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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference characters 122, 124 mentioned in the Specification, paragraphs [0050], [0051]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims are rejected for the following reasons.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “determining an optimized end-product…based on…local conditions,” which renders the claim vague and indefinite because the claim does not specify what the “local conditions” are. The term “local conditions” without more may imply an infinite number of conditions. It is also unclear whether the term “local” is intended to denote conditions local to each bioreactor or conditions local to where the end-product is desired to be put to use. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by the term “local conditions.”
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kung et al. (WO 2018/213474) in view of Haus et al. (WO 2020/169171).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Kung et al. teaches a method for a reactor-based biomass processing, within a biomass reactor (see Abstract), comprising:
detecting a biomass input, comprising: detecting the biomass type, detecting the biomass quality, comprising detecting the biomass composition including the biomass moisture content, and detecting the biomass quantity (page, 10, line 31 to page 11, line 6; page 24, lines 16-24; page 37, lines 26-33);
determining an optimized end-product, wherein the end-product is at least partially based on: a selected production target, the biomass input, and on local conditions (see page 24, line 16-28; page 26, lines 1-21; page 44, lines 14-20); and
producing the end-product, comprising: monitoring reaction conditions (see page 23, lines 26-32), configuring the reactor for the output production, based at least partially on biomass input, wherein configuring the reactor includes adjusting an oxygen flow rate into the reactor, and implementing a biomass decomposition (see page 21, lines 11-32; page 39, lines 3-10).
Thus, the instantly claimed method differ from the method of Kung et al. in that the reference Kung et al. is silent with respect to carrying out the method for each biomass reactor over a network of biomass reactors (i.e., bioreactors).
The reference Haus et al. teaches a method for controlling a plurality of parallel reactors (21-23) (i.e., network of reactors) such that an optimum amount of at least one reactant (4-6) is fed into each reactor based on a desired total product (7) or effluent (8) output from the plurality of reactors (see Abstract; page 3, lines 1-12; page 14, line 12 to page 15 line 20; Fig. 1). The method involves controlling the plurality of parallel reactors (21-23), wherein a control unit (3) communicates control variables to the reactors, and one of the control variables is a feed target (4-6), which is a threshold value regarding the feed of the reactor. The plurality of reactors adjust their parameters according to their inner boundary conditions and the received control variables in order to maximize the target value. The control unit comprises a total feed target and sets the respective feed targets for the plurality of reactors such that the sum of the feed targets of the plurality of reactors is lower or equal to the total feed target (see page. 13, lines 9-16; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaches of Kung et al. and Haus et al., and applied the reactor control method of Haus et al. to the biomass processing method of Kung et al. such that the biomass processing method of Kung et al. can be optimally carried out over a network of reactors, as claimed by applicant, since the reference Haus et al. teaches that the modification provides for available resources to be used efficiently without affecting the requirements of each reactor to operate optimally (see page 2, lines 1-28).
Regarding claim 2, the references Kung et al. and Haus et al. teach the method, wherein the biomass input comprises multiple biomasses (see Kung et al: page 13, lines 24-32; page 62, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, the references Kung et al. and Haus et al. teach the method, wherein the optimized end-product comprises multiple end-products (see Kung et al: page 43, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 4, the references Kung et al. and Haus et al. teach the method, wherein the multiple end-products comprise heat energy and activated carbon (see Kung et al: page 14, lines 21-25; page 43, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 5, the references Kung et al. and Haus et al. teach the method, wherein determining an optimized end-product is dependent on the entire network, and wherein the biomass input and the local conditions are unique to each reactor (see Haus et al: page 3, lines 1-26).
Regarding claim 6, the references Kung et al. and Haus et al. teach the method, wherein the method may be implemented remotely (see Kung et al: page 43, lines 28 to page 44, line 4).
Regarding claim 7, the references Kung et al. and Haus et al. teach the method, wherein the implementing the biomass decomposition comprises converting the biomass at least partially into heat energy (see Kung et al: page 11, lines 7-10; page 43, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 8, the references Kung et al. and Haus et al. teach the method, wherein the heat energy production is coupled to a second reaction, thereby converting a compound into the optimized end-product by using the heat energy (see Kung et al: page 11, lines 7-10; page 43, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 9, the references Kung et al. and Haus et al. teach the method, wherein the implementing the biomass decomposition comprises converting the biomass at least partially into activated carbon (see Kung et al: page 14, lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 10, the references Kung et al. and Haus et al. teach the method, wherein the biomass input comprises agricultural residue (see Kung et al: page 13, lines 29-32; page 46, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 11, the references Kung et al. and Haus et al. teach the method, wherein the agricultural residue comprises coconut residue (see Kung et al: page 13, lines 29-32; page 46, lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 12, the references Kung et al. and Haus et al. teach the method, wherein the optimized end-product comprises a fertilizer (see Kung et al: 42, page 18-20), and wherein determining the optimized end-product fertilizer is at least partially based on: the biomass input (see Kung et al: page 25, line 27-31), current soil conditions (Kung et al. page 42, lines 18-21). The references Kung et al. and Haus et al. however, do not disclose wherein determining the optimized end-product fertilizer is at least partially based on a selected farm crop to grow. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize production of the end-product fertilizer based on a selected farm crop to grow since the reference Kung et al. suggest for the production of end products that can more easily be consumed locally (see Kung et al. page 45, line 32 to page 46, line 2).
Regarding claim 13, the references Kung et al. and Haus et al. teach the method, wherein the biomass input comprises rice residue (see Kung et al: page 13, lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 15, the references Kung et al. and Haus et al. teach the method, wherein the detecting the biomass input is an iterated process over multiple applications of the method, such that details regarding the biomass input improve over iterations (see Kung et al. page 61, lines 18-30; page 74, lines 22-26; page 137, lines 11-24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774