrove Grindability Index is also a result effective variable. See above section titled “Regarding the Claimed Hardgrove Grindability Index” for a detailed discussion on this matter.
Regardless, the prior art expressly acknowledges that grindability as expressed specifically in terms of Hardgrove Grindability Index is a result effective variable in the manufacture biocarbon pellets. Walter teaches the manufacture of biocarbon pellets (densified biomass) 18 comprised of a carbonized component 10 and at least one of a biomass 12, a lubricant 14, and a binder 16, wherein the carbonized component 10 may be a carbonized biomass (Figure 1A, paragraphs [0003], [0016], [0019], [0026]). Walter teaches that “The densified biomass may be formed using a combination of carbonized component and at least one of a biomass, lubricant and binder to have a similar grindability index as coal under the Hardgroves [sic] Grindability index (e.g. ball milling a source material until a percentage of the source material can be filtered through a specified mesh size) or any other grindability rating or standard, and/or a similar particle size distribution as coal or any other selected product or Hardgroves [sic] index which may be selected to match expectations and/or requirements of existing or anticipated combustion or processing equipment,” (paragraph [0026]).
Of further note, Walter teaches that “In various embodiments, the ratio of carbonized component 10 to at least one component chosen from biomass 12, a lubricant 14, and a binder 16 may be adjusted to provide densified biomass 18 having a predetermined or exceeding a predetermined threshold grindability rating (such as the Hargrove [sic] Grindability Index or other appropriate grindability rating),” (paragraph [0026]). Walter also teaches that “Generally increasing the ratio of carbonized component to biomass and/or lubricant and binder can increase the grindability as char can typically be brittle,” (paragraph [0026]). Through these teachings, Walter provides instructions which would allow one to optimize the grindability, and indeed the Hardgrove Grindability Index, of a biocarbon pellet with predictable success, i.e. by manipulating the ratio of carbonized matter to binder in the pellet.
"[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Furthermore, Ericsson, which is drawn to a method for producing a biocarbon composition, i.e. biochar, which may be used as a fuel source (abstract, paragraphs [0001], [0035]), teaches the following:
The present biochar preferably is grindable. The coal industry uses the Hardgrove Grindability Index (“HGI”) as a standard test to measure grindability where samples are compared to a standard reference sample (“SRS”). For example, if the grindability of a sample was equal to the SRS coal, it would score 50. A score of less than 50 would indicate a sample is harder to grind and a score of greater than 50 would indicate is easier. The present biochar preferably has a HGI of about 50 or greater, about 52 or greater, about 54 or greater, about 56 or greater, about 58 or greater, about 60 or greater.
(paragraph [0030]).
The forgoing teaching by Ericsson indicates that a biochar having an HGI of 50 or higher is desirable, and at least suggests that an HGI of more than 50 is consistent with what one would expect from a desirably grindable coal. Said teaching, when taken in combination with Walter’s teachings to the production of biocarbon pellets having an HGI value similar to that of coal and/or which “may be selected to match expectations and/or requirements of existing or anticipated combustion or processing equipment” (Walter: paragraph [0026]), at least suggests that HGI values greater than 50 would be desirable or at least suitable for biocarbon pellets intended for use as a coal substitute.
The HGI range of 50 or more taught by Ericsson overlaps the claimed HGI range of 40-120. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Despen in view of Grassi, Walter, and Ericsson by configuring the biocarbon pellets to have an HGI in the range of 40-120, in order to obtain pellets having a good grindability making them suitable for use as a coal substitute, e.g. in that: i) they do not require large milling energies, ii) they can be used in coal fired systems without special modifications such as a special biomass feeding device, iii) their HGI is similar to that of coal, and/or iv) their HGI matches the expectations and/or requirements of existing coal combustion or processing equipment.
Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the biocarbon pellets have a moisture content of at least about 1% to at most about 30 wt%.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, for the purposes of using Despen’s biocarbon pellets as a coal substitute, a high moisture content would be disadvantageous, as it would lower the heating value of said biocarbon pellets. The disclosure of Grassi affirms that high moisture content is undesirable in fuel compositions (paragraphs [0007], [0024]). On the other hand, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that removing all of the moisture from the biocarbon pellets, i.e. such that their moisture content were below 1 wt%, may be excessively difficult in comparison to the benefits achieved from having a moisture content below 1 wt%. On this basis, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the moisture content of the biocarbon pellets is a result effective variable.
Furthermore, Coal Research, which discusses Hardgrove Grindability Index, teaches that in tests for determining HGI, “There is significant effect due to moisture” (Paragraph 2 of section titled “Test Deficiencies”). Coal Research also teaches that “Moisture plays an important part in both HGI test and in full-scale mill operation,” (Paragraph 3 of section titled “Test Deficiencies”), and that “Excessive moisture in either case reduces mill performance and may well stop it completely,” (Paragraph 3 of section titled “Test Deficiencies”). Although Coal Research discusses HGI values with respect to coal specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the effects of moisture on HGI would extend to substances other than just coal. Accordingly, the teachings of Coal Research would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the moisture content of the biocarbon pellets in Despen is a result effective variable on the additional basis that said moisture content will impact the HGI of said pellets.
"[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Additionally, the formation of biocarbon pellets having a moisture content within the range of 1-30 wt% is known in the art. For example, Walter teaches forming biocarbon pellets having moisture contents within said range (Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Grassi, Coal Research, and Walter by forming the biocarbon pellets so as to have a moisture content of at least about 1% to at most about 30 wt%, in order to obtain biocarbon pellets wherein the HGI and the heating value thereof are within an acceptable range.
With regard to claim 2: The biogenic reagent of modified Despen may comprise at least 70 wt% carbon on a dry basis (Despen: paragraph [0503]).
With regard to claim 3: The biogenic reagent of modified Despen may contain at least 90 wt% fixed carbon (Despen: paragraph [0071]).
With regard to claim 6: Modified Despen teaches that the biogenic reagent may comprise at least 75 wt% total carbon on a dry basis (Despen: paragraph [0503]).
Modified Despen is silent to the carbon content of the biogenic reagent being specifically in the range of 75 wt% to 94 wt %.
However, the claimed range of 75-94 wt% lies entirely within the taught range of at least 75 wt%. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Furthermore, the biogenic reagent in Despen is taught to be a “high-carbon” biogenic reagent. Thus, it is clear that a high carbon content is desirable. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by configuring the biogenic reagent to have a total carbon content in the range of 75-94 wt% on a dry basis, in order to obtain a high carbon biogenic reagent in congruence with the teachings of Despen.
Modified Despen teaches that the biogenic reagent may comprise 10 wt% or less hydrogen on a dry basis (Despen: paragraph [0504]).
Modified Despen is silent to the biogenic reagent comprising a hydrogen content specifically in the range of 1-10 wt% on a dry basis.
However, the claimed range of 1-10 wt % hydrogen lies entirely within the taught range of 10 wt% or less hydrogen. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by configuring the biogenic reagent to have a hydrogen content in the range of 1-10 wt% on a dry basis, in order to obtain a high carbon biogenic reagent in congruence with the teachings of Despen.
Modified Despen is silent to the biogenic reagent comprising 3-15 wt% oxygen on a dry basis.
However, the biogenic reagent in Despen is formed from biomass such as wood (paragraph [0326]). It is understood that biomass such as wood comprises an amount of oxygen, i.e. cellulose and the like in wood is comprised of oxygen. Therefore, the biogenic reagent in Despen would be expected to comprise a certain amount of oxygen originating from the biomass feed which was formed into the biogenic reagent. Furthermore, as discussed above, Despen teaches that the biogenic reagent may comprise 10 wt% or less hydrogen on a dry basis (paragraph [0504]), and that the biogenic reagent may comprise at least 75 wt% total carbon on a dry basis (paragraph [0503]). It is understood that these content ranges leave room for an amount of oxygen in the biogenic reagent. Further still, the Despen teaches examples of biogenic reagents which comprise oxygen contents as high as 30.2 wt% and as low as 4.6 wt% (Tables 3 and 4). Thus, is it expected that the biogenic reagent would be workable if made with an oxygen content of 3-15 wt%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by configuring the biogenic reagent to have an oxygen content in the range of 3-15 wt% on a dry basis, in order to obtain a predictably functional biogenic reagent which is consistent with the teachings of Despen.
With regard to claim 7: The biogenic reagent formed in step (b) of modified Despen may contain at least 10 wt% moisture (Despen: paragraph [0509]).
With regard to claim 9: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach at least partially drying the biocarbon pellets, wherein the at least partially drying results in the biocarbon pellets having less moisture than at least one of the biogenic reagent in step (c), the carbon-containing particles of step (d), or the carbon-binder mixture of step (e).
Walter teaches an embodiment wherein biocarbon pellets (densified biomass) is dried in a step 428 (Figure 4, paragraph [0030]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a step of drying the biocarbon pellets can be used to remove moisture from the pellets so as to increase the heating value of said pellets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Walter by adding a step of at least partially drying the biocarbon pellets, in order to remove moisture therefrom so as to increase the heating value of said pellets. Said step of at least partially drying the biocarbon pellets necessarily results in said pellets having a lower moisture content than at least the carbon-binder mixture in step (e).
With regard to claim 12: Base Despen does not teach drying the biogenic reagent during step (c), nor do any of the modifications to Despen in the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 involve adding an aspect of drying to step (c). Therefore, modified Despen satisfies the limitation requiring that the biogenic reagent is not dried during step (c).
In the alternative, the fact that base Despen does not explicitly teach drying the biogenic reagent during step (c) would give a person having ordinary skill in the art a reasonable expectation that drying was not required during step (c) and that step (c) could be carried out without drying of the biogenic reagent being carried out therein.
If it were not already the case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by carrying out step (c) in such a manner that the biogenic reagent is not dried during step (c), in order to obtain a predictably functional method that is congruent with the teachings of Despen.
With regard to claim 13: Base Despen does not teach drying the biogenic reagent during step (d), nor do any of the modifications to Despen in the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 involve adding an aspect of drying to step (d). Therefore, modified Despen satisfies the limitation requiring that the biogenic reagent is not dried during step (d).
In the alternative, the fact that base Despen does not explicitly teach drying the biogenic reagent during step (d) would give a person having ordinary skill in the art a reasonable expectation that drying was not required during step (d) and that step (d) could be carried out without drying of the biogenic reagent being carried out therein.
If it were not already the case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by carrying out step (d) in such a manner that the biogenic reagent is not dried during step (d), in order to obtain a predictably functional method that is congruent with the teachings of Despen.
With regard to claim 14: Base Despen does not teach drying the biogenic reagent during step (e), nor do any of the modifications to Despen in the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 involve adding an aspect of drying to step (e). Therefore, modified Despen satisfies the limitation requiring that the biogenic reagent is not dried during step (e).
In the alternative, the fact that base Despen does not explicitly teach drying the biogenic reagent during step (e) would give a person having ordinary skill in the art a reasonable expectation that drying was not required during step (e) and that step (e) could be carried out without drying of the biogenic reagent being carried out therein.
If it were not already the case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by carrying out step (e) in such a manner that the biogenic reagent is not dried during step (e), in order to obtain a predictably functional method that is congruent with the teachings of Despen.
With regard to claim 16: As discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 above, modified Despen includes a step of (c) mechanically treating the biogenic reagent thereby generating a plurality of carbon-containing particles, i.e. performing particle-size reduction to obtain a powder form of the reagent (Despen: paragraph [0512]). In other words, Despen teaches a step (c), wherein said step (c) involves milling/grinding (i.e. reducing the size of) the biogenic reagent thereby generating a plurality of carbon-containing particles.
Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that step (c) utilizes a mechanical-treatment apparatus selected from a hammer mill, an extruder, an attrition mill, a disc mill, a pin mill, a ball mill, a cone crusher, a jaw crusher, or a combination thereof.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the said step would need to be carried out using a mill or a crusher of some sort. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that most common mills and crushers would be suitable for milling the biogenic reagent. Further still, the selection of suitable mills for milling a particular material is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, Despen teaches that “The solids may be fed to a unit to reduce particle size. A variety of size-reduction units are known in the art, including crushers, shredders, grinders, pulverizers, jet mills, pin mills, and ball mills,” (paragraph [0377]). This teaching is at least a suggestion that a device such as a pin mill or a ball mill may be used in step (c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by carrying out step (c) using a ball mill or a pin mill, in order to carry out said step of downsizing the biogenic reagent with predictable success.
With regard to claim 17: In modified Despen, steps (c) and (d) are integrated at least in the sense that they are integrated into the same method (Despen: paragraphs [0494]-[0515]).
With regard to claim 18: Modified Despen is silent to the biocarbon pellets comprising about 2-25 wt% of the binder.
However, it is understood that the amount of binder used to form the pellets is a result effective variable. In particular, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using too little binder will result in a pellet that falls apart easily, whereas using a too much binder would at least be an inefficient use of binder.
Furthermore, Walter teaches that “In various embodiments, the ratio of carbonized component 10 to at least one component chosen from biomass 12, a lubricant 14, and a binder 16 may be adjusted to provide densified biomass 18 having a predetermined or exceeding a predetermined threshold grindability rating (such as the Hargrove [sic] Grindability Index or other appropriate grindability rating),” (paragraph [0026]), and that “Generally increasing the ratio of carbonized component to biomass and/or lubricant and binder can increase the grindability as char can typically be brittle,” (paragraph [0026]). These teachings provide a clear indication that the amount of binder in the biocarbon pellets is a result effective variable on the additional basis that the amount of binder will impact the grindability, e.g. the HGI, of the biocarbon pellets.
"[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Walter such that the method of Despen produced biocarbon pellets having a binder content of 2-25 wt%, in order to obtain a biocarbon pellet product which does not disintegrate too easily but has good grindability (i.e. desirable HGI), and which does not use excessive amounts of binder.
With regard to claims 19 and 20: Modified Despen is silent to the binder comprising starch, thermoplastic starch, crosslinked starch, starch polymers, or a derivative thereof, of a combination of the forgoing.
However, base Despen does not provide any specific guidance as to suitable binders for use in the production of the biocarbon pellets. If the method of Despen is to be implemented in reality, one must select a specific binder or combination of binders, as any binder used in the real world will necessarily have a specific composition. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to consult the prior art (i.e. references other than Despen) in order to determine suitable binders and/or combinations of binders.
Walter teaches that the binder 16 for forming the biocarbon pellets (densified biomass) 18 may be corn starch, which Walter describes as a biopolymer (paragraph [0018]). In view of Walter’s teaching, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that starch, specifically corn starch, is suitable for use as the binder in the method of Despen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Walter by selecting corn starch for use as the binder in modified Despen, in order to obtain a predictably functional method wherein the binder has a specific composition, as is necessary to implement Despen’s method in the real world. As evidenced by Walter, corn starch is a polymer starch (paragraph [0018]).
With regard to claims 21-24: As discussed in the rejection of claims 19 and 20 above, the binder in modified Despen comprises corn starch.
Although it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that the binder, being a starch, is one which reduces the reactivity (i.e. thermal and chemical reactivity) of the biocarbon pellet comparted to an otherwise-equivalent biocarbon pellet without the binder, such that the biocarbon pellet has a lower self-heating compared to the otherwise-equivalent biocarbon pellet without the binder.
Note: The notion that a starch binder is one which reduces the reactivity (i.e. thermal and chemical reactivity) of the biocarbon pellet comparted to an otherwise-equivalent biocarbon pellet without the binder, such that the biocarbon pellet has a lower self-heating compared to the otherwise-equivalent biocarbon pellet without the binder, is consistent with Applicant’s own disclosure which identifies starch as a “reactivity-moderating agent” (paragraphs [0057]-[0065]).
With regard to claim 26: In modified Despen, the binder is mixed with the biogenic reagent to form the pellets (Despen: paragraph [0512]). Although it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that a portion of the binder will necessarily end up disposed on the surface of the biocarbon pellets after they are formed.
In the unlikely alternative, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that adding the binder by mixing it with the biogenic reagent so as to form pellets having a portion of the binder disposed on the surfaces thereof would yield functional pellets.
If it were not already the case in modified Despen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen by adding the binder by mixing it with the biogenic reagent so as to form pellets having a portion of the binder disposed on the surfaces thereof, in order to obtain a predictably functional method of producing predictably functional biocarbon pellets.
With regard to claim 28: In Modified Despen, steps (d) and (e) are integrated at least in the sense that they are integrated into the same method (Despen: paragraphs [0494]-[0515]).
With regard to claim 30: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the biocarbon pellets have an average Hardgrove Grindability Index of at least 70, i.e. an HGI of 70-120.
However, as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the grindability, and indeed the HGI, of the biocarbon pellets as a result effective variable in view of the teachings of Grassi and Walter (see rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 above for details). The teachings of Walter provide instructions which would allow one to optimize the grindability, and indeed the Hardgrove Grindability Index, of a biocarbon pellet with predictable success, i.e. by manipulating the ratio of carbonized matter to binder in the pellet (see rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 above for details). "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Additionally, the combined teachings of Walter and Ericsson, suggest that HGI values greater than 50 would be desirable or at least suitable for biocarbon pellets intended for use as a coal substitute (see rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 above for details). Said HGI range of 50 or more overlaps the claimed HGI range of 70-120. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Grassi, Walter, and Ericsson by configuring the biocarbon pellets to have an HGI in the range of 70-120, in order to obtain pellets having a good grindability making them suitable for use as a coal substitute, e.g. in that: i) they do not require large milling energies, ii) they can be used in coal fired systems without special modifications such as a special biomass feeding device, iii) their HGI is similar to that of coal, and/or iv) their HGI matches the expectations and/or requirements of existing coal combustion or processing equipment.
With regard to claim 32: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the biocarbon pellets have an average Hardgrove Grindability Index of 40-70.
However, as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the grindability, and indeed the HGI, of the biocarbon pellets as a result effective variable in view of the teachings of Grassi and Walter (see rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 above for details). The teachings of Walter provide instructions which would allow one to optimize the grindability, and indeed the Hardgrove Grindability Index, of a biocarbon pellet with predictable success, i.e. by manipulating the ratio of carbonized matter to binder in the pellet (see rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 above for details). "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Additionally, the combined teachings of Walter and Ericsson, suggest that HGI values greater than 50 would be desirable or at least suitable for biocarbon pellets intended for use as a coal substitute (see rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 above for details). Said HGI range of 50 or more overlaps the claimed HGI range of 40-70. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Grassi, Walter, and Ericsson by configuring the biocarbon pellets to have an HGI in the range of 40-70, in order to obtain pellets having a good grindability making them suitable for use as a coal substitute, e.g. in that: i) they do not require large milling energies, ii) they can be used in coal fired systems without special modifications such as a special biomass feeding device, iii) their HGI is similar to that of coal, and/or iv) their HGI matches the expectations and/or requirements of existing coal combustion or processing equipment.
With regard to claim 33: Modified Despen does not explicitly teach that the biocarbon pellets have a Pellet Durability Index of at least 90%. However, the method of modified Despen is identical to that of claim 33, i.e. modified Despen’s method anticipates all of the active method steps of claim 33. Therefore, the biocarbon pellet product of modified Despen’s method necessarily has the same properties as the biocarbon pellet product produced by the method of claim 33. Thus, the biocarbon pellets of modified Despen necessarily have a Pellet Durability Index of at least 90%.
With regard to claims 34 and 35: Modified Despen is silent to the process comprising: pre-selecting a Hardgrove Grindability Index for the biocarbon pellets, adjusting process conditions based on the pre-selected Hardgrove Grindability Index, and achieving within ±10% of the pre-selected Hardgrove Grindability Index for the biocarbon pellets, wherein the adjusting process conditions comprises adjusting one or more of pyrolysis temperature, pyrolysis time, mechanical- treatment conditions, pelletizing conditions, binder type, binder concentration, binding conditions, and drying.
However, it is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to adjust process conditions for the purpose of obtaining a product having particular properties. Furthermore, it is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to determine by routine experimentation particular process conditions which yield products having particular desirable properties.
As discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the grindability, and indeed the HGI, of the biocarbon pellets as a result effective variable in view of the teachings Walter (see rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 above for details). The teachings of Walter show that the grindability, and indeed the Hardgrove Grindability Index, of a biocarbon pellet can be manipulated by adjusting the ratio of carbonized matter to binder in the pellet (see rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 above for details). Clearly, adjusting the ratio of carbonized matter to binder in the pellet necessarily involves adjusting binder concentration. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adjusting the ratio of carbonized matter to binder can be accomplished, and is arguably necessarily accomplished, through adjustment of pelletizing and binding conditions.
Furthermore, Coal Research teaches that “There is significant effect due to moisture” (Paragraph 2 of section titled “Test Deficiencies”). Coal Research also teaches that “Moisture plays an important part in both HGI test and in full-scale mill operation,” (Paragraph 3 of section titled “Test Deficiencies”), and that “Excessive moisture in either case reduces mill performance and may well stop it completely,” (Paragraph 3 of section titled “Test Deficiencies”). These teachings serve as a clear indication that HGI values can be manipulated, at least by adjusting the moisture of a sample being tested. Accordingly, person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the HGI value of the biocarbon pellets in Despen can be further manipulated by adjusting the moisture content of said pellets. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that moisture content of the biocarbon pellets can be adjusted by adjusting drying conditions, as well as by adjusting pelletizing and binding conditions, i.e. by adjusting the amount of moisture present during pelletizing.
In view of the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that a preselected HGI can be obtained by adjusting process conditions, wherein adjusting process conditions comprises at least pelletizing conditions, binder concentration, binding conditions, and drying.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Walter and Coal Research such that the method of Despen were to comprise: pre-selecting a Hardgrove Grindability Index for the biocarbon pellets, adjusting process conditions based on the pre-selected Hardgrove Grindability Index such that the process is operated using particular conditions, wherein said conditions have been experimentally determined to yield a product having the particular Hardgrove Grindability Index, and achieving within ±10% of the pre-selected Hardgrove Grindability Index for the biocarbon pellets, wherein the adjusting process conditions comprises adjusting one or more of pelletizing conditions, binder concentration, binding conditions, and drying conditions.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Grassi, Walter, Ericsson, and Coal research as applied to claims 1, 5, and 8 above, and further in view of evidence from Stafford (US 1,609,097).
With regard to claim 25: Stafford teaches that charcoal is porous and absorbent and that the amount of binder required is inordinately large as compared with the corresponding requirements for binding coal and coke (Page 1 Lines 40-40). This indicates that some amount of binder will be absorbed into the pores of charcoal when forming charcoal pellets having binder. The biogenic reagent in modified Despen is charcoal, i.e. pyrolyzed/carbonized biomass (paragraphs [0495]-[0502]). Thus, it is understood that the biogenic reagent has pores and that a portion of the binder will be comprised within the pores when adding the binder forming the pellets in modified Despen.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Grassi, Walter, Ericsson, and Coal research as applied to claims 1, 5, and 8 above, and further in view of Stinson et al. (US 2011/0099887), hereafter referred to as Stinson.
With regard to claim 27: Modified Despen is silent to step (e) utilizing a pelletizing apparatus selected from an extruder, a ring die pellet mill, a flat die pellet mill, a roll compactor, a roll briquetter, a wet agglomeration mill, a dry agglomeration mill, or a combination thereof.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the said step would need to be carried out using a pelletizing apparatus of some sort. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that most pelletizing apparatus would be suitable for milling the biogenic reagent. Further still, the selection of pelletizing apparatus for pelletizing a particular material is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, Stinson teaches a method of forming charcoal pellets (briquettes) (abstract). Stinson teaches that charcoal pellets (briquettes) can be formed by roll pressing or extruding (paragraph [0012]), thus indicating that roll compactors and extruders are suitable devices for use as pelletizing apparatus in formation of charcoal pellets. The biogenic reagent in modified Despen is charcoal, i.e. pyrolyzed/carbonized biomass (paragraphs [0495]-[0502]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that roll compactors and extruders are both suitable pelletizing apparatus for use in Despen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Despen in view of Stinson by utilizing a pelletizing apparatus in the form of a roll compactor or an extruder to carry out step (e) in Despen, in order to obtain a method wherein step (e) is carried out with predictable success.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murica (US 2002/0148716), drawn to the production of charcoal (abstract), teaches that “High volatile matter charcoal is less friable than ordinary hard burned low volatile charcoal and so produces fewer fines during transport and handling,” (paragraph [0124]).
According to Merriam-Webster, “friable” means “easily crumbled or pulverized”. Thus, it is understood that a material which is “friable” is easily grindable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached 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 at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772