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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 40, 41, 43-46, and 49-56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (Sustainable Energy Fuels, 2018, 2, 637).
Considering Claims 40, 41, 43-46, 49-56: Huang et al. teaches a process comprising a mixture comprising wood/lignocellulose feedstock, methanol, a ruthenium catalyst, and hydrogen gas to a temperature of 250 ºC at a pressure of 1 MPa/10 bar for 3 hours (Section 2.4).
The original specification teaches that the use of ruthenium catalyst, the claimed catalyst, and the claimed reaction time result in the claimed compounds in the claimed ratios (28:35-30:14; 32:22-35). The hydrogen pressure is within the range disclosed in the original specification to provide the result (29:16-24).
Huang et al. is silent towards the molecular weight, dispersity, and OH content of the lignin material. However, Huang et al. teaches the same processing conditions and starting materials as disclosed in the original specification. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 60 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (Sustainable Energy Fuels, 2018, 2, 637) as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Illy et al. (Polymer Chemistry, 2015, 6(35), 6257-6291).
Considering Claims 60 and 61: Huang et al. teaches the product of claim 40, as shown above.
Huang et al. does not teach producing a flame retardant from the composition. However, Illy et al. teaches reacting lignin or monomeric lignin derivative phenolics with phosphorous compounds (Section 4.1, 4.2) to provide a flame retardant compound (Section 4.1, 4.2). Huang et al. and Illy et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lignin derivatives. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have phosphorylated the lignin material of Huang et al., as in Illy et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Illy et al. suggests, to provide bio-based flame retardant materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 57 and 59 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed process for producing an engineered composition comprising aromatic compounds having the claimed properties. The closest prior art of record is Huang et al. (Sustainable Energy Fuels, 2018, 2, 637). Huang et al. teaches a process comprising a mixture comprising wood/lignocellulose feedstock, methanol, a ruthenium catalyst, and hydrogen gas to a temperature of 250 ºC at a pressure of 1 MPa/10 bar for 3 hours (Section 2.4).
Huang et al. does not teach the claimed hydrogen pressure, which is 2 to 4 times higher than claimed. There is no suggestion in Huang et al. to increase the hydrogen pressure or reasonable expectation of the effects of increasing the amount of hydrogen pressure. As such, the hydrogen pressure is not been established to be a result effective variable, and it would not have been obvious to increase the temperature to the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 20-23, filed May 29, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 40, 41, 43-46, 49-57, and 59-61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang et al. and Illy et al..
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights