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 .
Support for the amendments is within the instant application specification.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on 5/26/2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 2/24/2026 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application.
Claims 7-12, 15 are pending.
Claims 1-6, 13-14, 16 are canceled.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 1/22/2024 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 9/22/2023 have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive to overcome at least one of the rejections and/or objections as previously applied.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in the instant action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 7-12, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 7 removing the phrases, ‘molecule of interest’ and ‘stable over time’; amendment of claim 9 to remove the phrase ‘stable over time’; amendment of claim 10 to remove the phrase ‘molecule of interest’; amendment of claim 12 to remove the phrase ‘stable over time.’
The rejection of claims 7-11, 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claims 7, 10 removing the phrase, ‘molecule of interest.’
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The rejection of claims 7-12, 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamdem et al (2016, Water Biomass Valor, cited on PTO-892 dated 7/29/2025) {herein Kamdem ‘16} as evidenced by Kamdem et al (2013, World J Microbiol Biotechnol, cited on PTO-892 filed 8/23/2024) {herein Kamdem ‘13} and Khan et al (2010, Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology, cited on PTO-892 dated 7/29/2025) {herein Khan} is maintained. The rejection has been modified in view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 7 removing the phrases, ‘molecule of interest’ and ‘stable over time’; amendment of claim 9 to remove the phrase ‘stable over time’; amendment of claim 10 to remove the phrase ‘molecule of interest’; amendment of claim 12 to remove the phrase ‘stable over time.’
Claims 7-11, 15 are drawn to a method of producing a molecule of interest, comprising: continuously steam-cracking a lignocellulosic biomass having a humidity level of between 5% and 27% without using any chemical auxiliary while applying severity factor of between 3 and 5 to the lignocellulosic biomass, to form a dry pulverulent carbon powder: forming a ready-to-use dry solid composition comprising the dry pulverulent carbon powder and one or more of a microorganism, an enzyme, a microbial biomass, or a micro- algae, wherein the ready-to-use dry solid composition is stable over time: and activating a chemical or biochemical reaction between the dry pulverulent carbon powder and the one or more of a microorganism, an enzyme, a microbial biomass, or a micro-algae in the ready-to-use dry solid composition to produce the molecule of interest.
Claim 12 is drawn to a method of producing a ready-to-use dry solid composition, comprising: continuously steam-cracking a lignocellulosic biomass having a humidity level of between 5% and 27% without any chemical auxiliary while applying a severity factor of between 3and 5 to the lignocellulosic biomass, to form a dry pulverulent carbon powder and combining the dry pulverulent carbon powder with one or more of a microorganism, an enzyme, a microbial biomass, or a micro-algae to form the ready-to-use dry solid composition, wherein the ready-to-use dry solid composition is stable over time.
With respect to claims 7-12, 15, Kamdem ‘16 teaches a method wherein biogas (bioethanol) is produced from the steam-cracking banana lignocellulosic biomass (BLB) comprised of bulbs, leaf, sheaths, petioles-midribs, leaf blades, rachis stems and floral stocks (abstract, page 177, column 2, para 1; page 180, column 1, para 1). Kamdem ‘16 teaches said BLB is prepared according to the method of Kamdem ’13 (page 177, column 2, para 1). Evidentiary reference of Kamdem ’13 is cited to demonstrate that the 6 morphological parts of the banana biomass were sun and air-dried for 30 days then ground in a laboratory blender to produce particles (page 2261, column 1, para 1). Evidentiary reference of Khan is cited to demonstrate that dried banana stems and peels lose 84-90% of their moisture content, after drying (table 1). As such, Examiner is interpreting the moisture content of the dried banana parts taught by Kamdem ’16 to be ~9% which is a 90% reduction in moisture. Examiner is interpreting the humidity level recited in claims 7, 9, 12 to be the same as moisture level. As such, ~9% moisture of BLB, taught by Kamdem ’16 meets the claimed range of between 5% to 27% humidity. Especially since the instant application specification recites ‘biomass having a humidity level that is preferably between 5% and 27% (directly, or optionally after drying) (Instant Application Specification: para 0032). Steam-cracking was carried out at severity factors of 3.16 and 4.29 (page 177, column 2, para 3).
Kamdem ’16 further teaches these treatments use water as the sole input reactant (page 176, column 2, para 2). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that Kamdem ‘16 does not teach the utilization of any chemical auxiliary while applying the severity factor to the dried BLB. Kamdem ‘16 further teaches, after steam-cracking, ash and solid fractions containing sugars were formed (page 177, column 2, para 2 and table 2). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the ash taught by Kamdem ’16 is the same as ‘dry pulverulent carbon powder’ as it known by those of ordinary skill in the art to be a powdery, grayish-white to black residue composed of noncombustible minerals. Furthermore, since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing Applicants’ steam-cracked lignocellulosic biomass with the steam-cracked lignocellulosic biomass of the prior art, the burden is on the Applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed method and the method of the prior art (i.e., that the steam-cracked lignocellulosic biomass of the prior art does not possess the same composition of the claimed steam-cracked lignocellulosic biomass of being a dry pulverulent carbon powder). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.
In addition, Kamden ’16 teaches anaerobic microorganisms are mixed with the ash and solid fractions to produce biogases comprised of H2 and O2 (page 177, column 1, para 1). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the ash and solid fractions produced from the steam-cracking of the BLB to be pulverulent carbon as it is comprised of carbon (waste product of banana) and subsequently utilized in conjunction with anaerobic microorganisms, without any additional manipulations, during fermentation for the production of biogas. Since the art teaches the structure of a method of producing a molecule of interest (Examiner interpreted biogas) via steam-cracking lignocellulosic matter, it is the Examiners position that the dry solid composition would necessarily be stable over time especially since the utilization of the dry solid composition (pulverulent carbon) results in the production of a biogas (page 180, column 1, para 1). Since Kamdem ’16 further teaches the treatments use water as the sole input reactant (page 176, column 2, para 2) and that water is mixed with the lignocellulosic biomass to produce biogas (bioethanol) (page 176, column 2, para 1), it is the Examiner’s position that the interaction between the pulverulent carbon, water and anaerobic microorganisms necessarily activates a chemical or biochemical reaction as said reaction results in the production of biogas. It is the Examiner’s position that the production of bioethanol as a result of fermentation is in the field of bioenergies since it is known by those of ordinary skill in the art that bioethanol is a biofuel, which is considered bioenergy as it is utilized as an energy source. Kamdem ’16 further teaches that steam cracking increases the accessibility of lignocellulosic biomass derived fermentable substrate to enzymes, leading to a hydrolytic yield of about 95% (page 176, column 2, para 1).
For the reasons stated herein, the teachings of Kamdem ’16 anticipate claims 7-12, 15.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 4 of Applicant’s remarks, in summary, Applicant contends that neither Kamdem '16, Kamdem '13 nor Khan discloses a method that involves forming a dry solid composition comprising dry pulverulent carbon powder and a reagent material (e.g., a microorganism, an enzyme, a microbial biomass, or a micro-algae) – let alone the dry solid composition wherein the reagent material therein is inactive until an activation step is performed in order to activate the reagent material in the dry composition for the reaction with the dry pulverulent carbon powder.
The argument is not persuasive. Kamdem ‘16 teaches, steam-cracking resulted in the production of ash and solid fractions (dry pulverulent carbon powder) (page 177, column 2, para 2 and table 2). Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing Applicants’ steam-cracked lignocellulosic biomass with the steam-cracked lignocellulosic biomass of the prior art, the burden is on the Applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed method and the method of the prior art (i.e., that the steam-cracked lignocellulosic biomass of the prior art does not possess the same composition of the claimed steam-cracked lignocellulosic biomass of being a dry pulverulent carbon powder). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594. Examiner further contends that Kamdem ’16 teaches the treatments of the heat cracked lignocellulosic biomass using water as the sole input reactant (page 176, column 2, para 2), in the absence of any chemical auxiliary.
Applicant contends that Kamdem '16 does not disclose the process of biogas production in detail.
The argument is not persuasive. Examiner contends that Kamden disclosing the process of biogas production ‘in detail’ is not a required limitation of the instant application claims. Additionally, Examiner is unclear what Applicant means by ‘in detail’ as said phrase can encompass a number of different things. Examiner maintains that Kamdem ’16 teaches the claimed method for the production of biogas within the limitations recited within the instant application claims.
Applicant contends that none of the cited references utilize the enzyme selected from cellulases, beta-glucosidases and hemicellulases for the chemical or biochemical reaction with the dry pulverulent carbon powder.
The argument is not persuasive. Examiner contends that the recitation ‘one or more of a microorganism, an enzyme, a microbial biomass, or a micro-algae’ does not necessitate that Kamdem ’16 teaches ‘an enzyme selected from cellulases, beta-glucosidases and hemicellulases’ due to the recitation ‘or.’ Said recitation includes a microorganism, an enzyme, a microbial biomass, or a micro-algae, of which Kamdem ’16 teaches ‘a microorganism.’
Conclusion
Status of Claims
Claims 7-12, 15 are pending.
Claims 1-6, 13-14, 16 are canceled.
Claims 7-12, 15 are rejected.
No claims are in condition for allowance.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0360. The examiner can normally be reached mf 7:30a - 4:30p.
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, Manjunath Rao can be reached at 571-272-0939. 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.
/ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights