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 Objections
Claims 4-19 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims not been further treated on the merits.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farag et al. (“Impact of the heating mechanism on the yield and composition of bio-oil from pyrolysis of kraft lignin” Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 344-353).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1; Farag et al. teaches the microwave pyrolysis of softwood kraft lignin [2.1; para1]was carried out using a bench-scale microwave oven (microwave system generator) [2.2; para1]; wherein the kraft lignin was mixed with the solid product form the pyrolysis of lignin (char) as it contains 90% carbon and thus is an excellent microwave receptor [2.1, para5]. Farag et al. teaches the reactor was purged with nitrogen and heated (pyrolysis), followed by cooling in order to collect solid and liquid products (i.e. bio-oil; see Table 1) [2.2; Table1].
PNG
media_image2.png
384
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Experimental setup. (1) Microwave heating oven, (3) quenching system, (4) target material, (5) stopper, (6) heating cables, (7) a line to the quenching system, (8) thermometers, (9) inert gas line, (10) 4 magnetrons, (11) muffle, (12) rotating metal plates, (13) heat exchangers, (14) collected liquid, (15) non-condensable gases.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 111233941), wherein the machine English translation is used for citation.
Regarding claim 4; Want et al. teaches, in a preferred embodiment, a biooil comprising 90.3% monophenolic compounds [Ex2].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag et al. (“Impact of the heating mechanism on the yield and composition of bio-oil from pyrolysis of kraft lignin” Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 344-353”),as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wallace (“Microwave Pyrolysis Biochar Characterization and Modeling of Char Reinforced GFRP Biocomposites” Thesis, Univ. of Burnswick (2017)), where in the machine English translation is used for citation.
Farag et al. teaches the basic claimed method of pyrolysis of Kraft lignin, as set forth above, with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2; Farag et al. teaches the use of a biochar, however fails to explicitly teach a spruce biochar and/or hemp biochar. Wallace teaches biochar produced from both softwood and hemp [3.1.1] is used as a microwave absorbing catalyst [3.1.2]. Farag et al and Wallace are analogous art because they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely microwave pyrolysis experiments of biomass materials. At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a hemp biochar, as taught by Wallace, to the method of Farag et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired microwave absorption, thus increasing the heating rate (i.e. speed of pyrolysis), as suggested by Wallace [2.1.2].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag et al. (“Impact of the heating mechanism on the yield and composition of bio-oil from pyrolysis of kraft lignin” Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 344-353”),as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sun et al. (CN 105868445), where in the machine English translation is used for citation.
Farag et al. teaches the basic claimed method of pyrolysis of Kraft lignin, as set forth above, with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3; Farag et al. fails to teach wherein the microwave energy is generated at a power level in the range of 300 W to 600 W. Sun et al. teaches a method for simulating instantaneous temperature of a microwave pyrolysis biomass and biochar mixing sample [03]. Sun et al. establishing a heat distribution model of the mixed sample model during pyrolysis, considering heat exchange between the reactor model and the mixed sample model and an external environment; and, in the pyrolysis process, real-time monitoring. When the highest pyrolysis temperature reaches a predetermined temperature, the microwave power of the model is switched to a low power level, and when the highest pyrolysis temperature is lower than the set temperature, the microwave power of the microwave generating device model in the geometric model of the microwave pyrolysis system is switched to a high power level (300W power file for heating), when the highest pyrolysis temperature reaches 400 ° C, the power will be back to 0W; when the maximum pyrolysis temperature below 400 ° C, power file transferred back to repeat 300W, and so forth [054].
Farag et al. and Sun et al. are analogous art because they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely methods of microwave pyrolysis of biomass and biochar mixing samples. At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement the microwave power model of Sun et al., in the method of pyrolysis of Kraft lignin, as taught by Farag et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent the occurrence of hot spots and flying temperature phenomena, as suggested by Sun et al. [034].
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA ROSWELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5453. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 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, 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.
/JESSICA M ROSWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767