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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 7/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13 and 15-17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the non-final Office Action mailed 5/8/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2013/163998, hereinafter Fosbol.
Regarding claim 1, Fosbol teaches a pretreatment arrangement (figure 1) for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass comprising: a) a reactor vessel (item 1) having an upstream inlet (where item 7 is) for receiving biomass (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)) and a downstream outlet (item 9) for discharging biomass, wherein the reactor vessel is configured to operate at a pressure, p1 (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)); b) at least one sluice vessel (items 4, 17 and the valve on item 9 right before item 4) arranged downstream of and in fluid communication with said outlet (figure 1), wherein said sluice vessel (item 4) is adapted for steam explosion (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is taught in page 9, lines 16-17) and comprises a first discharge valve (the valve on item 9 right before item 4), a second discharge valve (item 17) arranged downstream of said first discharge valve (figure 1) and a compartment (item 4) arranged between said first and said second discharge valves (figure 1); said first and said second discharge valves being configured to be operable between an open and a closed position (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)), and c) a tube (item 11) for introducing pressurized steam into said compartment such that the pressure in said compartment is increased to a pressure, p2, which is higher than the pressure, p1, of said reactor vessel when said first and second discharge valves are in a closed position (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)), such that, upon opening said discharge valve, said biomass is released into a lower pressure which causes said biomass to become disintegrated into smaller particles by steam explosion (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)).
Regarding claim 2, Fosbol teaches wherein said sluice vessel (items 4, 17 and the valve on item 9 right before item 4) is connected to said reactor vessel (item 1) by means of a pipe (item 9).
Regarding claim 3, Fosbol teaches wherein said compartment (item 4) comprises a tank (item 4, figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Fosbol and the apparatus of Fosbol is capable of said second discharge valve being opened in one step or in multiple steps. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Fosbol (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 7, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Fosbol and the apparatus of Fosbol is capable of said second discharge valve being opened in multiple steps, such as two steps, wherein the first step is conducted at a lower speed than the following step(s). As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Fosbol (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 8, Fosbol teaches wherein said reactor vessel (item 1) is a vertical reactor vessel (figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Fosbol teaches wherein said sluice vessel (item 4) is a first sluice vessel and wherein said pretreatment arrangement (figure 1) further comprises at least a second sluice vessel (page 12, lines 24-26); said second sluice vessel being arranged in parallel with said first sluice vessel (page 12, lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 11, Fosbol teaches wherein said reactor vessel (item 1) further comprises a scraping device (pages 5-6, lines 27-4) configured to scrape deposits formed on the interior walls (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)) of said reactor vessel (item 1).
Regarding claim 12, Fosbol teaches further comprising a gas valve (item 23) configured to remove gas from said reactor vessel (page 10, lines 24-29).
Regarding claim 17, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Fosbol and the apparatus of Fosbol is capable of opening the second discharge valve in two steps. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Fosbol (see MPEP §2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fosbol in view of United States Application Publication No. 2004/0104002, hereinafter Obitz.
Regarding claim 5, Fosbol teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Fosbol fails to teach said sluice vessel comprises means for measuring the pressure in said sluice vessel.
Obitz teaches an apparatus for the feeding of fibers in which sensors are utilized to sense the pressure within the device which would allow for the system to control the control valves depending upon the result of the measurements (Obitz, paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a pressure sensor the sluice vessel because it would allow for the system to control the control valves depending upon the result of the measurements (Obitz, paragraph [0011]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the Fosbol teaches that pressure in the economizer should be lower than the pressure in the reactor which is the opposite of the invention, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The pressure at which the economizer (flash vessel) and the reactor operates is the intended use of each of these devices, the device of Fosbol could be operated such that the economizer is operated at a higher pressure than the reactor and therefore read on the instant claims. There is no structural limitation which would prevent the economizer from operating at a higher pressure than the reactor.
In response to applicant's argument that the pipe 11 of Fosbol is for removing steam and not adding steam as claimed, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The pipe 11 of Fosbol would be capable of adding steam to the economizer as the economizer is connected to structures in the device which would be able to provide steam and thereby increase the pressure in the economizer (flash vessel).
In response to applicant's argument that Fosbol does not disclose that the economizer is adapted for steam explosion, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Fosbol also discloses that item 4 is a flash vessel and a flash vessel would be capable of allowing for steam explosion when the valves which connect to item 4 is opened.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796