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 and 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-10, 12-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Farha et al (US 2015/0299086), with evidence from Correa et al, Pyrolysis vs. hydrothermal carbonization: Understanding the effect of biomass structural components and inorganic compounds on the char properties, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 140 (2019) 137–147, and USDA REEIS, University of California at Merced.
Farha teaches methods of producing biochar and activated carbon from biomass including applicant’s disclosed waste, corn stover [0034], as in claims 1 and 2, except for the surface area limitation.
Claims 1, 2, 19 and 20: Farha is silent on surface area below 1200 m2/g on the biochar and activated carbon, but teaches that the surface area or degree of activation would depend on the feed biomass in [0064]. The USDA report shows that surface area depends on the biochar and process conditions. For example, peach pits produce low surface area biochars whereas coconut shell produces high surface area activated carbon. This reference also teaches steam activation and that the surface area can be controlled by steam temperature as well. It teaches surface areas of biochar and activated carbons from coconut shell and other materials in the claimed ranges. Thus the source materials and the process conditions result in the final product and its surface area, and can be optimized on availability, and requirements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the surface area of the product would depend on the starting material and how it is treated. Also it would have been obvious to optimize these conditions to obtain the desired product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references to provide predictable results. See MPEP 2143 – I, the rationales for combining the references.
Claims 3-4: Pyrolysis – [0040], including temperature and duration with overlapping ranges. Activation with active agent like KOH, ratio overlaps the claimed range [0060 - 0061]. However, it would have been obvious to optimize the active agent concentration to conserve chemicals usage, and would also depend on the actual chemical used. (Less than one weight equivalent is considered as wt. of biochar to wt. of KOH = 1: <1) Temperature of activation 700-900C. Duration is 3-5 hours [0063]. It is noted that reaction temperature and duration can also be optimized. MPEP 2144.05-II A, depending on the desired product. Farha also teaches that the degree of activation is directly dependent on the biochar initial surface area.
Claims 9-10, 12 and 13: claims 9 and 12 recite intended us of activated carbon [0065], which are well-known in the art. Surface area is > 1000g/m2 in Farha, but it also teaches that the surface area or degree of activation would depend on the feed biomass in [0064]. Activation temperatures – see [0043]. It can also be optimized.
Activated product is washed and dried – meaning, KOH is removed as in claim 11. [0060]
Claims 5 and 14: HTC conditions: while Farha is silent on HTC, water is present in the biomass, which would make the process implicitly HTC. See [0039]. Also Correa compares pyrolysis and HTC. The selection of the process would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill based on the outcomes desired. See MPEP 2143-I Rationales for combining the references. Time and temperature for HTC: see section 2.4.2: HTC in Correa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references to provide predictable results. See MPEP 2143 – I, the rationales for combining the references.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Farha et al (US 2015/0299086), in view of Ozsin et al, A comparative study on co-pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass with polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene, and polyvinyl chloride: Synergistic effects and product characteristics, Journal of Cleaner Production 205 (2018) 1127-1138 and USDA REEIS, University of California at Merced
Claims 6-8 and 15-18: while Farha is silent on having plastics mixed with the biomass, looking at the possible origins of the biomass, plastic would be an inherent contaminant in the food waste – PET and Styrofoam packaging and containers. Therefore having plastics in the waste would have been inherent. Also, since polystyrene and PET are polymers of carbon and hydrogen, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to add these items with the biomass for pyrolysis to produce useful products.
Ozsin teaches the advantages of mixing the claimed polymer wastes (PET, polystyrene, etc.) with biomass – see abstract and introduction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have plastics in with biomass for the reasons taught by Ozsin. Ozsin also teaches that various residual chars with different surface morphologies can be obtained by adding different polymers.
The mixing ratio of PET/CS (corn stover) would depend on the availability of the two wastes, and does not appear to be in any way critical.
Biochar surface area would be inherent – produced by the same way. See [0058].
The USDA report shows that surface area depends on the biochar and process conditions. For example, peach pits produce low surface area biochars whereas coconut shell produces high surface area activated carbon. This reference also teaches steam activation and that the surface area can be controlled by steam temperature as well. It teaches surface areas of biochar and activated carbons from coconut shell and other materials in the claimed ranges. Thus the source materials and the process conditions result in the final product and its surface area, and can be optimized on availability, and requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references to provide predictable results. See MPEP 2143 – I, the rationales for combining the references.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over USDA REEIS, University of California at Merced.
This research paper teaches that biochar activated carbon has surface area 1000 m2/g or less. This includes coconut shell activated carbon. See page 3. Claims are directed to a product. See MPEP 2113 for product by process claims. In this case, irrespective of the starting materials, the product is only carbon, unless otherwise shown.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The unexpected result argument: the examiner fails to see the argued unexpected results. The cited paragraph in relevant part:
PNG
media_image1.png
151
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This cited paragraph does not say that PET produces lower surface area and PS produces higher surface area. Also, for any unexpected result, there must be a nexus between the unexpected result and the claim element.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777