DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 90, 97, and 99 are amended. Claims 1-89, 106, and 107 are cancelled.
The amendment to claim 90 overcomes the previous claim objection. The amendment to claim 97 overcomes the previous 112(b) rejection, but creates a new 112(b) issue, as explained below.
Claims 90-105, 108, and 109 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 and in the paragraph bridging pages 11-12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Vasbinder teaches that the second separation is effective at removing water present in the bio-oil, that Vasbinder recites the amount of water in the biomass feedstock is irrelevant, and that Vasbinder uses a water spray for cooling. Thus, it is argued that one ordinary skill in the art would understand the moisture content is irrelevant to Vasbinder and consider it illogical to specify the moisture content.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Vasbinder does teach that the separation removes water regardless of the water content of the “wood chips introduced to the conversion unit 1” (paragraph [0105]), as Applicant argues. However, Vasbinder also explicitly teaches that the feedstock is dried in zone 1C (paragraph [0035]), which is part of the conversion unit 1 and is present before the pyrolysis and separation sections. Thus, it does not follow that Vasbinder necessarily considers the water content in the chips after drying irrelevant, only that the original moisture content is not relevant. As such, it remains obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to related prior art to determine a suitable moisture content obtained after drying the biomass, because the drying is explicitly taught by Vasbinder.
On page 10 and in the paragraph bridging pages 11-12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Vasbinder recites in paragraph [0123] that there is no need to carry out additional process steps in order to facilitate the removal of water from the bio-oil, and thus it is unclear why one of ordinary skill would incorporate unnecessary restrictions.
In response, the Examiner notes that the “additional process steps” in paragraph [0123] of Vasbinder cited by Applicant include adjusting the specific gravity of the fluids produced by the process, which is not relevant to the discussion of to the control of the moisture content in the dried biomass. Further, as explained above, Vasbinder explicitly teaches drying the biomass in section 1C, and as such including the drying of the biomass is not adding additional process steps to Vasbinder. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art is not incorporating unnecessary restrictions in the process of Vasbinder.
In the paragraphs bridging pages 10-11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Purdy is overall directed to forming syngas, where the pyrolysis step is merely an intermediate step, and thus one would not look to Purdy when looking for the moisture content of biomass for pyrolysis.
In response, the Examiner notes that Purdy specifically teaches passing wood chips into a reactor for pyrolysis to produce pyrolysis oils, gas, and char (column 4, lines 6-10 and 22-30) which are similar products to the process of Vasbinder and the claimed process. While Purdy does then go on to further react the pyrolysis oils in a gasification step, this does not negate the fact that the pyrolysis step to produce the pyrolysis oils is explicitly taught by Purdy, and thus Purdy is relevant prior art to the process of Vasbinder. Further, Vasbinder explicitly teaches drying the wood chips, and merely is silent regarding the level of moisture after drying. Purdy continues to teach that a moisture content of 6 wt% is suitable for the pyrolysis step (column 4, lines 40-46), which again teaches similar products as the process of Vasbinder. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art looking for a suitable moisture content for the drying step of Vasbinder would continue to find Purdy related prior art which teaches a suitable moisture content for pyrolysis of wood chips.
On page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that it is cherry picking to select the moisture content of Purdy because there is no benefit explained in Purdy as to the moisture content of the biomass chips.
In response, Vasbinder already teaches the drying. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine suitable moisture content values for the dried biomass, in order to ensure the process of Vasbinder functions as desired. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated look to related prior art to see if suitable values are known. Purdy teaches that the dried biomass for pyrolysis has a moisture content which “should be” less than 10 wt% and most preferably about 6 wt% (column 4, lines 43-46). Thus, Purdy motivates that for the pyrolysis to function, it is desired that there be a specific moisture content of preferably about 6 wt%. This is sufficient motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the moisture content of Purdy to the drying step of Vasbinder, in order to make sure the pyrolysis functions as taught.
On pages 13-16 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the secondary references also do not teach the moisture content of the biomass, and thus cannot overcome the issues with Vasbinder and Purdy discussed above.
In response, the secondary references are not used to teach the moisture content of the biomass and are not needed to overcome any issues, as explained above, and thus the arguments are moot.
On page 17, Applicant argues that the Examiner has not “provided a reasoned explanation of how the present claims are anticipated by or obvious over the patented claims sufficient to discharge its burned of establishing a requisite prima facie case…”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each and every Double Patenting rejection presented in the previous rejection and again below has an explicit statement of differences and obviousness as required. The only change is that the provisional ODP over 18/028534 has transitioned into an ODP over the patent US 12,516,249 issued from the application. Thus, the Double Patenting rejections are properly maintained.
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 97 and 98 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.
With regard to claim 97, the claim recites in line 3 “preferably”. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the claim only requires the limitation of “filtering the hydrocarbon feedstock to at least partially remove contaminants” and that all the wording after the phrase “preferably” is optional.
With regard to claim 98, the claim is rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 90-96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasbinder et al. (US 2018/0179447) in view of Purdy et al. (US 4,497,637).
With regard to claims 90, 93, 94, and 96, Vasbinder teaches a process comprising (see Figure 1 and paragraphs [0031]-[0039]):
a) and b): providing and drying (reducing moisture content instant claim 94) fresh wood chips (biomass) in zone 1C resulting a in a dried biomass (paragraph [0035]).
c): pyrolyzing the dried biomass (paragraph [0122]) in zone 1B producing a pyrolysis product (paragraph [0034]) at a temperature in excess of 1000°C (paragraph [0125]), which is identical to the claimed range.
d): collecting individual products simultaneously from the pyrolysis product, including bio-char (instant claims 90 and 96), pyrolysis gas (non-condensable gases instant claims 90 and 96), bio-oil (hydrocarbon feedstock), and a third fluid (paragraph [0124]) where the third fluid is primarily water (instant claims 90 and 96) (paragraph [0129]). Thus, as Vasbinder teaches simultaneous collection of all the products by separation where the pyrolysis reactor is linked to the separators, the pyrolysis product must initially be a mixture of all the components before separation, as claimed.
Vasbinder does not specifically teach the moisture content of the biomass after drying. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related art to find a suitable amount of moisture left in wood chips for pyrolysis.
Purdy teaches a process for pyrolysis of biomass (Title) to produce pyrolysis oils, gas, and char (column 4, lines 6-10) where the biomass comprises wood chips (column 4, lines 22-23). Purdy teaches the process comprises drying and sizing the wood chips such that the chips comprise about 6 wt% moisture (reducing the moisture of the biomass feedstock instant claim 94) (column 4, lines 40-46) before the pyrolysis, which is within the range of 10 wt% or less of instant claim 90 and the range of 7 wt% or less of instant claim 93.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to dry the wood chips of Vasbinder to have a moisture content of about 6 wt% as taught by Purdy, because Vasbinder and Purdy each teach pyrolysis of dried wood chips including a drying step to produce oils, gas, and char, Vasbinder does not specifically teach the level of moisture content of the wood chips after drying, and Purdy teaches that a moisture content of about 6 wt% is suitable for pyrolysis of wood chips to produce pyrolysis oils, gas, and char (column 4, lines 6-10).
With regard to claim 91, Vasbinder teaches that the biomass is wood chips (paragraph [0035]), which are known in the art to include cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin.
With regard to claim 92, Vasbinder does not explicitly teach the original moisture content of the wood chips. However, Vasbinder teaches that they are green (fresh) wood chips, and the instant specification recites that fresh wood typically has a moisture content of 50 to 60 wt% (page 9, line 20). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the wood chips of Vasbinder to have a similar moisture content, which overlaps the range of up to 50 wt% of instant claim 92, rendering the range prima facie obvious, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 95, Vasbinder is silent regarding the pressure. However, Vasbinder teaches controls and sensors for pressure to regulate the method (paragraph [0114]). Thus, the pressure is a result-effective variable, and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the pressure to be atmospheric pressure or 850-1000 Pa, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 97 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasbinder et al. (US 2018/0179447) in view of Purdy et al. (US 4,497,637) as applied to claim 90 above, and further in view of Winter (US 2010/0273899).
With regard to claim 97, Vasbinder in view of Purdy teaches the method above where the bio-oil (hydrocarbon feedstock) is separated from the product in step (c).
Vasbinder does not explicitly teach that the separation includes filtering to remove contaminants.
Winter teaches a method for conversion of biomass comprising a pyrolysis step which is followed by filtering the effluent to remove tars and/or particulates (contaminants) (paragraph [0089]). Winter further teaches the filtering can allow the product stream to be fed to further reactions for additional benefits (paragraph [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the filtering of Winter during the separating of the product of Vasbinder, because Vasbinder and Winter each teach pyrolysis of biomass to produce products, and Winter teaches filtration to remove tars before further reactions for additional benefits (paragraph [0089]).
Claim 98 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasbinder et al. (US 2018/0179447) in view of Purdy et al. (US 4,497,637 in view of Winter (US 2010/0273899) as applied to claim 97 above, and further in view of Fagbemi et al. (Pyrolysis products from different biomasses).
With regard to claim 98, Vasbinder in view of Purdy and Winter teaches the method above, where the pyrolysis product is filtered to remove tar (paragraph [0089]).
Vasbinder in view of Purdy and Winter does not specifically teach returning the tar (contaminants) to the pyrolysis reactor.
Fagbemi teaches pyrolysis of biomass (Introduction) which produces tars (page 294, Figure 1). Fagbemi further teaches that thermal cracking (pyrolysis) of tar at elevated temperatures produces a purified gas which can be used as feedstock for combustion engines (page 301, Section 3.4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to recycle the tars to the pyrolysis reactor, because Winter and Fagbemi each teach pyrolysis of biomass which produces tars, Winter teaches separating the tars, and Fagbemi teaches that thermal cracking (pyrolysis) of the tars produces a purified gas which can be used as feedstock for combustion engines (page 301, Section 3.4).
Claims 99-105, 108, and 109 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasbinder et al. (US 2018/0179447) in view of Purdy et al. (US 4,497,637) and Fingland et al. (US 2013/0338414).
With regard to claims 99, 100, and 103, Vasbinder teaches a process comprising (see Figure 1 and paragraphs [0031]-[0039]):
a) and b): providing and drying (reducing moisture content instant claim 94) fresh wood chips (biomass) in zone 1C resulting a in a dried biomass (paragraph [0035]).
c): pyrolyzing the dried biomass (paragraph [0122]) in zone 1B producing a pyrolysis product (paragraph [0034]) at a temperature in excess of 1000°C (paragraph [0125]), which is identical to the claimed range.
d): collecting individual products simultaneously from the pyrolysis product, including bio-char (instant claim 99), pyrolysis gas (non-condensable gases instant claim 99), bio-oil (hydrocarbon feedstock), and a third fluid (paragraph [0124]) where the third fluid is primarily water (instant claim 99) (paragraph [0129]). Thus, as Vasbinder teaches simultaneous collection of all the products by separation where the pyrolysis reactor is linked to the separators, the pyrolysis product must initially be a mixture of all the components before separation, as claimed.
Vasbinder teaches the bio-oil (hydrocarbon product) can be used for fuels (paragraph [0183]).
Vasbinder does not specifically teach i) the moisture content of the biomass after drying or ii) the specific process steps for processing the bio-oil by hydroprocessing reactions including desulfurization, hydro-treating, and hydroisomerizing to produce a bio-jet fuel.
With regard to i), because Vasbinder is silent regarding the moisture content, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related art to find a suitable amount of moisture left in wood chips for pyrolysis.
Purdy teaches a process for pyrolysis of biomass (Title) to produce pyrolysis oils, gas, and char (column 4, lines 6-10) where the biomass comprises wood chips (column 4, lines 22-23). Purdy teaches the process comprises drying and sizing the wood chips such that the chips comprise about 6 wt% moisture (reducing the moisture of the biomass feedstock instant claim 94) (column 4, lines 40-46) before the pyrolysis, which is within the range of 10 wt% or less of instant claim 90 and the range of 7 wt% or less of instant claim 93.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to dry the wood chips of Vasbinder to have a moisture content of about 6 wt% as taught by Purdy, because Vasbinder and Purdy each teach pyrolysis of dried wood chips including a drying step to produce oils, gas, and char, Vasbinder does not specifically teach the level of moisture content of the wood chips after drying, and Purdy teaches that a moisture content of about 6 wt% is suitable for pyrolysis of wood chips to produce pyrolysis oils, gas, and char (column 4, lines 6-10).
With regard to ii), Fingland teaches a method for hydroprocessing feed streams comprising biomass-derived feedstocks to produce fuels (paragraph [0002]) comprising the following steps:
a) passing a feedstock comprising biomass pyrolysis oils (paragraph [0034]) to a first hydroprocessing step which includes hydrodesulfurizing (instant claim 100) and deoxygenating (hydrotreating) (paragraph [0047]) in the presence of a catalyst (instant claim 103) (paragraph [0048]).
b) passing the effluent from the first hydroprocessing step to a second hydroprocessing step for dewaxing including hydroisomerization (paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
c) fractionating the product to produce a jet fuel (bio-derived jet fuel fraction) (paragraph [0071]).
Fingland further teaches that there is an increasing demand for alternative resources for use as hydrocarbon based fuels (paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to pass the bio-oil of Vasbinder in view of Purdy to the hydroprocessing process of Fingland because Vasbinder in view of Purdy teaches that the bio-oil can be used as fuels, and Fingland teaches a process for producing desirable bio-derived fuels from biomass feedstocks including pyrolysis oils (paragraph [0003]).
With regard to claim 101, Fingland teaches that the first hydroprocessing step comprising hydrodesulfurizing and hydrodeoxygenating (hydrotreating) is performed at a temperature of about 288 to about 371°C (paragraph [0051]) which is with the range of 250-400°C of instant claim 101. Fingland further teaches the pressure is about 4.8 to about 13.8 MPag (paragraph [0051]), which overlaps the range of 4 to 6 MPaG of instant claim 101, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 102, Fingland teaches that the first hydroprocessing zone converts the sulfur into H2S which is removed (degassing as claimed) (paragraph [0053]).
In additional teachings for claim 103, Fingland teaches that the first hydroprocessing step comprising hydrodesulfurizing and hydrodeoxygenating (hydrotreating) is performed at a temperature of about 288 to about 371°C (paragraph [0051]) which overlaps the range of 250-350°C of instant claim 103, rendering the range prima facie obvious. Fingland further teaches the pressure is about 4.8 to about 13.8 MPag (paragraph [0051]), which overlaps the range of 4 to 6 MPaG of instant claim 103, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 104, Fingland teaches that the second hydroprocessing step comprising isomerization is performed with a catalyst (paragraph [0056]) at a temperature of 288 to about 371°C and a pressure of about 4.8 to about 13.8 MPag (paragraph [0066]). These overlap the ranges of 260-370°C and 4 to 6 MPaG of instant claim 104, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 105, Fingland teaches separating light gases from the second hydroprocessing effluent (isomerization product) (paragraph [0071]).
With regard to claim 108, Fingland teaches that the second hydroprocessing effluent is fractionated to produce a naphtha fraction and a jet fraction (paragraph [0071]). Fingland does not specifically teach the cut point (endpoint) for the naphtha or the jet fraction. However, the cut point of 150°C and the cut point of 280-320°C are known endpoints for naphtha and jet fuel, respectively, and it is known in the art to select an endpoint to produce a desired product range. As such, the selection of the end point is a result-effective variable that can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the naphtha endpoint of 150°C and the jet fuel endpoint in the range of 280-320°C as claimed, through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With regard to claim 109, Vasbinder in view of Purdy and Fingland does not specifically teach the amount of bio-oil in the jet fraction. However, Vasbinder in view of Purdy and Fingland teaches the same process of pyrolysis of dried biomass having the same moisture content and separation to recover a bio-oil, followed by similar hydroprocessing steps and fractionation to produce a similar jet fuel fraction. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the jet fraction of Vasbinder in view of Purdy and Fingland would have the same composition of 60 to 60 wt% of the refined bio-oil, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 90-98 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 58, 59, 62, 63, 65, 67, and 70-73 of copending Application No. 18/270,568 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combined claims 58 and 65 of Application 18/270,568 encompass instant claim 90.
Instant claim 90 recites a method comprising a) providing a biomass feedstock, b) ensuring the moisture content is 10% or less by weight, c) pyrolyzing at a temperature in excess of 1000°C to form a mixture comprising biochar, hydrocarbon feedstock, water, and non-condensable gases, and d) separating the hydrocarbon feedstock from the mixture.
Claim 58 of Application 18/270,568 recites a method comprising a)-c) providing a biomass feedstock having a moisture content of 10% or less by weight and pyrolyzing to form a mixture comprising biochar, hydrocarbon feedstock, water, and non-condensable gases, and d) separating the hydrocarbon feedstock from the mixture. Claim 65 of Application 18/270,568 recites the temperature for the pyrolysis is at least 1000°C.
Dependent claims 91-98 in the instant application and 59, 62, 63, 67, and 70-73 of Application 18/270,568 recite the biomass feedstock comprises cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin; the initial moisture content up to 50 wt%, the moisture content reduced to 7 wt% or less, the pressure of the pyrolysis; separating biochar, water, and/or non-condensable gases; filtering contaminants; and recycling the contaminants.
The differences are i) the temperatures are not identical and ii) claim 58 of Application 18/270,568 recites additional steps not present in the instant claims.
With regard to i), the temperature of Application 18/270,568 of at least 1000°C overlaps the instant temperature of in excess of 1000°C, rendering the range obvious.
With regard to ii), the claims are not identical, but the claims of Application 18/270,568 encompass the instant claims, rendering the instant claims not patentably distinct.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 90-98 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 83, 84, 86, 87, 89, 90, and 92-94 of copending Application No. 18/028,353 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application 18/028,353 render obvious the instant claims.
Instant claim 90 and claim 83 of 18/028,353 each recites a method comprising a) providing a biomass feedstock, b) ensuring the moisture content is 10% or less by weight, c) pyrolyzing at a temperature to form a mixture comprising biochar, hydrocarbon feedstock, water, and non-condensable gases, and d) separating the hydrocarbon feedstock from the mixture.
Dependent claims 91-98 in the instant application and 84, 86, 87, 89, 90, and 92-94 in Application 18/028,353 recite the biomass feedstock comprises cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin; the initial moisture content up to 50 wt%, the moisture content reduced to 7 wt% or less, the pressure of the pyrolysis; separating biochar, water, and/or non-condensable gases; filtering contaminants; and recycling the contaminants.
The difference is the temperature in instant claim 90 is in excess of 1000°C and the temperature in Application 18/028,353 is at least 950°C. However, the range of Application 18/028,353 overlaps the instant range, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 90-98 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 14, 22, and 25 of copending Application No. 18/270,587 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of Application 18/270,587 encompasses instant claim 90.
Instant claim 90 and claim 1 of 18/270,587 each recites a method comprising a) providing a biomass feedstock, b) ensuring the moisture content is 10% or less by weight, c) pyrolyzing at a temperature to form a mixture comprising biochar, hydrocarbon feedstock, water, and non-condensable gases, and d) separating the hydrocarbon feedstock from the mixture.
Dependent claims 91-98 in the instant application and 2, 6, 10, 14, 22, and 25 in Application 18/270,587 recite the biomass feedstock comprises cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin; the initial moisture content up to 50 wt%, the moisture content reduced to 7 wt% or less, the pressure of the pyrolysis; separating biochar, water, and/or non-condensable gases; filtering contaminants; and recycling the contaminants.
The differences are i) the temperature in instant claim 90 is in excess of 1000°C and the temperature in claim 1 of Application 18/270,587 is at least 950°C and ii) claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 14, 22, and 25 of Application 18/270,587 comprise additional limitations not required by the instant claims.
With regard to i), the range of Application 18/270,587 overlaps the instant range, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to ii), the claims of 18/270,587 recite the instantly claimed limitations, and thus encompass the instant claims, rendering the instant claims not patentably distinct.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 90-98 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,195,672. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the Patent render obvious the instant claims.
Instant claim 90 and claim 1 of the Patent each recites a method comprising a) providing a biomass feedstock, b) ensuring the moisture content is 10% or less by weight, c) pyrolyzing at a temperature to form a mixture comprising biochar, hydrocarbon feedstock, water, and non-condensable gases, and d) separating the hydrocarbon feedstock from the mixture.
Dependent claims 91-98 in the instant application and 2, 64-6, 8, 11, and 12 in the Patent recite the biomass feedstock comprises cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin; the initial moisture content up to 50 wt%, the moisture content reduced to 7 wt% or less, the pressure of the pyrolysis; separating biochar, water, and/or non-condensable gases; filtering contaminants; and recycling the contaminants.
The difference is the temperature in instant claim 90 is in excess of 1000°C and the temperature in claim 1 of the Patent is at least 950°C. However, the range of the Patent overlaps the instant range, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Claims 90-98 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 10-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,516,249. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the Patent encompasses instant claim 90.
Instant claim 90 and claim 1 of the Patent each recite a method comprising a) providing a biomass feedstock, b) ensuring the moisture content is 10% or less by weight, c) pyrolyzing at a temperature in excess of 1000°C to form a mixture comprising biochar, hydrocarbon feedstock, water, and non-condensable gases, and d) separating the hydrocarbon feedstock from the mixture.
Dependent claims 91-98 in the instant application and 2, 4-7, and 10-12 in Application 18/028,534 recite the biomass feedstock comprises cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin; the initial moisture content up to 50 wt%, the moisture content reduced to 7 wt% or less, the pressure of the pyrolysis; separating biochar, water, and/or non-condensable gases; filtering contaminants; and recycling the contaminants.
The difference is claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 10-12 of the Patent comprise additional limitations not required by the instant claims. However, the claims of the Patent the instantly claimed limitations and encompass the instant claims, rendering the instant claims not patentably distinct.
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 ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights